Advocates hoping to change marijuana’s highly restrictive federal status had pegged their hopes on a New York lawsuit challenging its designation as a drug with “no accepted medical use.” Those hopes were at least temporarily dashed by a ruling in the Southern District Court of New York Monday.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein threw out the case that argued marijuana’s designation as a Schedule I drug was unconstitutional. He heard oral arguments on whether to dismiss the case, Washington et al. v. Sessions et al., earlier this month.
Despite the fact that the Drug Enforcement Administration has denied petitions to change marijuana’s federal status as recently as 2016, the judge said the plaintiffs should have exhausted that administrative process before turning to the courts.
Michael Hiller, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said he plans to appeal the ruling.
“Resigning the plaintiffs to the petitioning administrative process is tantamount to a death sentence for those patients who need cannabis to live,” Hiller said in a statement. “The time has come for the courts to abandon decades-old precedent, notched with obsolete legal technicalities, and catch up with modern science and contemporary principles of constitutional law.”
Hiller’s clients include patients who use medical marijuana to treat conditions such as epilepsy and post-traumatic stress disorder and live in states where medical marijuana is legal. Still, Hiller argued in court that their travel is restricted and their access to the medication is put at risk by cannabis’ federal status.
Marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug has sharply curtailed research on its medical applications. In what amounts to a catch-22, the limited research data has made it difficult to amass the body of evidence that the DEA says it needs to change the drug’s status—although advocates say there is already sufficient evidence to do so.
Medical-marijuana companies and academic researchers in New York have cited limitations on cannabis research as one of the biggest barriers to advancing the industry and growing the patient base for the drug.
Despite his unwillingness to let the case proceed to trial, Hellerstein made it clear in court earlier this month that he does not think there is any remaining ambiguity as to whether cannabis has accepted medical applications.
He called the plaintiffs in the case “living proof,” backed up by the actions of 30 states and the District of Columbia, which have legalized medical marijuana.
credit:420intel.com
