- Published on 02 November 2013
- Written by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation
“Marijuana is indeed a gateway drug,” quips Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies. “It’s a gateway drug to the Oval Office!” Indeed. From Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale it” through George W. Bush’s “I was young and foolish” to Barack Obama’s teen years in the Choom Gang (“I inhaled frequently—that was the point”), the last three presidents have more or less owned up to breaking America’s drug laws.
All of them were elected. Then re-elected.
This raises obvious questions: If Clinton, Bush and Obama, ex–pot smokers all, were deemed responsible enough to lead the world’s most powerful nation, largest economy and strongest military (with thousands of nukes), why are we still arresting young men and women—especially young African-Americans and Latinos—for doing what these men did? Why do countless people languish behind bars for nonviolent drug crimes? And why is pot still classified as a dangerous drug?
See full article in the Nation at Newstand or follow this link
- Published on 11 September 2013
- Written by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director
Washington, DC: United States Deputy Attorney General James Cole reaffirmed that the Justice Department is unlikely to challenge statewide marijuana legalization efforts, provided that these efforts impose "robust regulations" which discourage sales to minors and seek to prevent the diversion of cannabis to states that have not yet legalized its use.
"We will not ... seek to preempt state ballot initiatives," Cole told members of the US Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, adding that state "decriminalization [laws] can co-exist with federal [drug] laws."
In an August 29 Department of Justice memorandum, Deputy Attorney General Cole had previously directed the US Attorneys in all 50 states not to interfere with the implementation of state marijuana regulations, unless such activities specifically undermined eight explicit federal law enforcement priorities.
In response to a question from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Cole also stated that federal prosecutors should utilize similar discretion and not interfere with the activities of state-compliant cannabis dispensaries, as long as their actions "are not violating any of the eight federal enforcement priorities" outlined in the agency's August 29th memo. Rhode Island is one of six states, as well as Washington, DC, that presently licenses the production and distribution of medical cannabis. Six additional states are expected to enact similar licensing regulations in the coming months.
Several Senators and witnesses questioned whether the Justice Department would consider amending federal financial regulations that presently inhibit state-compliant cannabis businesses from taking standardized tax deductions and partnering with conventional financial institutions. Deputy Attorney General Cole responded that such proposed changes in law were arguably the responsibility of Congressional lawmakers, not the Justice Department.
Commenting on the hearing, NORML Communications Director Erik Altieri said, "For the first time in modern history, members of the US Congress and the Justice Department were not discussing furthering cannabis prohibition, but instead were testifying to the merits of cannabis legalization and regulation."
The hearings marked the first time that members of Congress have explicitly weighed in on the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws since voters in Colorado and Washington elected to legalize the retail production and sale of the plant this past November. The hearing was called for by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who acknowledged that the federal government "must have a smarter approach to marijuana policy." Witnesses at Tuesday's hearing also included King County, Washington Sheriff John Urquhart – a vocal supporter of the state's new legalization law – and Jack Finlaw, Chief Legal Council for the Colorado Governor's Office.
- Published on 06 September 2013
- Written by Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director
Washington, DC: Friday, September 6, 2013 marks the 25-year anniversary of an administrative ruling which determined that cannabis possesses accepted medical utility and ought to be reclassified accordingly under federal law.
The ruling, issued in 1988 by US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling," determined: "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care."
Young continued: "It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."
Judge Young concluded: "The administrative law judge recommends that the Administrator conclude that the marijuana plant considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, that there is no lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II [of the federal Controlled Substances Act]."
Judge Young's ruling was in response to an administrative petition filed in 1972 by NORML which sought to reschedule cannabis under federal law. Federal authorities initially refused to accept the petition until mandated to do so by the US Court of Appeals in 1974, and then refused to properly process it until again ordered by the Court in 1982. In 1986, 14-years after NORML filed its initial petition, the DEA finally held public hearings on the issue before Judge Young, who rendered his decision two years later.
However, then-DEA Administrator John Lawn ultimately rejected Young's determination, and in 1994, the Court of Appeals allowed Lawn's reversal to stand – maintaining marijuana's present classification as a Schedule I prohibited substance with "no accepted medical use," and a "lack of accepted safety ... under medical supervision."
In July 2011, the DEA rejected a separate marijuana rescheduling petition, initially filed in 2002. This past January, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the DEA's decision, ruling that insufficient clinical studies exist to warrant a judicial review of cannabis' federally prohibited status.