10 Responses to “DC Circuit Orders Supplemental Briefing in Federal Landmark Medical Marijuana Case”

And VERY nice comments they are!  Check them out!

  1. Delightful Dabber Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 1:33 pmGreat job guys. I feel this would be a great time to bring up the federal government’s own medical pot program in Mississippi. The law and this federal program contradict. I feel the brief should have at least one sentence devoted to this matter.
  2. Mel mower Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 1:37 pmSCIENCE OVER POLITICS! BAM
  3. jeanna prell Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 1:42 pmThis seems ominous to me. It seems they are demanding proof that, in their minds cannot be proved, ie a Vet who claims discrimination, but can’t be verified because of the rules. Look out for Catch 22, the Government(Corporate Lawyers) are excellent at this type of deception.
  4. Joe Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 2:59 pmAfter the votes that come in on the 7th showing overwhelming support for anything to do with medical marijuana or even full llegalization in most states maybe they will start to understand.
  5. Charles Strout Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 4:08 pmThe DEA argues that medical marijuana is a drug of abuse. But the same is true for tobacco, alcohol, legal pharmaceutical shelved, and non-shelved drugs listed as Schedule 2 so they can be utilized in treatment by physicians as required. The DEA’s concern to override the legitimate need of millions of suffering patients for relief of their medical symptoms that marijuana can provide, described throughly in their own US Fed Gov’t Patent #6630507 is completelly specious, and without any validation of evidence. Millions of suffering medical patients are legally effectively benefiting therapeutically utilizing medical marijuana as their medicine. It appears the arguments of the DEA would rather prescribe a jail cell, and refer to those suffering patients as criminals, and prisoners instead, benefiting absoutely nobody, except the profiteers of the power structure, and the Big-Pharmaceutical Companies.
  6. claygooding Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 4:23 pmWouldn’t the 3000 year old Chinese medical scrolls give historical proof of medical applications and couldn’t the plaintiff use Judge Young’s ruling as a useful tool for proof of the DEA’s arbitrary refusal to re-schedule marijuana since 1988?
  7. ron Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 4:25 pmHow about the US Government patent on Cannabinoids? I would think this can be use in this case.

    Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants.

  8. Correct Me If I’m Wrong Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 5:43 pmI’m re-posting this from an earlier story…glad to hear that this may actually be getting fair consideration. I just want to make sure I understand exactly what this means…I can be rather dense sometimes ;) This case is an “appeal” to have the courts force the DEA to take another look at their classifying MMJ in Schedule I, right? Does this mean that the DEA can simply find another way (i.e. word differently) yet another rejection? What exactly can these 3 judges do, in terms of actual, measurable change? It concerned me a bit when one of the judges asked whether or not THEY needed to listen to the “agency”…citing the fact that they were scientists and the judges were not. Help me out here. Where can a favorable ruling actually go??
  9. Rick Steeb Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 6:42 pmIn order to have “standing” we must describe the nature of our injury– How about starting with the constant low-grade terror that comes with the knowledge that the feds can legally come and take us away? How about the atrocities perpetrated against our providers? The black market prices of our medicine? The denial of “Equal Protection” with Elvy and Irvin?

    I have to commit a “federal crime” to maintain my intraoccular pressures at safe levels, even with my use of two prescription eye drops. That adds insult to injury. That is utterly unacceptable.

  10. claygooding Says:
    October 17th, 2012 at 8:28 pmRick,please add the terror of being locked up in a jail,where medical treatment is non-existent for inmates.

    Example:

    Wash. inmate with dairy allergy dies after eating oatmeal

    http://www.katu.com/news/local/174446621.html

  1. No trackbacks yet.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
%d bloggers like this: