Arizona Republic: “White-collar crime has been eradicated in Arizona. There are zero violations of civil rights. Not a single consumer in the entire state is being ripped off. There is no public corruption. No environmental laws are being broken. . . . Otherwise, Attorney General Tom Horne (and Gov. Jan Brewer) couldn’t spend so much time and energy trying to delay, disrupt and demolish Arizona’s medical-marijuana law.”
AZ Journal: “Attorney General Tom Horne is taking aim at cannabis clubs with his civil filing this week asking the courts to shut down four clubs and one individual claiming to be operating under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). In July, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) asked Horne to review the legality of cannabis clubs, which provide venues for medical marijuana patients to share private supplies of marijuana.”
Phoenix New Times: “Give me the short version, a federal judge told Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne today in a ruling on the state’s lawsuit against medical marijuana. Yesterday, Horne had asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton if he could exceed the 17-page limit for his arguments on why the lawsuit shouldn’t be dismissed. He even included the proposed response in a separate, 23-page filing. (See below) . . . . Skimming through Horne’s proposed response, though, we noticed a couple of things that should actually be added. For instance, in giving the run-down on how Arizona officials ended up suing their own state instead of defending a voter-approve state law, there’s no mention of the January meeting between Horne and the law’s most vocal opponent, Carolyn Short of Keep AZ Drug Free. We also think Horne’s proposed motion should have mentioned that Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reminded the public, through a reporter, that his May 2 letter to the state about the new law didn’t threaten state workers with prosecution.”
Here is Arizona’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
The Daily Courier: “Sometimes voters can really screw things up for ideological politicians. But elected officials get the last laugh. They can – and do – derail the voters by throwing passed legislation into gridlock.”
The text of Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s August 8, 2011, press release states:
“PHOENIX (Monday, August 8, 2011) — Attorney General Tom Horne today filed a civil action against four Phoenix-area cannabis clubs and one individual that falsely claim to be operating lawfully under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA). The action is for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief and is filed on behalf of the State and the Arizona Department of Health Services.
“The law permits one card holder to give marijuana to another card holder. But is does not permit the activities of these Defendants, who charge fees to members. These private entities and individuals are in no way permitted to legally transfer marijuana to anybody,” Horne said. “The operators of these clubs claim that they are protected under the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act when they are not registered as non-profit medical marijuana dispensaries as required under that law. These people are marketing themselves as being able to lawfully transfer marijuana, and that type of deception and blatantly illegal activity must be stopped.”
The filing in Maricopa County Superior Court claims that The 2811 Club, The Arizona Compassion Association, Yoki A Ma’ Club, the Arizona Compassion Club and Michael R. Miller are all private cannabis clubs or owners/operators of clubs that have claimed they are able to lawfully participate in the possession, production, transportation, sale, or transfer of marijuana in accordance with A.R. S. § 36-2801 et. seq., the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. However the Act does not offer legal protection to cannabis clubs, cooperatives or any other person, association or entities that are not registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries. Nor does the act decriminalize the possession, production, transportation, sale, or transfer of marijuana by or through those entities.
This action asks the court to issue a declaratory judgment that each of the Defendants is violating the AMMA and prohibit them from engaging in activities that involve selling, producing, transporting, transferring or possession of marijuana.”
Arizona vs. The 2811 Club Complaint
The Attorney General’s complaint in the matter of State of Arizona vs. The 2811 Club, The Arizona Compassion Association, Yoki A Ma’ Club, the Arizona Compassion Club and Michael R. Miller follows:
Pot Complaint 1
Arizona vs. The 2811 Cannabis Club Motion to Show Cause & Application for Injunction
On August 9, 2011, Alan Sobol sent the following message to the public.
The 2811 Club Welcomes the Court Challenge
Phoenix August 8, 2011. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horn issued a news release yesterday announcing that he filed a complaint for Declaratory Judgement asking the Courts to rule on the legitimacy of Cannabis clubs. What Mr. Horn did not say was that Mr. Sobol, the marketing agent who developed the Cannabis Club business model in question, filed for a Declaratory Judgment weeks ago, also asking the Court to render a decision on whether or not the 2811 Club business model was legal under Arizona State law . Sobol’s Action is still awaiting a response from the Attorney General’s office. The 2811 Club welcomes this Court intervention.
The 2811 Club, LLC opened it’s doors for business on July 4th 2011. This Club was Arizona’s first Cannabis Club. The 2811 Club is an Educational and Resource facility with a campus intended as a venue for qualified patients to learn, share knowledge, exchange medication and network together. “This is a membership only club, you must be a qualified patient and possess a Arizona medical marijuana card issued by the AZDHS to enter” says Sobol.
Once inside, the club provides a safe, clean, well managed facility which includes an array of services designed to meet the needs of Patients including, extensive educational classes, a comprehensive marijuana Library, and on-line research services, pain management services and demonstrations, daily entertainment, specialized discounts on various marijuana related products and services, marijuana testing services, strain consulting, and perhaps most importantly the unique ability to safely network with other qualified patients.
Patient to patient transfers are permitted under the law so long as nothing of value is exchanged. In fact the Club is named after the provision of the law that specifically allows such exchanges: A.R.S 36-2811. Both Horn and Sobol agree, that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act does permit qualified patients the right to freely exchange their medication. However, the law does not specify where such exchanges must take place. For example, the law does not require such exchanges to take place in a Dispensary. The 2811 club does not sell or distribute marijuana whatsoever. The club simply provides a safe venue for qualified patients to freely exchange marijuana among themselves, so long as it is done in full compliance with the law. Any membership fees charges are for use of the facility and its extensive services, and not for the sale of marijuana as alleged by Horn.
Additionally, In the good faith and spirit of the law the Club provides free space to a Compassion Association comprised of qualified patients and caregivers who also distribute free samples ( approx 4 grams) of their own individually grown, very high quality, medical grade marijuana. This medication is independently tested ,professionally labeled and packaged. Other then the space it donates, The 2811 Club has no affiliation with this private not-for-profit compassion club. Qualified, credible and highly skilled caregivers who are associated with the Compassion group, make themselves available to qualified patients who wish to register them through the AZDHS program. There is simply no safer way for qualified patients to obtain the medication they voted for.
Moreover, any qualified patient is welcome to visit the club and exchange their medication with other club members. Qualified patients do not have to utilize the 2811 Club to exchange their marijuana, however, they choose to visit this facility because they know that all members of the Club are qualified patients, the facility offers extensive security, provides numerous other services including extensive education and marijuana testing, and it’s simply a great place to meet other qualified patients. In the absence of such a facility, qualified patients would be forced into the streets, or risky Craigslist advertising to attract other patients. Sobol says the club fill a niche, it is the merely the vessel that brings qualified patients together and is absolutely legal. Some patients join the club just to take advantage of the extensive educational services provided by the Arizona Cannabis University, which is included in the membership fees. The club maintains strict membership rules to assure full compliance with the law. The 2811 Club is presently the only safe, dignified and legal way for qualified patients to comply with the law.
We believe Mr. Horn’s Compliant is in Violation of the Arizona Voter Protection Act, is an abuse of his authority, and moreover is further evidence of the bad faith efforts on the part of Arizona government officials to thwart the will of the Arizona Voters. In an apparent attempt to justify a repeal of the Medical marijuana Act in 2013 some of our elected officials are apparently trying to create mayhem in this industry. The Governors actions are merely a self filling prophecy. Mr. Horn’s Civil Action alleges that there is no provision in the law that allows for this type of Cannabis Club. The fact is, there is no provision in the law that specifically precludes it either. The fact is qualified patients can legally meet in practically any venue to exchange their medication. For example, If two qualified patients were to meet at a Movie theater to exchange their medication, would Mr. Horn move to close down all theaters? We believe that government officials have a obligation to uphold the laws of this state. They should be exerting their energies on how to safely implement the Arizona Medical Marijuana law rather than conspiring to to stop it. Properly managed facilities like the 2811 Club can provide qualified patients statewide with an organized, professional and fully compliant network of patient and caregiver exchanges sufficient to meet the needs of this program.
It is outrageous for Mr. Horn to suggest that the 2811 club is some how deceptive. We have been totally transparent in the development and operation of our Club. The 2811 Club has repeatedly invited all law enforcement, including Mr. Horn, to visit our facility. In fact, on August 1, 2011 we sent the Attorney General a request for a meeting to discuss the legal issues concerning Cannabis Clubs. The e-mail stated in part;
“It has always been my intent to operate in full compliance with the law, therefore, if there is some specific legal statute, or compelling and meritorious argument that would preclude such business operations in Arizona then, in that case, I would most definitely withdraw my proprietary licenses and cease all marketing efforts. Absent such specific limitations or regulations, I believe it would be in our mutual interest to meet and review Cannabis Club operations. I look forward to hearing from you.”
There was no response from Mr. Horn!
We adamantly believe that our 2811 club business model is in full compliance with State Laws and we welcome the opportunity to expedite this matter in the Courts.
We again extend an invitation to all law enforcement and government officials to come visit our facility. We have nothing to hide. We take great pride in the fully compliant facility we have developed, and the services it provides to our members.
We thank our members for their continued support, and encourage all those who suffer with the qualifying conditions to apply for a Medical Marijuana Card. We have a Doctor on site who will review your records and, if qualified, write you the required recommendation. In a further effort to demonstrate our true desire to help we are again lowering our price for Doctor Evaluations to $65.00. (The Lowest evaluation price in the State).
Please feel free to contact us directly with any questions, 602-993-5600 or visit our website for more information: the2811club.com.
Thank you
Allan Sobol, Marketing Director
The 2811 Club, LLC
Attorney General Tom Horne agrees with me. Read my article called “Are Arizona Cannabis Clubs Legal Under Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Laws?” The following is the text of an August 8, 2011, blog post by Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble.
“A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post expressing serious concerns about the legality of so-called cannabis clubs that have been popping up recently. It appeared to me that the clubs are distributing marijuana to customers in a way that’s inconsistent with the provisions of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act- and the persons involved could be conducting illegal marijuana transactions… which is why we asked the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for review and analysis.
“The Arizona Attorney General has completed their analysis of “cannabis clubs” and have concluded that the clubs and the folks working in them aren’t allowed to legally transfer marijuana. The Attorney General filed a civil action in Maricopa County Superior Court today against four Valley cannabis clubs. Today’s action asks for a “declaratory judgment and injunctive relief” meaning that we’re asking the court to stop the cannabis clubs from operating and claiming that they’re able to operate under the protection of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.
Phoenix New Times: “Tom Horne, State Attorney General, Asks Court to Shut Down Cannabis Clubs; Says He’s Taking “Softer Approach” by Not Ordering Arrests” – Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne asked a court today to shut down cannabis clubs, claiming they’re ‘blatantly illegal’ under Arizona’s medical marijuana law. The motion, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, names four clubs and an individual: ‘The 2811 Club, The Arizona Compassion Association, Yoki A Ma’ Club, the Arizona Compassion Club and Michael R. Miller.’ Horne wants a judge’s ruling that the clubs aren’t legal and an injunction to stop them from the ‘selling, producing, transporting, transferring or possession of marijuana’. . . . We asked Horne if he was just passing the buck on this decision. If he’s so sure the clubs are acting illegally, why not just have the clubs raided and their staffs arrested?
‘I’m taking a softer approach,’ Horne tells us.”
Phoenix New Times: “Al Sobol, Pot Club Manager, “Happy” to Have Court Decide on Clubs’ Legality” – “Al Sobol, a prominent medical marijuana marketer, says he’s “happy” that state Attorney General Tom Horne seeks to have a court review the legality of cannabis clubs. Sobol is the manager of the 2811 Club, LLC, one of the businesses named in the legal actions filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court today by state Attorney General Tom Horne.”
East Valley Tribune: “Horne asks judge to shut down Arizona’s ‘marijuana clubs’” – “Calling them illegal drug dealers, Attorney General Tom Horne asked a judge on Monday to shut down the ‘marijuana clubs” that are opening up around the state. In legal papers filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, Horne said the medical marijuana law that voters approved last November has no provision for the kind of clubs where members, after paying a fee, can get access to free drugs. More to the point, he said the exceptions in the law that club owners say permit what they do does not exist.”
KSAZ 10: “More confusion over Arizona’s medical marijuana law — lawyers say patients who are legally allowed to use medical marijuana are being wrongfully arrested. ‘Incidents between clashes with law enforcement and these patients are on the rise and patients need to be aware that they should aggressively assert their rights to legally use and obtain marijuana if they are a registered card holder’.”
Medical Marijuana Cardholders Wrongfully Arrested: MyFoxPHOENIX.com
Examiner.com: “Despite Colorado’s precedent, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer wants to know if state employees may be exposed to prosecution for drug offenses by working to license medical marijuana. Until she finds out, Arizona’s medical marijuana program is on hold. Meanwhile untaxed, unregulated collectives are being formed. This has evoked a response from US Attorney Scott Risner who filed a motion asking the federal judge to dismiss the case saying,
“Their complaint presents no actual controversy, instead asking this Court for an advisory opinion as to a hypothetical dispute in which Plaintiffs [State of Arizona] themselves pick no side but rather resort to a purported disagreement among various fictional Defendants [State Employees].”
Marijuana Policy Project: “A funny thing happened on Monday. The Department of Justice filed a brief regarding state medical marijuana laws in Arizona . . . and it was a good thing, and was met with appreciation from the medical marijuana movement! Seriously. . . . Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. . . . Throughout its brief, the DoJ basically said that the state of Arizona has no case and that plaintiffs Gov. Brewer and AG Horne have invented a controversy where none exists. Further, the brief notes that a state is not allowed to bring a case asking two sides to fight it out, without taking a position on the law in question”
Here are some interesting statements made in the Department of Justice’s Motion to Dismiss:
“Plaintiffs identify no controversy between the parties on that issue. That is most clear from the fact that Plaintiffs’ complaint never identifies which side of the supposed dispute Plaintiffs are on. Indeed, even their prayer for relief does not identify whether they believe the AMMA is preempted by federal law. Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture disputes among theother parties. They name as defendants various individuals and organizations whom Plaintiffs contend support the implementation and enforcement of the AMMA”
“Plaintiffs even create twenty fictitious defendants – ten who contend that the AMMA “does violate federal law” and ten who contend that it does not – and then rely on the purported disagreement ‘among Defendants’.”
“there is no actual controversy herebecause Plaintiffs can point to no threat of enforcement against the State’s employees.”
“Plaintiffs lack standing to raise their claim. As discussed above, Plaintiffs rely on manufactured disputes between various defendants, even referring to one defendant’s ‘standing and legal position’ relative to other defendants.”
“Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government hassought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly showa genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case,”
East Valley Tribune: “Federal attorneys asked a judge on Monday to throw out a lawsuit filed by Gov. Jan Brewer seeking a ruling about the legality of the state’s medical marijuana law. Deputy U.S. Attorney Scott Risner said there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. Risner told U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton in legal papers filed in her court that, absent some actual threat of prosecution under federal drug laws by his office, the question is purely academic and therefore not a proper subject for litigation.”
Reason.com: “In my column on Wednesday, I noted that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer seems intent on undermining her state’s Medical Marijuana Act, which she opposed before voters approved it in November 2010. . . . ‘In lieu of a regulated industry,’ one activist told the Times, ‘we’re now creating an environment in which patients are growing their own with limited oversight, and these private clubs of questionable legality are popping up’.”
Townhall: “In Arizona, meanwhile, the Medical Marijuana Act approved by voters last November remains on hold thanks to Gov. Jan Brewer, who worries that it conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Brewer, a Republican who proudly advocates a ‘new federalism’ that ‘protects the States and (their) citizens against an overreaching federal government,’ in this case seems happy to let the Obama administration override the will of Arizona’s voters.”
The News Tribune: “The operators of a Tacoma medical marijuana dispensary beat drug charges earlier this year. Now they want their pot back.”
New York Times: “Marijuana is known to cause red eyes, gales of laughter and the munchies. In Arizona, add another side effect: utter confusion. Voters narrowly approved a ballot initiative last November allowing medical marijuana in the state, but the result has been just the opposite of an orderly system of dispensing cannabis to the truly sick. Rather, police raids, surreptitious money transfers and unofficial pot clubs have followed passage of the new law, creating a chaotic situation not far removed from the black-market system that has always existed.”
DailyKos: “I’m worried that Gov. Brewer might be losing her memory. . . . Here we are with you still trying to fight the will of the voters. Why don’t you defend this law like you do SB 1070? But as for your revisionist history let’s take a little walk down memory lane.”
Yuma Sun: “Arizona might not have a medical marijuana law today had police chiefs spoken out against it, Gov. Jan Brewer said Wednesday. But she conceded later that perhaps she was guilty of the same neglect.”
See “Governor Brewer to Police Chiefs: You Should Have Tried Harder to Stop “Dreadful” Medical Pot Law.”
Phoenix New Times: “New Jersey Governor Chris Christie isn’t scare of the feds anymore when it comes to medical marijuana dispensaries. . . . Then there’s Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Despite a clear victory in the 2010 by Arizona voters, Brewer thumbed her nose at democracy in May when she ordered the state Department of Health Services to reject dispensary applications
Alan Sobol and his 2811 Club are breaking unchartered ground by creating an organization where card-carrying Arizona medical marijuana patients can pay a fixed fee of $75 to enter the club’s facility and obtain “free” marijuana. Sobol claims his cannabis club is legal under Arizona’s medical marijuana laws, but he filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court to get a court ruling on the legality of his cannabis club under Arizona’s law.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 36-2811.B, states:
“A registered qualifying patient or registered designated caregiver is not subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner, or denial of any right or privilege, including any civil penalty or disciplinary action by a court or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau . . . For offering or providing marijuana to a registered qualifying patient or a registered designated caregiver for the registered qualifying patient’s medical use or to a registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary if nothing of value is transferred in return and the person giving the marijuana does not knowingly cause the recipient to possess more than the allowable amount of marijuana.”
This statute apparently protects a registered Arizona medical marijuana patient from violating Arizona’s criminal marijuana laws if the patient gives not more than 2.5 ounces of marijuana (or less if the recipient has additional marijuana) to another Arizona medical marijuana patient. Stated another way, this statute protects registered Patient A if Patient A gives an allowable amount of marijuana to registered Patient B and nothing of value is received by Patient A.
If a cannabis club wants to be protected by ARS Section 36-2811.B then the events that occur at the club must be limited to registered Patient A or registered caregiver C giving an allowable amount of marijuana to registered Patient B. Here are some potential problems that could cause a cannabis club to not be protected from Arizona state prosecution:
I am sure there are other potential problems that I have not addressed, but the ones listed above are the most obvious. Another issue involves registered caregivers who cannot be a caregiver for more than five registered patients. A registered caregiver’s marijuana must go to one of the caregiver’s five registered patients. Is that what happens at a cannabis club?
KTAR.com: “The founder of a Phoenix cannabis club is suing Gov. Jan Brewer and State Health Services Director Will Humble. Al Sobol, owner of the 2811 cannabis club, said Humble ‘threatened’ his club last week after being asked if he felt the clubs were legal.” See “Confusion abounds in Arizona’s tricky medical marijuana marketplace” and “Marijuana club owner sues to keep doors open.”
Reason: “Today New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced that he will proceed with plans to allow distribution of medical marijuana by six nonprofit organizations, despite federal prosecution threats. . . . The governor said he doesn’t believe federal authorities will expend limited resources to go after people complying with state law.”
Arizona Republic: “Medical-marijuana dispensaries can’t yet operate in Arizona pending a judge’s ruling on Proposition 203. But that doesn’t necessarily keep cardholders from finding pot. At least a handful of clubs that provide patients with medical marijuana have opened up in the Valley to fill that void.”
Phoenix New Times: “One of the defining moments of the latest war on medical marijuana in Arizona came last month when Gilbert SWAT officers raided the home of a patient suspected of having a single ounce of weed. . . . 11 police officers in masks and riot gear gathered outside the home. . . . Gilbert Police Chief Tim Dorn . . . and his department either are confused about what the law says . . . Or the Gilbert PD has gone rogue”
This is well researched and lengthy article by New Times reporter Ray Stern is a must read for those following the battle over Arizona medical marijuana.
Capital Media Services: “You could soon have a marijuana club down the block or around the corner. An entrepreneur in the state’s medical marijuana industry has found what he believes is a loophole in the law that restricts distribution of the drug to just 125 specially licensed dispensaries. Allan Sobol already has opened his first club in North Phoenix and has plans with his business partners to expand elsewhere.”
What follows below is the text of Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble’s July 14, 2011, blog post:
“The Arizona Department of Health Services has serious concerns about the legality of so-called cannabis clubs. The information that we have regarding these ‘clubs’ suggests that they are distributing marijuana to customers in a way that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, and the persons involved could be conducting illegal marijuana transactions. For this reason, we have referred this issue to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for review and analysis by its civil and criminal divisions.”
I view this as a warning to medical marijuana clubs that give away or facilitate the giving of marijuana among people who are licensed Arizona medical marijuana patients. I cannot imagine the Arizona Attorney General who is suing the United States over medical marijuana is going to bless these clubs.
Arizona Republic: “Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery on Thursday filed a motion to join the state’s request for a declaratory judgment on medical marijuana. Montgomery advised the county Board of Supervisors in a private meeting Thursday morning, urging them to take action to express the county’s position against medical pot.”
Cronkite New: “More than 7,500 Arizonans had been approved for personal medical marijuana licenses as of Wednesday, despite a well-publicized court battle that has delayed implementation of other parts of the law. The court fight between the state and federal governments has temporarily halted approval of marijuana dispensaries but not personal licenses, which had been granted to 7,570 individuals and 270 caregivers by this week.”
Considering growing your own? Many are, especially since the Governor’s lawsuit has put the dispensary process on hold.
What most don’t realize, however, is that growing marijuana inside your home or attached garage voids your homeowners insurance. There is not ONE carrier who will approve such activity.
No big deal, unless you have a claim – burglary, injured guest, fire, broken window, hail damage… if your carrier finds a grow, kiss your claim goodbye.
I had a quote request from a fellow who had leased a storefront for his dispensary; the cultivation plan included growing in his large home basement. Great security, lots of space, controlled environment, and no lease payment – all good. Except that none of my carriers, even the MMJ specialty firm, would go near this particular combination of risks.
I don’t like to tell people bad news. Ed Rosenthal’s coming to town and everyone is excited, and the hydroponics stores are thrilled. But… a better plan, and feasible at least for caregivers, is to band together and rent warehouse space, which can be insured against liability, theft, even local government raids.
Your house is your home, and should something happen, you’ll want to be reimbursed for any damages – not left holding an empty bag.
Los Angeles Times: “Marijuana has been approved by California, many other states and the nation’s capital to treat a range of illnesses, but in a decision announced Friday the federal government ruled that it has no accepted medical use and should remain classified as a dangerous drug like heroin.”
The following is Drug Enforcement Administrator Michele M. Leonhart’s the June 21, 2011, letter:
June 21, 2011.
On October 9, 2002, you petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Specifically, you petitioned DEA to have marijuana removed from schedule I of the CSA and rescheduled as cannabis in schedule III, IV or V.
You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I based on your assertion that:
(1) Cannabis has an accepted medical use in the United States;
(2) Cannabis is safe for use under medical supervision;
(3) Cannabis has an abuse potential lower than schedule I or II drugs; and
(4) Cannabis has a dependence liability that is lower than schedule I or II drugs.
In accordance with the CSA rescheduling provisions, after gathering the necessary data, DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). DHHS concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. Therefore, DHHS recommended that marijuana remain in schedule I. The scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation that DHHS submitted to DEA is attached hereto.
Based on the DHHS evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule I. A document prepared by DEA addressing these materials in detail also is attached hereto. In short, marijuana continues to meet the criteria for schedule I control under the CSA because:
(1) Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. The DHHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse.
(2) Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. According to established case law, marijuana has no “currently accepted medical use” because: The drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.
(3) Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication. Marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.
You also argued that cannabis has a dependence liability that is lower than schedule I or II drugs. Findings as to the physical or psychological dependence of a drug are only one of eight factors to be considered. As discussed further in the attached documents, DHHS states that long-term, regular use of marijuana can lead to physical dependence and withdrawal following discontinuation as well as psychic addiction or dependence.
The statutory mandate of 21 U.S.C. 812(b) is dispositive. Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” 21 U.S.C. 812(b).
Accordingly, and as set forth in detail in the accompanying DHHS and DEA documents, there is no statutory basis under the CSA for DEA to grant your petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Your petition is, therefore, hereby denied.
Sincerely,
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator
Read the entire Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana that follows the above letter.
Courthouse News: “The ACLU asked a federal judge to dismiss Gov. Jan Brewer’s lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment on whether the state’s voter-approved Medical Marijuana Act is pre-empted by federal law and should be struck down. The ACLU claims Arizona’s lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim because “state officials cannot use the federal courts as a vehicle either to validate, or to attack, their own laws.”