Americans for Safe Access, an organization that promotes the legalization of medical marijuana, is launching a legal challenge against the federal government's claim that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use." According to this story, ASA is using the Data Quality Act to challenge the scientific basis of such statements, in an effort to force the federal government to acknowledge the value of medical marijuana.
This could be an interesting test case for the judicial enforceability of the DQA. The law creates procedures to ensure the accuracy and reliability of scientific and technical information upon which federal government decisions are based. Enacted in 2000, it has been viewed primarily as a tool for industry to use to challenge the scientific basis of government regulations. If ASA is successful in their suit (and they have to overcome a challenge to their standing to sue), the DQA may be viewed in a different light.
More information about the lawsuit it available here. For the Science editorial on the suit, see here.
DQA/IQA article
Regardless, an interesting law, thanks for highlighting it.
I think you're right re: the finding of no standing. The rest is hot air. If you don't have standing to challenge stupid, irrational government action, you shouldn't be permitted enlist the federal courts to address your pet peeves (or aid you in your political causes, such as marijuana legalization). The courts are in the business of resolving active controversies and redressing injuries, not policing the executive branch any time someone can point out a potential misstep.
But the medical value of marijuana is an active controversy. And how exactly are executive missteps to be corrected when the executive refuses to do so? Is it the case that no one can do anything to force the executive to obey the law?
I wonder if this use of the DQA will lead to it being gutted in the usual application of "the drug war is excepted from all restraints upon it"
If so it would provide yet another example of the drug war being used to destroy legal concepts conservatives and libertarians strongly support.
Are there any scientific theories of economics?
The minimum wage has been explained to me as a mechanism to trade efficiency for equality--i.e, it's justified on political and values grounds, not economic ones.
Sure, if by "active controversy" you mean that there are politicians and lobbyists who will go to the grave denying the fact that marijuana has much medicinal value.
But it is not controversial if you actually look at the issue objectively and ask people who know better, e.g., doctors and patients.
the response is: "so what?"
Not to mention us casual dope-smokers, who know that laughter is the best medicine.
Its my understanding from reading the various materials presented that the data quality act allows citizens to sue when the Gov.t issues innacurrate, incorrect or simply false data/information. (after first exhausting all administrative remedies with the agency which promulgated the information, which ASA has apparantly done for the last two years with the HHS Dept) In other words, its not like the taxpayer standing embargo. And, they are in the district court in san francisco, which i would think would be a good venue for ASA, not 2 mention the 9th cir. ct of appeals (win or lose).
We all should be rooting for Americans for Safe Access on this one. The gov.'ts Marijuana disinformation/propaganda campaign has gone on for far too long. For people who dont have health insurance or cant stand narcotic pills for pain relief, or cant hold down pills because of nauseua, pot is a welcome and very cheap alternative. Which is probably why its still illegal.
This was from the Findlaw article cited above by Patrick and since i dont have the legislative history, i dont if this was congress' intent. The lead attorney for ASA makes a good argument regardless: whats the point of having the DQA, if and when someone points out an inaccuracy, like in this case, the agency simply ignores the complaint or tells the complaining party to essentially f-off? If inaccurate data cannot be corrected by any other means, then the data quality act does exactly squat as far as correcting data goes.
With that out of the way, the fact that a topic is generally "controversial" as a matter of public opinion does not mean that it is the type of controversy between parties that makes it suitable for judicial redress. Rather, the complaining party needs to be able to show some kind of concrete, individualized harm--otherwise, the courts would be inundated with thousands of self-appointed inspectors general, suing to ensure that every government agency adheres strictly to its regulations. Perhaps more importantly, by requiring the plaintiff to show some kind of concrete, individualized injury, the court can be sure that the parties are properly motivated to litigate the controversy (i.e., no "patsies" who intentionally lose the case or seek to establish a precedent more useful in some other case). Additionally, courts need to be wary of stepping on the toes of the other branches of government, so it's also a matter of prudence to avoid rendering judgments on issues that haven't actually resulted in a concrete, individualized injury to any person. Generalized grievances are best dealt with by lobbying the elected persons in the executive and legislative branches.
I dont understand the opposition to MJ--in fact, we as a nation have already demonstrated the futility of prohibition in the 1920s--yet we continue to create all manner of social costs by criminalizing drug use. Saint Milton was correct on this issue.
It's the conservative mentality. Just because something you believe in isn't working doesn't mean you quit. See drugs, abstinance and Iraq among others.
because that isn't consistent with the liberal mentality:
see: welfare, etc.
I understand your point, but fail to see why ASA, and patients who would benefit from medical marijuana, do not suffer individualized damage.
Telling ASA to lobby the executive is silly. The executive is the alleged wrongdoer here. Suppose they lobby for legislative change, as you suggest. Well, DEA's statement is going to influence some legislators who might otherwise support ASA.
More broadly, how does anyone make the executive obey the law? The legislature can't possibly prevent this sort of thing. You argue that the courts would be inundated with claims. So is Congress to inundate itself by trying to deal with corrective legislation?
Please see this related lawsuit which is also pending: http://www.maps.org/mmj/DEAlawsuit.html
The above cite gives the gory history and details of how the DEA in conjunction with other various Gov.t agencies keeps legitimate research from happening. Its quite fascinating. And shows just how far the Gov.t will go to suppress truth in this matter. Its mind boggling, to say the least.
Fortunately, since various states have legalized pot for medical use, doctors in those states (most notably california) have conducted positive peer reviewed studies (as well of course all the international studies showing the same medical potential of marijuana), outside of the DEA's monopoly on research grade pot (which by the way is super shitty; i actually met the florida stockbroker who gets cans of these pre-rolled government joints. Its super low quality and the only source for gov.t approved research. Imagine that). There are literally thousands of these positive studies now. So the walls are crashing in on the HHS and the DEA. Their shameful ignorance and obstruction of science and medical progress as well as flat out lying to the american people is hopefully coming to an end. But i wouldnt bet on it. The war on marijuana is the most ridiculous aspect of the war on some drugs and im sure the G wont go down without a fight. They have invested too much in the lie.
And I'm conceding quite a bit here, as I believe all laws should be presumed to be unconstitutional and the government should have to prove by clear and convincing evidence the law's constitutionality (which includes the fact that it has a rational basis). This should apply to all laws, not just equal protection issues with suspect classes. If the federal government bans blue golf carts from being sold "in or affecting interstate commerce" it should have a heavy burden of showing (1) the law does not exceed its authority under the commerce clause and (2) there is a rational basis for it. And anyone who plays golf, sells golf carts, buys golf carts, likes golf carts, enjoys riding in golf carts, owns a golf course, etc. should have standing to challenge the law.
95 percent of all laws should be found unconstitutional. Only about half a dozen laws per congressional session should be enacted. And most of those will be unnecessary anyway.
I can dream.
If someone brings a case to court, there is a case or controversy. Only if the plaintiff is a totally random person suing on behalf of someone else because they want to, and for no more compelling reason, should a case be thrown out for lack of standing.
And they wonder why no one takes them seriously.
I don't know about the rest of you but I found Ryan's meticulous research, buttressed with a copious amount of documentation and supporting links very persuasive.
I'm sure everyone takes Ryan very seriously at this point.