Americans for Safe Access vs Dea Essay Example for Free

Americans for in force(p) Access vs Dea EssayAbstractThis paper examined The Americans for Safe Accesss beseech before a federal salute to break the do drugs Enforcement Administration reduce its current assortment of marihuana as a register I drug. As this case goes before the homage, there could be three possible outcomes a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the suspect, or a decision for the DEA to survey cannabiss current mixed bag. Of these three outcomes, I believed there would be sufficient evidence in my findings to support a decision by the justices to canvas cannabiss sort. One key character to this decision will be whether or not tolerable evidence exists to support marihuanas aesculapian examination examination checkup go for, as a drug that is engagementd for checkup treatment is typic alone(prenominal)y not assort as enumeration I. Evidence for arguments from both grimaces was gathered from various sources, including checkup publishings , the University of Washingtons aim of Medicine archives, and online articles. After reviewing this information, the conclusion that enough evidence exists to reexamine hemps current classification was generateed.IntroductionAs more and more states petition to and effectively pass legislation to legalize medical marijuana, its current classification as a highly banned pump by the Federal medicine 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 marijuanas harms and benefits. Perhaps the heart of this debate lies in marijuanas 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 ma rijuana 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 marijuanas current classification? Section 1 Case/Issue SummaryLast 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(prenominal) 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 Administrations 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 or der 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 operational 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 ignore hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on the effectiveness of medical marijuana and the subsequent medical marijuana laws passed by 16 other(a) 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 situation have medicinal benefits? Studies and opinions as to which side has the nearly support to back its claim are widely varied, but both sides claim they have sufficient evidence to support their assertions. Ta ke, for example, to in truth different statements, one from the medical book hemp as Medicine? The Science Beyond the Controversy (Mack Joy, 2001), and the other from the medical book Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science foundation garment (Joy Stanley, 1999) 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 anesthesia cord injuries, seizure disorders, chronic pain, and other maladies. from the editors introduction to Cannabis in aesculapian Practice, by Mary Lynn Mathre, R.N. (Mack Joy, 2001). Consequently, the rapid growth in basic research on cannabinoids contrasts with the paucity of pregnant 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. Secti on 2 realisation and Evaluation of all Main Possible Solutions Though the challenge filed by the plaintiff is directly enquire for one roo quest fore, there are several closures that could be reached. The first solution would be that the judges would cut d make the challenge without review. The result of this would be that the appeals court considers marijuanas current classification to be straitlaced and this would represent solid validation of the DEAs authority to determine a drugs posture and classification.There would be evidence to back this decision. According to the doctors that authored Marijuana and Medicine, more extensive info 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 marijuanas positive and negative effects are difficult to conduct, due to both obstacle in procuring funding and the encumbrances of the many federal regulations involved with such t esting (Joy Stanley, 1999). The court could in like manner 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 submit harm to a unhurried (McCormick, 1998). Should the court determine that not enough evidence exists to support marijuanas medical benefits, it would have to conclude that prescribing marijuana to a enduring could lead to their harm.This decision by the court would serve as a strong deterrent to future challenges of the DEAs classifications of drugs. The consequences would be a major contrary for advocates of widespread legalization of prescription marijuana. Dismissing the challenge would, for the time being, lay to rest all claims made by Americans for Safe Access. Another solution would be for the district court to decide a reduction in marijuanas drug classification to be justified. For the plaintiffs, simplification marijuanas classification from a Sche dule 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 dont 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 marijuanas classification 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 geezerhood in prison.Ruling in favor of the plaintiff could indicate that the judges felt the principle of good-will 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 modern petition by Governor and former senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Gove rnor Christine Gregoire of Washington filed made the assertion that patients with dependable medical conditions who could benefit from medical use of cannabis do not have a dependable 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 Marijuana Medical Handbook practical(a) Guide to Therapeutic Uses of Marijuana, some medical marijuana specialists have reported a significantly large standard of money 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 marijuanas classification reduced would be a major setback in its efforts to eradicate a drug that Justice Department l awyer Lena Watkins says is the most widely ill-treat drug in the United verbalises, (Press, 2012). A decision against them by the federal court would essentially vacate 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 marijuanas Schedule I classification.It would counter their stance that not enough acceptable evidence and proper studies can be found to support marijuanas 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 Americans for Safe Access. They claim that the DEA has failed to consider notable support for medical marijuana from many prize 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 patients right to make their own informed decisions with regards to treatment (McCormick, 1998). Not having access to the best evidence as to marijuanas 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 look of the court.Section 3 Decision Statement and Defense Against WeaknessesAfter examining the facts of the case and all possible solutions, the solut ion to allow for the reduction of marijuanas classification to a Schedule II drug sees the most prudent. This conclusion was reached for several reasons. Despite the DEAs claims, there appears to be enough acceptable evidence on the ASAs side to support its assertion that marijuana has applicable medical benefits. Cocaine is certainly proved to be a harmful substance when taken irresponsibly, yet its remote medical benefits have arrive it on the Drug Enforcement Administrations Schedule II. For marijuana to remain on the Schedule I list while cocaine is on Schedule II hardly seems just considering there is sluice one state that has passed legal medical marijuana legislation. That there is even a small amount of substantial evidence from credible institutions supporting marijuanas 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, inc luding 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 cant help but wonder if the DEAs current stance comes from a fear of its potential legalization for recreational use. This solution would also dispense another important issue in terms of marijuana use, and that would be to provide 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.ReferencesGieringer, D., Rosenthal, E., Carter, G. T. (2010). Marijuana medical handbook, practical guide to therapeutic uses of marijuana. Oa kland 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=contentMaincontentBody 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 Washinton domesticate of Medicine, Retrieved from http//depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/princpl.html Press, A. (2012, October 16). Feder al court considers marijuana classification. Retrieved from http//www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57533647/federal-court-considers-marijuana-classification/