Aveneu Park, Starling, Australia

American’s for Safe Access vs Dea Essay


This paper examined The American’s for Safe Access’s request before a federal tribunal to hold the Drug Enforcement Administration cut down its current categorization of marihuana as a Schedule I drug. As this instance goes before the tribunal. there could be three possible results: a judgement in favour of the complainant. the suspect. or a determination for the DEA to review marijuana’s current categorization. Of these three results. I believed there would be sufficient grounds in my findings to back up a determination by the justnesss to review marijuana’s categorization. One cardinal constituent to this determination will be whether or non adequate grounds exists to back up marijuana’s medical usage. as a drug that is used for medical intervention is typically non classified as Agenda I. Evidence for statements from both sides was gathered from assorted beginnings. including medical publications. the University of Washington’s School of Medicine archives. and on-line articles. After reexamining this information. the decision that adequate grounds exists to review marijuana’s current categorization was reached.


We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

As more and more provinces request to and efficaciously pass statute law to legalise medical marihuana. its current categorization as a extremely banned substance by the Federal Drug Administration continues to function as a rough stance against the desires of the populace for the option of marihuana as a medical intervention. The escalation of this argument in the political and federal sphere appears to be catching the medical industries ability to find marijuana’s injuries and benefits. Possibly the bosom of this argument lies in marijuana’s current categorization by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule 1 drug. Of all of the drugs on the current DEA Schedule I. list marihuana is the lone 1 that has physicians back uping its medical utilizations. In visible radiation of this. does marijuana still merit the same categorization as diacetylmorphine and LSD? As more provinces are go throughing this statute law and more provinces desire it. is it now clip to review marijuana’s current categorization? Section 1: Case/Issue Summary

Last twelvemonth. the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected a request by medical marihuana advocators to cut down its categorization as a Schedule I drug. which kept marihuanas in the same class as drugs such as diacetylmorphine. The DEA concluded that there wasn’t a consensus sentiment among experts on utilizing marihuana for medical intents ( Press. 2012 ) . However. medical marihuana advocators have non given up in their chase to cut down the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration’s categorization of marihuana.

In my chosen instance. the complainant is Americans for Safe Access and the suspect is the Justice Department. Once once more. the cardinal issue at manus is the Drug Enforcement Administration’s continued categorization of marihuana as a Schedule I drug. In order to be classified as a Schedule I drug. the drug must be officially determined to hold no medical usage and a high potency for maltreatment ( McClathy. 2012 ) . Justice Department lawyers site an absence of available grounds of acceptable and controlled surveies. and a deficiency of understanding among experts as to marijuana’s effectivity as a medical specialty. as their footing for its current Agenda I classification. Those standing against the Justice Department claim that regulators are ignoring 100s of peer-reviewed surveies on the effectivity of medical marihuana and the subsequent medical marihuana Torahs passed by 16 other provinces.

The concerns for both the complainant and the suspect prevarication in the same cardinal issue – is at that place plenty acceptable medical grounds that marihuana does in fact have medicinal benefits? Studies and sentiments as to which side has the most support to endorse its claim are widely varied. but both sides claim they have sufficient grounds to back up their averments. Take. for illustration. to really different statements. one from the medical book “Marijuana as Medicine? : The Science Beyond the Controversy” ( Mack & A ; Joy. 2001 ) . and the other from the medical book “Marijuana and Medicine. Measuring the Science Base” ( Joy & A ; Stanley. 1999 ) : “The hemp works ( marihuana ) . . . [ has ] curative benefits and could ease the agony of 1000000s of individuals with assorted unwellnesss such as AIDS. malignant neoplastic disease. glaucoma. multiple induration. spinal cord hurts. ictus upsets. chronic hurting. and other maladies. ” – from the editor’s debut to Cannabis in Medical Practice. by Mary Lynn Mathre. R. N. ( Mack & A ; Joy. 2001 ) . “Consequently. the rapid growing in basic research on cannabinoids contrasts with the dearth of significant clinical surveies on medical utilizations. ” ( Joy & A ; Stanley. 1999 ) .

These two statements assist highlight merely how much incompatibility on exists on this issue. incompatibility that could be a concern for both the complainant and the suspect. Section 2: Designation and Evaluation of all Main Possible Solutions Though the challenge filed by the complainant is straight inquiring for one solution. there are several solutions that could be reached. The first solution would be that the Judgess would disregard the challenge without reappraisal. The consequence of this would be that the entreaties tribunal considers marijuana’s current categorization to be proper and this would stand for solid proof of the DEA’s authorization to find a drug’s position and categorization.

There would be grounds to endorse this determination. Harmonizing to the physicians that authored “Marijuana and Medicine” . more extended information exists on the harmful effects of marihuana than informations on its medical benefits ( Joy & A ; Stanley. 1999 ) . It is the sentiment of these physicians that clinical surveies on marijuana’s positive and negative effects are hard to carry on. due to both trouble in securing support and the burdens of the many federal ordinances involved with such testing ( Joy & A ; Stanley. 1999 ) . The tribunal could besides make this determination due to the bioethical rule of Nonmaleficence. Under the criterions of attention. this is the rule that a healthcare supplier should non convey injury to a patient ( McCormick. 1998 ) . Should the tribunal determine that non adequate grounds exists to back up marijuana’s medical benefits. it would hold to reason that ordering marihuana to a patient could take to their injury.

This determination by the tribunal would function as a strong hindrance to future challenges of the DEA’s categorizations of drugs. The effects would be a major reverse for advocators of widespread legalisation of prescription marihuana. Dismissing the challenge would. for the clip being. ballad to rest all claims made by American’s for Safe Access. Another solution would be for the territory tribunal to make up one’s mind a decrease in marijuana’s drug categorization to be justified. For the complainants. cut downing marijuana’s categorization from a Schedule I drug to a lesser controlled substance would be a major measure in their ultimate pursuit to see marijuana legalized for medical usage in the staying 34 provinces that don’t already let for such usage ( Press. 2012 ) . Should its categorization be reduced to a Schedule II drug. it would so be legal for marihuana to be prescribed to patients in demand. Along with the physical medical benefits. cut downing marijuana’s categorization would besides decrease the punishments faced by those found in ownership of it. Currently. ownership of a Schedule I drug can transport a maximal sentence of up to 7 old ages in prison.

Governing in favour of the complainant could bespeak that the Judgess felt the rule of beneficence – that a healthcare professional must move to supply medical benefit to a patient – is involved ( McCormick. 1998 ) . In this instance. the benefit to the patient would be alleviation from hurting and protection from injury. A recent request by Governor and former senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. and Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington filed made the averment that “patients with serious medical conditions who could profit from medical usage of hemps do non hold a safe and consistent beginning of the drug as a consequence of its current classification” ( Madison. 2011 ) . This opinion could besides be a consequence of the justnesss make up one’s minding that plenty trusted medical grounds does in fact exists to back up the usage of marihuana for medical intents.

Harmonizing to the book “Marijuana Medical Handbook: Practical Guide to Therapeutic Uses of Marijuana” . some medical marihuana specializers have reported a significantly big sum of utilizations for medical marihuana. runing from intervention for sickness and paroxysms to an appetency stimulation for malignant neoplastic disease patients ( Gieringer. Rosenthal & A ; Carter. 2010 ) For the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration. seeing marijuana’s categorization reduced would be a major reverse in its attempts to eliminate a drug that Justice Department attorney Lena Watkins says is “the most widely abused drug in the United States. ” ( Press. 2012 ) . A determination against them by the federal tribunal would basically wipe out all of their attempts. along with damaging their ability to do similar findings in the hereafter.

A 3rd solution could be that the tribunal could order the Drug Enforcement Administration to take a more in-depth expression at the available grounds ( McClathy. 2012 ) . This would be a blow to the DEA. who claims they have spent a significant sum of clip and energy in put to deathing due diligence to find marijuana’s Schedule I categorization.

It would counter their stance that non plenty acceptable grounds and proper surveies can be found to back up marijuana’s medical benefits. In bend. a determination by the tribunal for the DEA to review its grounds could finally take to another challenge for its legalisation. Consequently. this same determination would be really positive for American’s for Safe Access. They claim that the DEA has failed to see noteworthy support for medical marihuana from many respected establishments. all of whom support the reclassification of marihuana ( McClathy. 2012 ) .

A petition by the Court of Appeals for the DEA to review its findings could be due to the rule of regard for liberty. This rule protects the patient’s right to do their ain informed determinations with respects to intervention ( McCormick. 1998 ) . Not holding entree to the best grounds as to marijuana’s medical benefits could move against this rule. The rule of justness could besides play a portion in this opinion. A patient in Missouri enduring the same sum of hurting as a patient in California. but non holding the chance to profit from the same medicative promotions as a patient in California. might be a constitute a breach of the rule of judgement in the eyes of the tribunal.

Section 3: Decision Statement and Defense Against Weaknesses

After analyzing the facts of the instance and all possible solutions. the solution to let for the decrease of marijuana’s categorization to a Schedule II drug seems the most prudent. This decision was reached for several grounds. Despite the DEA’s claims. there appears to be adequate acceptable grounds on the ASA’s side to back up its averment that marihuana has applicable medical benefits. Cocaine is surely proven to be a harmful substance when taken irresponsibly. yet its distant medical benefits have landed it on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Schedule II. For marihuana to stay on the Schedule I list while cocaine is on Schedule II barely seems merely sing there is even one province that has passed legal medical marihuana statute law. That there is even a little sum of significant grounds from believable establishments back uping marijuana’s medical benefits makes the punishments involved with its ownership seem severe.

The recent request sighted earlier by the two governors offers that they have support from many respected establishments. including The American Medical Association. The American College of Physicians. the Rhode Island Medical Society. the Washington State Medical Association the Washington State Pharmacy ( Madison. 2011 ) . All of these establishments are respected. doing a determination to disregard the challenge without even a redirect examination seem imprudent. One besides can’t aid but inquire if the DEA’s current stance comes from a fright of its possible legalisation for recreational usage. This solution would besides turn to another of import issue in footings of marihuana usage. and that would be to supply “safe. dependable. regulated usage of marihuana for patients who are enduring. ” . as the governors have suggested ( Press. 2012 ) . In decision. surely it seems that the current Schedule 1 categorization of marihuana obstructs the medical rules of liberty. beneficence. and justness.

Gieringer. D. . Rosenthal. E. . & A ; Carter. G. T. ( 2010 ) . Marijuana medical enchiridion. practical usher to curative utilizations of marihuana. Oakland: Quick American Archives. Joy. J. E. . & A ; Stanley. J. W. ( 1999 ) . Marijuana and medical specialty. measuring the scientific discipline base. National Academies Press. ( Joy & A ; Stanley. 1999 ) Mack. A. . & A ; Joy. J. E. ( 2001 ) . Marijuana as medical specialty? . the scientific discipline beyond the contention. Washington. D. C. : National Academies Press. ( Mack & A ; Joy. 2001 ) Madison. L. ( 2011. November 30 ) . Govs. chafee. gregoire anteroom for reclassification of marihuana. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. cbsnews. com/8301-503544_162-57334326-503544/govs-chafee-gregoire-lobby-for-reclassification-of-marijuana/ ? tag=contentMain ; contentBody McClathy. N. ( 2012. October 12 ) . Medical marihuana instance traveling before tribunal. Maine Sunday Telegram. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. pressherald. com/news/medical-marijuana-case-going-before-court_2012-10-13. hypertext markup language McCormick. T. R. ( 1998 ) . Principles of bioethics. Ethical motives in edicine: University of Washinton School of Medicine. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //depts. Washington. edu/bioethx/tools/princpl. html Press. A. ( 2012. October 16 ) . Federal tribunal considers marijuana categorization. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. cbsnews. com/8301-201_162-57533647/federal-court-considers-marijuana-classification/


I'm Simon!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out