The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on January 22, 2013, in the case of Americans for Safe Access vs. DEA to agree with lower courts that “adequate and well-controlled studies” do not exist to support the legitimacy of medical marijuana. The Court’s opinion begins with:

There is a serious debate in the United States over the efficacy of marijuana for medicinal uses. Although marijuana has been legalized in a number of states, it is classified as a “Schedule I” drug by the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), pursuant to its authority under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA” or “Act”). The DEA has maintained this listing because it has determined that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B). Because Schedule I is the most restricted drug classification under the CSA, the production, sale, and use of marijuana are largely banned by federal law. Petitioners in this case – Americans for Safe Access, the Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis, Patients Out of Time, and several individuals – challenge DEA’s denial of its petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana.

The CSA permits the DEA to reclassify drugs to less restrictive schedules according to various statutory criteria, and interested parties can petition the DEA for such action. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 811, 812. In October 2002, the Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis petitioned the DEA to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule III, IV, or V drug. See Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana (“Denial”), 76 Fed. Reg. 40,552, 40,552 (July 8, 2011). The DEA denied the petition on July 8, 2011, finding that “[t]here is no currently accepted medical use for marijuana in the United States,” and that “[t]he limited existing clinical evidence is not adequate to warrant rescheduling of marijuana under the CSA.” Id. at 40,552, 40,567. On July 22, 2011, Petitioners filed a timely petition for review of the DEA action.

Petitioners claim that “[n]umerous peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate that marijuana is effective in treating various medical conditions, but the DEA simply ignores them to conclude that marijuana should remain in Schedule I.” Pet’rs’ Br. at 20. Petitioners thus contend that the DEA’s denial of their petition was arbitrary and capricious and ask this court to remand the case to the agency for further consideration.

The Government, in turn, argues that we should dismiss the petition for review on jurisdictional grounds because Petitioners and Intervenor lack Article III standing. The Government also asserts that, even if the court determines that Petitioners or Intervenor have standing, the petition for review should be denied on the merits. According to the Government, in the record reviewed by the DEA, “there was no available evidence of adequate, well-controlled studies demonstrating marijuana’s safety and effectiveness as a medicine and no consensus among experts as to these issues. The enactment of state laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes did not constitute the required science-based evidence.” Br. for Resp’t at 23.

We deny the Government’s jurisdictional challenge because we find that at least one of the named Petitioners, Michael Krawitz, has standing to challenge the agency’s action. Krawitz, who is a disabled veteran, is entitled to medical care through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Krawitz has suffered injury-in-fact because he must shoulder a financial cost for services he could otherwise obtain free of charge from the VA. There is a causal connection between the DEA’s continuing decision to classify marijuana as a Schedule I drug and the VA’s policy of refusing to provide referrals for state medical marijuana programs. And a favorable decision from this court would likely redress Krawitz’s injury because, if the DEA rescheduled marijuana, the VA could no longer use the CSA to justify its policy of refusing to complete medical marijuana referral forms. Krawitz thus satisfies the requirements of Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992).

On the merits, the question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits. Rather, the limited question that we address is whether the DEA’s decision declining to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana under the CSA was arbitrary and capricious. These questions are not coterminous. “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). On the record before us, we hold that the DEA’s denial of the rescheduling petition survives review under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard. The petition asks the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III, IV, or V drug, which, under the terms of the CSA, requires a “currently accepted medical use.” The DEA’s regulations, which we approved in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994), define “currently accepted medical use” to require, inter alia, “adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.” Id. at 1135. We defer to the agency’s interpretation of these regulations and find that substantial evidence supports its determination that such studies do not exist.

Emphasis added.

The chief counsel for plaintiff Americans for Safe Access, Joe Elford, said:

 To deny that sufficient evidence is lacking on the medical efficacy of marijuana is to ignore a mountain of well-documented studies that conclude otherwise. The Court has unfortunately agreed with the Obama Administration’s unreasonably raised bar on what qualifies as an ‘adequate and well-controlled’ study, thereby continuing their game of ‘Gotcha.’

Denver Post:  “As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama emphatically stated that medical marijuana use was an issue best left to the states. One of the first promises he made as the newly elected president was that he was ‘not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.’ . . . So what is the lesson here? Smoke marijuana illegally, and you can become president. Try to provide a safe, consistent product that keeps the trade out of domestic and foreign drug cartels and brings in tax revenue, and face 15 years jail time.”

Arizona Republic:  “A majority of Arizonans support the state’s medical marijuana law and would support any future initiative to regulate marijuana in a similar way to alcohol, according to a poll commissioned by a marijuana advocacy group.  The poll, a copy of which was obtained by The Arizona Republic, was commissioned by the National Cannabis Industry Association, which represents businesses that make up the emerging medical marijuana industry.”

Mark B. Evans wrote in the Tucson Citizen.com:  “No one likes an I Told You So but every now and then it’s necessary to say, ‘I told you so.’ . . . In October 2010, I argued that voters should reject the proposition because the law as it was written was a sham, simply a backdoor way for dope smokers to legally get high. The law didn’t require a prescription from a board-certified physician, just a ‘recommendation’ and it allowed homeopaths and naturopaths to also make ‘recommendations,’ even though they are merely government-sanctioned quacks.”

Inside Business:  “what does implementation of the medical marijuana act mean for Arizona businesses? As a business owner, are your personnel policies up to date and in compliance?  Before the passage of the act, there was concern that employers would be forced to allow medical marijuana cardholders to come to work under the influence, or even use marijuana on company premises.  Fortunately, most of those fears were over-blown, but there are still steps to take to ensure your policies reflect the current state of Arizona law, while protecting your business interests and minimizing potential liability.”

The Herald:  ” A University of Arizona physician has taken the first political steps in her bid to do medical marijuana research at state-run schools. Sue Sisley, a specialist in internal medicine and psychiatry, has formed Americans for Scientific Freedom, which she will chair.”

Arizona Republic:  “Teens are obtaining pot from medical marijuana cardholders, according to a biennial study by the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.  Nearly one out of every nine high schoolers who said they used the drug within the past 30 days said they got it from a cardholder, the 2012 Youth Study shows.”