California Trial's Outcome Could Legalize Marijuana For All

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Back in 2011, six men who were growing marijuana secretly in Shasta-Trinity National Forest in northern California were raided by not one but two local narcotics task forces working hand-in-glove with forest rangers and the California Highway patrol, and before they were through, 15 people had been arrested and more than 1,000 pounds of pot seized. But then something interesting happened: At trial, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller allowed defendants Brian Pickard and Bryan Schweder to argue that their charges of marijuana cultivation and possession shouldn't have been federal crimes in the first place, since marijuana had no business being classified as a "narcotic" on the FDA's Schedule I Substance classification list. A five-day hearing on the classification matter concluded this past Friday, and during the course of it, Mueller heard from research scientists and doctors who challenged the idea, embodied in the definition of a Schedule I Substance, that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use" and that it has a "high potential for abuse." Mueller based her willingness to hear evidence disputing those Schedule I claims on a footnote (#37) written by Justice John Paul Stevens in his opinion in the medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, wherein Justice Stevens wrote, "We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I." The justice also noted that if that argument by Raich and her supporters were found to be correct, it "would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction." You know, like homemade beer or gin or coffee or tobacco. Needless to say, the U.S. Department of Justice wasn't very happy about Mueller's willingness to hear argument on the issue, and did its best to find fault with the defendants' expert witnesses. For example, when Dr. Gregory Carter, whose work found marijuana to be helpful in treating Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), testified that marijuana was useful in pain management, the government tried to discredit him, asking if he were a marijuana user himself? He replied that he had gone to "college in California in the '70s," but that he had not used pot in 25 years—and wouldn't hesitate to do so again if he came down with ALS. Others had similar opinions. "[I]t is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence," said Dr. Carl T. Hart, a drug researcher and associate professor of psychology and psychiatry at Columbia University. "After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology." Other defense witnesses included an Iraq war veteran who used marijuana to treat PTSD, the mother of a child with pediatric epilepsy and a former crime analyst for the FBI. The government called just one witness, Dr. Bertha Madras, George W. Bush's former drug czar and a professor of psychobiology at Harvard Medical School, who, besides claiming that there was no such thing as "medical marijuana" (despite the fact that 26 states including, as of yesterday, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia, now recognize such a substance) and that research on pot has not delivered the "high standard of proof" to get the substance off of Schedule I. She also claimed it "contains significant amounts of toxic chemicals." Now, Judge Mueller will have to wade through five days of testimony, which could easily run to 2,000 pages or more, as well as examine the scientific evidence presented and consider the implications of her decision on public health policy. It won't be an easy task, and will likely take several weeks. "That decision will have national implications," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform Of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "You will see defense attorneys around the country filing similar motions. That will perhaps kick open the door to begin the long overdue discussion in the legislative halls of government—where arguably it ought to be taken place in the first place." Of course, the Southern Baptist Church is bent out of shape that, with Tuesday's victories and Florida's close call—it needed 60 percent of the votes to pass; it got 58 percent—more citizens might begin to exercise their right to smoked pleasure. "Once a state legalizes medical marijuana, proponents know it's just a matter of time until they can advance their real agenda," wrote Barrett Duke, VP of Public Policy and Research for the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "Apparently, it takes about 10 to 15 years to desensitize the public enough to the dangers of marijuana to achieve the next step toward full legalization." Damn those sneaky pot smokers with their decades-long agenda! "Christians must stay engaged in local debates and politics to help keep their communities as drug-free as possible. The path from medical marijuana to recreational marijuana does not have to be inevitable," he added. "While many states are falling for the lie of marijuana's harmlessness, the church does not have to be taken in. The Bible's call to personal purity and sobriety has not changed. We must remain faithful to its call and not be deceived by the culture's call to personal indulgence... For the sake of millions of people around us and the glory of God we must." Um... speaking of "personal purity and sobriety," don't we recall reading something about wine being the "blood of Christ"? Just sayin'...