Americans for Safe Access vs Dea Essay Example for Free

Americans for Safe Access vs Dea Essay Abstract This paper examined The American’s for Safe Access’s petition before a federal court to have the Drug Enforcement Administration reduce its current classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug. As this case goes before the court, there could be three possible outcomes: a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant, or a decision for the DEA to reexamine marijuana’s current classification. Of these three outcomes, I believed there would be sufficient evidence in my findings to support a decision by the justices to reexamine marijuana’s classification. One key component to this decision will be whether or not enough evidence exists to support marijuana’s medical use, as a drug that is used for medical treatment is typically not classified as Schedule I. Evidence for arguments from both sides was gathered from various sources, including medical publishings, the University of Washington’s School of Medicine archives, and online articles. After reviewing this information, the conclusion that enough evidence exists to reexamine marijuana’s current classification was reached. Introduction As more and more states petition to and effectively pass legislation to legalize medical marijuana, its current classification as a highly banned substance by the Federal Drug Administration continues to serve as a harsh stance against the desires of the public for the option of marijuana as a medical treatment. The escalation of this debate in the political and federal arena appears to be overtaking the medical industries ability to determine marijuana’s harms and benefits. Perhaps the heart of this debate lies in marijuana’s current classification by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule 1 drug. Of all of the drugs on the current DEA Schedule I, list marijuana is the only one that has doctors supporting its medical uses. In light of this, does marijuana still deserve the same classification as heroin and LSD? As more states are passing this legislation and more states desire it, is it now time to reexamine marijuana’s current classification? Section 1: Case/Issue Summary Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration rejected a petition by medical marijuana advocates to reduce its classification as a Schedule I drug, which kept marijuana in the same category as drugs such as heroin. The DEA concluded that there wasnt a consensus opinion among experts on using marijuana for medical purposes (Press, 2012). However, medical marijuana advocates have not given up in their pursuit to reduce the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of marijuana. In my chosen case, the plaintiff is Americans for Safe Access and the defendant is the Justice Department. Once again, the key issue at hand is the Drug Enforcement Administrations continued classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug. In order to be classified as a Schedule I drug, the drug must be officially determined to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse (McClathy, 2012). Justice Department attorneys site an absence of available evidence of acceptable and controlled studies, and a lack of agreement among experts as to marijuanas effectiveness as a medicine, as their basis for its current Schedule I classification. Those standing against the Justice Department claim that regulators are disregarding hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of medical marijuana and the subsequent medical marijuana laws passed by 16 other states. The concerns for both the plaintiff and the defendant lie in the same key issue – is there enough acceptable medical evidence that marijuana does in fact have medicinal benefits? Studies and opinions as to which side has the most support to back its claim are widely varied, but both sides claim they have sufficient evidence to support their assertions. Take, for example, to very different statements, one from the medical book â€Å"Marijuana as Medicine?: The Science Beyond the Controversy† (Mack Joy, 2001), and the other from the medical book â€Å"Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science Base† (Joy Stanley, 1999): â€Å"The cannabis plant (marijuana) . . . [has] therapeutic benefits and could ease the suffering of millions of persons with various illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, seizure disorders, chronic pain, and other maladies.† – from the editor’s introduction to Cannabis in Medi cal Practice, by Mary Lynn Mathre, R.N. (Mack Joy, 2001). â€Å"Consequently, the rapid growth in basic research on cannabinoids contrasts with the paucity of substantial clinical studies on medical uses.† (Joy Stanley, 1999). These two statements help highlight just how much inconsistency on exists on this issue, inconsistency that could be a concern for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Section 2: Identification and Evaluation of all Main Possible Solutions Though the challenge filed by the plaintiff is directly asking for one solution, there are several solutions that could be reached. The first solution would be that the judges would dismiss the challenge without review. The result of this would be that the appeals court considers marijuana’s current classification to be proper and this would represent solid validation of the DEA’s authority to determine a drug’s status and classification. There would be evidence to back this decision. According to the doctors that authored â€Å"Marijuana and Medicine†, more extensive data exists on the harmful effects of marijuana than data on its medical benefits (Joy Stanley, 1999). It is the opinion of these doctors that clinical studies on marijuana’s positive and negative effects are difficult to conduct, due to both difficulty in procuring funding and the encumbrances of the many federal regulations involved with such testing (Joy Stanley, 1999). The court could also reach this decision due to the bioethical principle of Nonmaleficence. Under the standards of care, this is the principle that a healthcare provider should not bring harm to a patient (McCormick, 1998). Should the court determine that not enough evidence exists to support marijuana’s medical benefits, it would have to conclude that prescribing marijuana to a patient could lead to their harm. This decision by the court would serve as a strong deterrent to future challenges of the DEA’s classifications of drugs. The consequences would be a major setback for advocates of widespread legalization of prescription marijuana. Dismissing the challenge would, for the time being, lay to rest all claims made by American’s for Safe Access. Another solution would be for the district court to decide a reduction in marijuana’s drug classification to be justified. For the plaintiffs, reducing marijuana’s classification from a Schedule I drug to a lesser controlled substance would be a major step in their ultimate quest to see marijuana legalized for medical use in the remaining 34 states that don’t already allow for such use (Press, 2012). Should its classification be reduced to a Schedule II drug, it would then be legal for marijuana to be prescribed to patients in need. Along with the physical medical benefits, reducing marijuana’s classificati on would also lessen the penalties faced by those found in possession of it. Currently, possession of a Schedule I drug can carry a maximum sentence of up to 7 years in prison. Ruling in favor of the plaintiff could indicate that the judges felt the principle of beneficence – that a healthcare professional must act to provide medical benefit to a patient – is involved (McCormick, 1998). In this case, the benefit to the patient would be relief from pain and protection from harm. A recent petition by Governor and former senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Governor Christine Gregoire of Washington filed made the assertion that â€Å"patients with serious medical conditions who could benefit from medical use of cannabis do not have a safe and consistent source of the drug as a result of its current classification† (Madison, 2011). This ruling could also be a result of the justices deciding that enough trusted medical evidence does in fact exists to support the use of marijuana for medical purposes. According to the book â€Å"Marijuana Medical Handbook: Practical Guide to Therapeutic Uses of Marijuana†, some medical marijuana specialists have reported a significantly large amount of uses for medical marijuana, ranging from treatment for nausea and convulsions to an appetite stimulant for cancer patients (Gieringer, Rosenthal Carter, 2010) For the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration, seeing marijuana’s classification reduced would be a major setback in its efforts to eradicate a drug that Justice Department lawyer Lena Watkins says is â€Å"the most widely abused drug in the United States, (Press, 2012). A decision against them by the federal court would essentially erase all of their efforts, along with damaging their ability to make similar determinations in the future. A third solution could be that the court could order the Drug Enforcement Administration to take a more in-depth look at the available evidence (McClathy, 2012). This would be a blow to the DEA, who claims they have spent a substantial amount of time and energy in executing due diligence to determine marijuana’s Schedule I classification. It would counter their stance that not enough acceptable evidence and proper studies can be found to support marijuana’s medical benefits. In turn, a decision by the court for the DEA to reexamine its evidence could ultimately lead to another challenge for its legalization. Consequently, this same decision would be very positive for American’s for Safe Access. They claim that the DEA has failed to consider notable support for medical marijuana from many respected institutions, all of whom support the reclassification of marijuana (McClathy, 2012). A request by the Court of Appeals for the DEA to reexamine its findings could be due to the principle of respect for autonomy. This principle protects the patient’s right to make their own informed decisions with regards to treatment (McCormick, 1998). Not having access to the best evidence as to marijuana’s medical benefits could act against this principle. The principle of justice could also play a part in this ruling. A patient in Missouri suffering the same amount of pain as a patient in California, but not having the opportunity to benefit from the same medicinal advancements as a patient in California, might be a constitute a breach of the principle of judgment in the eyes of the court. Section 3: Decision Statement and Defense Against Weaknesses After examining the facts of the case and all possible solutions, the solution to allow for the reduction of marijuana’s classification to a Schedule II drug seems the most prudent. This conclusion was reached for several reasons. Despite the DEA’s claims, there appears to be enough acceptable evidence on the ASA’s side to support its assertion that marijuana has applicable medical benefits. Cocaine is certainly proven to be a harmful substance when taken irresponsibly, yet its remote medical benefits have landed it on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Schedule II. For marijuana to remain on the Schedule I list while cocaine is on Schedule II hardly seems just considering there is even one state that has passed legal medical marijuana legislation. That there is even a small amount of substantial evidence from credible institutions supporting marijuana’s medical benefits makes the penalties involved with its possession seem severe. The recent petition sighted earlier by the two governors offers that they have support from many respected institutions, including The American Medical Association, The American College of Physicians, the Rhode Island Medical Society, the Washington State Medical Association the Washington State Pharmacy (Madison, 2011). All of these institutions are respected, making a decision to dismiss the challenge without even a reexamination seem imprudent. One also can’t help but wonder if the DEA’s current stance comes from a fear of its potential legalization for recreational use. This solution would also address another important issue in terms of marijuana use, and that would be to provide â€Å"safe, reliable, regulated use of marijuana for patients who are suffering,, as the governors have suggested (Press, 2012). In conclusion, certainly it seems that the current Schedule 1 classification of marijuana obstructs the medical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice . References Gieringer, D., Rosenthal, E., Carter, G. T. (2010). Marijuana medical handbook, practical guide to therapeutic uses of marijuana. Oakland: Quick American Archives. Joy, J. E., Stanley, J. W. (1999). Marijuana and medicine, assessing the science base. National Academies Press. (Joy Stanley, 1999) Mack, A., Joy, J. E. (2001). Marijuana as medicine?, the science beyond the controversy. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. (Mack Joy, 2001) Madison, L. (2011, November 30). Govs. chafee, gregoire lobby for reclassification of marijuana. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57334326-503544/govs-chafee-gregoire-lobby-for-reclassification-of-marijuana/?tag=contentMain;contentBody McClathy, N. (2012, October 12). Medical marijuana case going before court. Maine Sunday Telegram. Retrieved from http://www.pressherald.com/news/medical-marijuana-case-going-before-court_2012-10-13.html McCormick, T. R. (1998). Principles of bioethics. Ethics in edicine: University of Wa shinton School of Medicine, Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/princpl.html Press, A. (2012, October 16). Federal court considers marijuana classification. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57533647/federal-court-considers-marijuana-classification/