Federal Judge Upholds Marijuana's Schedule I Status

[antiquie]

Sacramento, CA: A federal judge has rejected a motion challenging the constitutionality of cannabis' classification as a Schedule I prohibited substance without any accepted medical utility.

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Federal District Court in Sacramento, California issued her oral ruling during a 15-minute court hearing on Tuesday. Judge Mueller heard closing arguments in the case in early February, but she had postponed ruling on the matter until this week. Her written opinion was not available at the time of her ruling,

"At some point in time, a court may decide this status to be unconstitutional," Judge Mueller said from the bench. "But this is not the court and not the time."

Defense counsel intends to appeal the ruling.

In October, experts for the defense presented evidence over a five-day period arguing that the scientific literature is not supportive of the plant's present categorization. Lawyers for the federal government countered that it is rational for the government to maintain the plant's prohibitive status as long as there remains any dispute among experts in regard to its safety and efficacy. Defense counsel - attorneys Zenia Gilg and Heather Burke of the NORML Legal Committee - further contended that the federal law prohibiting Justice Department officials from interfering with the facilitation of the regulated distribution of cannabis in over 20 US states can not be reconciled with the government's continued insistence that the plant is deserving of its Schedule I status under federal law.

Paul Armentano, NORML's Deputy Director who served as the principle investigator for defense counsel in this case said: "While we are disappointed with this ruling, it changes little. We always felt this had to ultimately be decided by the Ninth Circuit and we have an unprecedented record for the court to consider. In the interim, it is our hope that lawmakers move expeditiously to change public policy. Presently, bipartisan legislation is before the House and Senate to recognize cannabis' therapeutic utility and to reschedule it accordingly and we encourage members of Congress to move forward expeditiously to enact this measure."

In a brief filed with the court by the federal government, it contended: "Congress' decision to treat marijuana as a controlled substance was and remains well within the broad range of permissible legislative choices. Defendants appear to argue that Congress was wrong or incorrectly weighed the evidence. Although they failed to prove even that much, it would be insufficient. Rational basis review does not permit the Court's to 'second guess' Congress' conclusions, but only to enjoin decisions that are totally irrational or without an 'imaginable' basis."

They added: "Congress is not required to be 'right,' nor does it matter if the basis on which Congress made its decision turns out to be 'wrong.' All that is required is that Congress could rationally have believed that its action -- banning the production and distribution of marijuana -- would advance its indisputably legitimate interests in promoting public health and welfare. Because qualified experts disagree, it is not for the Courts to decide the issue and the statute must be upheld."

Said Armentano, "The continued Schedule I classification of cannabis is self-evidently ridiculous. But unfortunately, the courts have a history of ruling that laws may be ridiculous and still pass constitutional muster."

He added, "The judge in this case missed a golden opportunity to demand that federal law comport with available science, public opinion, and common sense."

Legal briefs in the case,United States v. Schweder, et. al., No. 2:11-CR-0449-KJM, are available online at: http://edca.typepad.com/eastern_district_of_calif/medical-marijuana/.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: [email protected].

From: [email protected]
NORML - The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
1100 H Street, NW
Suite 830
Washington, DC 20005
[phone]

via email

I'm wondering if Judge Mueller is out of her mind, or helping us to kick it to a higher court.

[Politicalboi]

1. So much for health and the public

But we allow fracking, wasting water for fracking, contaminating water for fracking, oil spills, and train explosions and guns for everyone but to reschedule Marijuana is a health risk to these assholes.

[antiquie]

2. Possible health risk to their wallets with legalization.

[Gregorian]

3. In the SF area alone there are hundreds of dispensaries and delivery services. It's not going away.

If these kinds of judges think they're going to put this back in the bottle, they have another thing coming.

[fredamae]

4. Congress can fix this

Are they all chicken?

Cannabis use for either person or medical is not a "partisan issue".
Dems use it. GOP use it, Libertarians, TParty, Indies and everyone in between use and benefit from it.
Sick, old, young, minority, religious, men, women, healthy.....there are no barriers on this issue.

I do know for a Fact that 54% of the county is telling congress to STOP enforcing laws that the people, by majority, no longer Want enforced!

Push congress to De-schedule Cannabis, the Whole plant.
Congress already, years ago, removed THC from the Whole Plant, lowered the CSA to a Schedule III so BigPharma could synthesize and produce 100% THC products for $ales. THC is the ONE compound that gets you "high" and therefore THC is "apparently" the Only reason it Is listed as Fed Sched I.
Go figure, huh?
Always follow the money.

[antiquie]

5. The claim is legalization is a treaty violation.

U.N. Says U.S. Marijuana Legalization Violates International Law

Does Marijuana Legalization Violate Int'l Law? U.N. drug warriors falsely claim that treaties compel U.S. states to ban pot.

[fredamae]

6. And the states keep saying

"OMG! We can't go there Cannabis is still Federally Illegal..."

If the US were to Legalize....would this be the Very first time "we" violated a treaty? Are "they" interpreting the intent of the treaty legally?
It's a big "circle jerk"....and "they" simply cite why "they" believe they Can't without ever exploring how "they" Can.

[antiquie]

8. I have a couple of First American friends

who would gladly comment on US treaty breaking.

[fredamae]

9. Yep! There you go..right at Home! n/t

[In_The_Wind]

7. Either way, it's time for a change.