1
Removing
Cannabis
From
The
Controlled
Substances
Act
Why
Rescheduling
Marihuana
Will
Not
End
The
State-Federal
Conflict
Over
Medical
Cannabis
1
A
Position
Paper
Of
Patient
Advocacy
Network,
www.CannabisSavesLives.org
December
2011
Introduction
The
current
federal
legal
status
of
cannabis
or
‘marihuana’
is
a
Schedule
I
narcotic
under
the
Controlled
Substances
Act
or
CSA
(Title
21
of
the
Unites
States
Code).
This
classification
considers
cannabis
unsafe
with
high
potential
for
abuse
and
no
accepted
medical
use.
Harsh
federal
criminal
penalties
apply
for
the
possession,
distribution
and/or
manufacture
of
any
part
of
the
cannabis
plant.
However,
the
vast
growing
body
of
research
and
evidence
demonstrates
that
cannabis
has
numerous
medical
benefits
and
uses,
is
safe
and
effective,
and
creates
no
significant
social
or
societal
distress.
Additionally,
there
is
no
reason
for
2
industrial
hemp
to
be
a
Controlled
Substance
(Yurchey).
The
criminal
penalties
far
outweigh
any
harm
created
by
the
cultivation,
use
or
distribution
cannabis
hemp.
Furthermore,
it
is
vital
to
the
health
of
our
nation,
economically
and
socially,
that
the
federal
government
acknowledges
and
reviews
this
body
of
scientific
research
and
that
Congress
places
marihuana
in
an
appropriate
legal
category.
Background
Cannabis
and
hemp
have
historically
documented
uses
as
food,
fiber,
medicine,
sacrament
and
as
a
euphoric
since
as
early
as
4,000
B.C.
(Gumbiner).
In
1988,
DEA
Administrative
Law
Judge
Francis
L.
Young
stated,
“Marijuana,
in
its
natural
form,
is
one
of
the
safest
therapeutically
active
substances
known
to
man
(Young).”
Despite
centuries
of
safe,
effective
use
of
cannabis
along
with
the
economic
benefits
of
hemp,
in
1937,
the
U.S.
Congress
passed
the
Marihuana
Tax
Act
effectively
For the purpose of this paper the word “marihuana” is used only to refer to the term manufactured by the
1
FBI in the 1930’s (Melanie & Mike) and subsequently used by U.S. lawmakers in the Marihuana Tax Act and
Controlled Substances Act as well as other legislation, also sometimes spelled “marijuana.” The words
“cannabis” and “hemp” are used in this paper to refer to the botanical and common English names of the
plant respectively.
2
The works cited referenced herein provides resources on the research and background on the benefits of
medical cannabis and refute claims that cannabis is a menace to society (Head, Joy, “Separating,”
Taylor,
“The La Guardia” & “The Report”).
2
creating
a
prohibition
on
cannabis
hemp
in
the
United
States.
The
passage
of
this
3
law
was
soon
questioned
by
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Narcotics,
which
stated
in
a
memorandum
that
the
Bureau
“lacked
a
real
understanding
about
marihuana
as
a
drug
and
as
a
legitimate
crop”
and
went
on
further
to
state
that
“the
agriculture
of
the
plant
marihuana
caters
to
a
legitimate
industry
(Lupien).”
However,
“Reefer
Madness”
continued,
despite
the
Hemp
For
Victory
Program
in
4 5
1942,
the
La
Guardia
Committee
Report
published
in
1944
and
the
Shafer
Commission
Report
published
in
1972
–
with
both
Reports
indicating
no
significant
social
or
personal
danger
associated
with
the
use
or
possession
of
marihuana
and
recommending
decriminalization
or
legalization.
In
1970,
Congress
passed
the
Controlled
Substances
Act
placing
cannabis
in
the
most
restrictive
category
possible.
In
1996,
California
became
the
first
state
to
pass
a
medical
marijuana
law,
the
Compassionate
Use
Act,
exempting
patients
with
a
physician’s
recommendation
from
certain
state
criminal
penalties.
Since
then
15
other
states
and
the
District
of
Columbia
have
passed
their
own
medical
cannabis
laws.
This
movement
has
given
rise
to
one
of
the
longest
standing
social
experiments
on
the
long-‐term
effects
of
cannabis
on
patients
and
communities.
Studies
have
shown
no
significant
increase
in
crime
(Williams),
no
impact
on
children
(Jean),
no
adverse
effects
from
long-‐term
use
(Gettman
[2]),
refutal
of
the
gateway
drug
theory
(Swartz),
and
strong
potential
for
economic
benefit
(Nerz).
Recent
Activity
Federal
authorities
including
U.S.
federal
attorneys,
the
DEA
,
IRS
and
AFT
(“ATF,”
“DEA
Raids,”
Medina,
Phillips,
Roman,
Smith)
have
all
issued
written
warnings
to
patients,
property
owners
(Kim)
and
financial
institutions
(Leff)
that
state-‐
sanctioned
medical
cannabis
activities
remain
illegal
under
federal
law
and
penalties
such
as
imprisonment
and
asset
forfeiture
apply.
Regarding
statements
made
by
U.S.
Attorneys
in
Sacramento
on
October
7,
2011,
Deputy
Attorney
General
James
Cole
said,
"The
actions
taken
today
in
California
by
our
U.S.
Attorneys
and
their
law
enforcement
partners
are
consistent
with
the
Department's
commitment
to
enforcing
existing
federal
laws,
including
the
Controlled
Substances
Act
in
all
states"
(Brooks).
However,
there
is
also
increased
movement
in
Congress
this
year
3
Reports argue that the pressure to pass the Marihuana Tax Act came from: the imposed fear that
marijuana caused suicide and other harm; greed from the paper, fiber and fuel industries; and racism
(“Marihuana,” Musto, Peter).
4
Reefer Madness was a propaganda film released in 1936, to educate teenagers about the dangers of
cannabis use. The phrase ‘reefer madness’ became used to refer to any sensationalized anti-cannabis
propaganda or campaign.
5
Hemp For Victory is a film made by the U.S. Department of Agriculture encouraging and teaching
American farmers to grow hemp for the World War II war effort.
3
to
reconsider
federal
marihuana
laws
(Lillis,
“H.R.
1983,”
“H.R.
1984,”
“H.R.
1985,”
“H.R.
2306”)
in
order
to
alleviate
the
states
with
medical
cannabis
laws
from
the
threat
of
federal
criminal
enforcement
and
penalties.
There
have
been
attempts
to
“reschedule”
marihuana
within
the
CSA
(“H.R.
1983,”
Gettman
[1],
Marshall,
“Patient”).
The
assertion
is
that
moving
marihuana
from
Schedule
I
to
Schedule
III
would
resolve
the
state
federal
conflict.
In
a
letter
forwarded
to
President
Obama
on
October
28,
2011,
nine
House
Representatives
write
“classifying
marijuana
as
a
Schedule
II
or
III
drug
will
have
the
effect
of
harmonizing
federal
law
with
the
laws
of
several
states”
(“Dear
President”)
which,
unfortunately,
is
not
accurate.
Rescheduling
would
not
eliminate
federal
criminal
jeopardy;
state
qualified
patients
would
continue
to
violate
numerous
sections
of
the
CSA.
In
some
cases
penalties
under
Schedule
III
are
more
severe
than
current
rules.
Therefore,
for
the
protection
of
patients
and
states’
laws,
cannabis
should
be
removed
from
the
CSA
and
“reclassified”
under
another
set
of
regulations
(Cushingberry,
Lammie).
A
Review
Of
Pertinent
CSA
Provisions
Firstly,
the
CSA
requires
anyone
who
manufactures
and
distributes
any
controlled
substance
register
with
the
Attorney
General:
Section 822. Persons Required to Register
(a) Period of registration
(1) Every person who manufactures or distributes any controlled substance or list I
chemical, or who proposes to engage in the manufacture or distribution of any
controlled substance or list I chemical, shall obtain annually a registration issued by
the Attorney General in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by
him.
(2) Every person who dispenses, or who proposes to dispense, any controlled
substance, shall obtain from the Attorney General a registration issued in
accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by him. The Attorney
General shall, by regulation, determine the period of such registrations. In no event,
however, shall such registrations be issued for less than one year nor for more than
three years.
(b) Authorized activities
Persons registered by the Attorney General under this subchapter to manufacture,
distribute, or dispense controlled substances or list I chemicals are authorized to
possess, manufacture, distribute, or dispense such substances or chemicals (including
any such activity in the conduct of research) to the extent authorized by their
registration and in conformity with the other provisions of this subchapter.
4
Schedule
III
substances
under
Section
823.
Registration
Requirements
are
subject
to
restrictions
such
as:
(I) During the 3-year period beginning on the date of approval by the Food and
Drug Administration of a drug in schedule III, IV, or V, a State may not preclude a
practitioner from dispensing or prescribing such drug, or combination of such
drugs, to patients for maintenance or detoxification treatment in accordance with
this paragraph unless, before the expiration of that 3-year period, the State
enacts a law prohibiting a practitioner from dispensing such drugs or
combinations of drug. (“Title
21…
Section
823”)
Provisions
such
as
these,
like
requiring
approval
from
the
Attorney
General
and
the
FDA,
would
effectively
shut
down
safe
access
while
small,
state
not-‐for-‐profit
patient
collectives
and
cooperatives
complete
application
and
licensure
processes
primarily
held
by
major
pharmaceutical
companies
and
universities.
There
are
penalties
for
possession
under
all
5
Schedules
and
are
listed
in
over
600
words
in
Section
844
of
the
CSA
beginning:
(a) Unlawful acts; penalties
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a
controlled substance… (“Title
21…
Section
844”)
In
Part
D
–
Offences
and
Penalties
of
Section
841,
the
law
demonstrates
that
Schedule
III
penalties
are
more
severe
than
marihuana
penalties
currently
in
effect
under
Schedule
I.
The
current
penalties
for
cannabis
under
Schedule
I
are
(bold
text
intentional):
Section 841. Prohibited Acts A
(b) Penalties(1)(D) In the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana, except in
the case of 50 or more marihuana plants regardless of weight, 10 kilograms of
hashish, or one kilogram of hashish oil, such person shall, except as provided in
paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 5 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of that
authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $250,000 if the
defendant is an individual or $1,000,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual, or both. If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction
for a felony drug offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine not to exceed the greater
of twice that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000
if the defendant is an individual or $2,000,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual, or both. Notwithstanding section 3583 of title 18, any sentence
imposing a term of imprisonment under this paragraph shall, in the absence of
such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 2 years in
addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if there was such a prior
5
conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least 4 years in addition to
such term of imprisonment. (“Title
21…
Section
841”)
The
penalties
for
Schedule
III
violations
are
(bold
text
intentional):
Section 841. Prohibited Acts A
(b) Penalties(1)(E)(i) Except as provided in subparagraphs (C) and (D), in the
case of any controlled substance in schedule III, such person shall be sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years and if death or serious
bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of not more than 15 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of
that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $500,000 if the
defendant is an individual or $2,500,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual, or both.
(ii) If any person commits such a violation after a prior conviction for a felony drug
offense has become final, such person shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death or serious bodily injury
results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 30 years, a fine not to exceed the greater of twice
that authorized in accordance with the provisions of title 18 or $1,000,000 if the
defendant is an individual or $5,000,000 if the defendant is other than an
individual, or both.
(iii) Any sentence imposing a term of imprisonment under this subparagraph
shall, in the absence of such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised
release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of imprisonment and shall, if
there was such a prior conviction, impose a term of supervised release of at least
4 years in addition to such term of imprisonment. (“Title
21…
Section
841”)
The
entire
Controlled
Substances
Act
can
be
found
at
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/index.html.
Conclusion
The
CSA
is
a
too
complex
set
of
laws
to
simply
‘reschedule
marihuana’
with
the
assumption
that
it
will
remove
federal
criminal
jeopardy
from
patients
in
states
with
medical
marijuana
laws.
The
Code
clearly
indicates
that
criminal
penalties
exist
for
all
Schedules.
Current
state-‐sanctioned
medical
cannabis
activities
would
remain
illegal
under
any
Schedule
without
approval
through
the
U.S.
Attorney
General’s
office
and
other
federal
regulatory
agencies.
There
are
no
easily
amended
provisions
within
the
CSA
that
allow
for
state-‐federal
harmony.
Rescheduling
may
actually
increase
penalties
for
patients
and
inadvertently
shut
down
collectives
attempting
to
comply
with
these
federal
provisions.
6
Solutions
Advocates
and
legislative
officials
working
to
amend
existing
federal
law
in
order
to
protect
state-‐qualified
patients
from
federal
criminal
jeopardy
must
carefully
consider
the
potential
ramifications
of
rescheduling
cannabis.
Congress
and
the
White
House
must
acknowledge
and
review
the
body
scientific
research
on
cannabis
and
place
marihuana
in
an
appropriate
legal
category.
Overwhelmingly,
Patient
Advocacy
Network
has
learned
that
disabled,
low-‐income
patients
need
and
want
access
to
local
collectives
with
cannabis
that
has
been
grown
locally
by
other
patients.
Patients,
who
are
able,
want
to
legally
grow
cannabis
at
home
for
their
own
personal
medical
use
or
for
that
of
a
loved-‐one.
Patients
without
the
desire,
knowledge
or
resources
to
grow
their
own
medical
cannabis
also
want
safe,
legal
access
to
local
collectives.
The
most
effective
way
to
harmonize
state
and
federal
law
it
to
remove
marihuana
from
the
Controlled
Substances
Act
and
reclassify
it
within
a
new
set
of
rules
or
place
it
within
another
set
of
existing
regulations.
Some
suggest
regulating
it
similarly
to
beer
and
wine
(Kubby,
Tyrel).
This
model
actually
works
very
well
with
the
way
in
which
medical
cannabis
collectives
currently
operate
except
with
a
private
patient
membership
base.
Hops
and
wine
grapes
can
be
grown
at
home
just
as
beer
and
wine
can
be
produced
at
home.
Licenses
are
given
to
wineries
and
breweries
to
serve
a
broader
group
who
do
not
want
to
produce
their
own.
Strict
regulatory
compliance
ensures
proper
production,
packaging,
labeling
and
storage.
Many
of
the
provisions
in
Title
27:
Alcohol,
Tobacco
and
Firearms,
Parts
24
and
25,
wine
and
beer
respectively
can
be
applied
to
regulating
the
safe
production
and
dispensation
of
therapeutic
grade
cannabis
buds
and
pure
cannabis
extracts
(“Title
27…
Part
24”
and
“Title
27…
Part
25”).
These
provisions
regulate
record
keeping,
taxes,
advertizing,
facility
location
and
use,
testing,
analysis,
research,
transporting
and
many
of
other
details
with
which
state
and
local
legislative
bodies
grapple.
Much
could
be
done
to
harmonize
local,
state
and
federal
law
and
provide
for
better
public
safety
should
Congress
thoroughly
review
Parts
24
and
25
of
Title
27
compared
to
the
conflict
that
inherently
lies
in
moving
marihuana
within
the
Controlled
Substances
Act.
It’s
time
for
our
national
to
have
a
sensible
dialogue
about
the
science
and
therapeutic
use
of
cannabis
and
pass
workable
solutions
so
that
no
patient
ever
has
to
fear
imprisonment
for
growing,
possessing,
transporting
or
using
cannabis
for
their
own
personal
therapeutic
use
or
being
part
of
a
group
that
helps
other
patients
do
the
same
(Bradford,
King,
“Steve”).
________________________________________
7
Works
Cited
“ATF
Tells
Gun
Dealers
They
Can’t
Sell
To
Medical
Marijuana
Patients.”
http://www.foxnews.com.
September
30,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/30/atf-‐tells-‐arizona-‐gun-‐dealers-‐cant-‐sell-‐
to-‐medical-‐marijuana-‐patients/.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Bradford,
R.
W.
“U.S.:
The
Life
And
Death
Of
Peter
McWilliams.”
http://www.mapinc.org.
August
2000.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n948/a03.html.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Brooks,
Jon.
“California
U.S.
Attorneys
Target
Growers,
Retailers;
Letter
To
Landlord
Of
SF
Dispensary
Threatening
Property
Seizure.”
http://blogs.kqed.org.
October
7,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2011/10/07/california-‐u-‐s-‐attorneys-‐issue-‐
statement-‐on-‐targeting-‐marijuana-‐industry/.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Cushingberry,
Jr.,
George.
Ed.
“Stimulating
Michigan
From
Washington:
Contact
The
Congress
And
President
To
Reclassify
Marijuana
To
It’s
Proper
Place
In
The
Land.”
http://friendsofgeorge.blogspot.com.
March
24,
2009.
[Online].
Available:
http://friendsofgeorge.blogspot.com/2009/03/stimulating-‐michigan-‐from-‐
washington.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“DEA
Raids
Oregon
Medical
Pot
Farm.”
Associated
Press.
http://www.kval.com.
October
7,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.kval.com/news/local/131336709.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Dear
President
Obama.”
A
Letter
From
Congressional
Representatives
Of
The
United
States.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/letter.pdf.
October
28,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/letter.pdf.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Gettman,
Jon
[1].
“The
Cannabis
Rescheduling
Petition:
An
Introduction.”
http://www.drugscience.org.
Copyright
2002.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.drugscience.org/petition_intro.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Gettman,
Jon
[2].
“Safety
For
Use:
Documented
Safety
Of
Long
Term
Cannabis
Use.”
http://www.drugscience.org.
Copyright
2002.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.drugscience.org/sfu/sfu_longterm.html.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Gumbiner,
Jan,
PhD.
“History
Of
Cannabis
In
Ancient
China,
Cannabis
Sativa
Is
An
Old
Plant
With
A
Long
History.”
http://www.psychologytoday.com.
May
10,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-‐teenage-‐
mind/201105/history-‐cannabis-‐in-‐ancient-‐china.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
8
“H.R.
1983:
States’
Medical
Marijuana
Patient
Protection
Act.”
112th
Congress:
2011-‐2012.
http://www.govtrack.us.
Last
updated
December
1,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-‐1983.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“H.R.
1984:
Small
Business
Banking
Improvement
Act
Of
2011.”
112th
Congress:
2011-‐2012.
http://www.govtrack.us.
Last
updated
December
1,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-‐1984.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“H.R.
1985:
Small
Business
Tax
Equity
Act
Of
2011.”
112th
Congress:
2011-‐2012.
http://www.govtrack.us.
Last
updated
December
1,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-‐1985.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“H.R.
2306:
Ending
Federal
Prohibition
Act
Of
2011.”
112th
Congress:
2011-‐2012.
http://www.govtrack.us.
Last
updated
December
1,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-‐2306.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Head,
C.
Alvin.
Presenter.
“Report
3
Of
The
Council
On
Science
And
Public
Health,
Use
Of
Cannabis
For
Medicinal
Purposes.”
American
Medical
Association.
http://www.ama-‐assn.org.
Copyright
2009.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.ama-‐assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/i09csaph3ft.pdf.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Jean,
Nancy.
“Rhode
Island
Hospital
Study
Finds
Legalizing
Medical
Marijuana
Does
Not
Increase
Use
Among
Youth.”
http://www.eurekalert.org.
November
2,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-‐11/l-‐
rih103111.php.
December
20,
2011.
Joy,
Janet
E.;
Stanley
J.
Watson,
Jr.;
John
A.
Benson,
Jr.
Eds.
“Marijuana
And
Medicine,
Assessing
The
Science
Base.”
Division
of
Neuroscience
And
Behavioral
Health
Institute
Of
Medicine.
http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright
1999.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376.
December
20,
2011.
Kim,
Susanna.
“Feds
Target
Financial
Institutions
Associated
With
Medical
Marijuana
Clinics.”
http://abcnews.go.com.
October
26,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/justice-‐department-‐targets-‐banks-‐
medical-‐marijuana-‐crackdown/story?id=14811540.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
King,
Colbert
I.
“Quadriplegic
D.C.
Inmate
Jonathan
Magbie’s
Death
And
A
Settlement.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com.
June
15,
2006.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-‐
dyn/content/article/2008/12/05/AR2008120503090_3.html.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
9
Kubby,
Steve.
Ed.
“Regulate
Marijuana
Like
Wine,
A
California
Voter
Initiative.”
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com.
September
2,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://regulatemarijuanalikewine.com/regulate-‐marijuana-‐like-‐wine-‐act-‐2012/.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Lammie,
Shannie.
“Remove
Marijuana
From
Controlled
Substances
Act
Says
Montana
Representative.”
http://www.cdscenters.com.
June
13,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.cdscenters.com/blog/2011/06/13/remove-‐marijuana-‐
from-‐controlled-‐substance-‐act-‐says-‐montana-‐representative/.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Leff,
Lisa.
“Feds
Threaten
California
Medical
Marijuana
Dispensaries
and
Property
Owners,
Signaling
Obama
Administration
Policy
Reversal.”
http://www.masslive.com.
October
7,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/10/feds_threatening_medical_ma
rij.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Lillis,
Mike.
“Reps.
Frank,
Polis
Urge
DoJ
To
Leave
Medical
Marijuana
To
States.”
http://thehill.com.
June
21,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-‐issues/167537-‐reps-‐frank-‐polis-‐urge-‐
doj-‐to-‐leave-‐medical-‐marijuana-‐to-‐states.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Lupien,
John
Craig.
“Unraveling
An
American
Dilemma:
The
Demonization
Of
Marihuana.”
http://www.iahushua.com.
April
1995.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.iahushua.com/T-‐L-‐J/DMH-‐4.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Marihuana
Tax
Act
Of
1937.”
http://www.hampapartiet.se/.
Copyright
2010.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.hampapartiet.se/taxact1937.htm.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Marshall,
Donnie
R.
“Department
Of
Justice
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
Notice
Of
Denial
Of
Petition.”
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
March
28,
2001.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/notices/2001/fr0418/fr0418a.htm.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Medina,
Jennifer.
“U.S.
Attorneys
In
California
Set
Crackdown
On
Marijuana.”
http://www.nytimes.com.
October
7,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/us/california-‐to-‐crack-‐down-‐on-‐medical-‐
marijuana.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Melanie
&
Mike.
Ed.
“Words
To
The
Wise.”
Take
Our
Word
For
It,
The
Monthly
Word-‐origin
Webzine,
Issue
136,
Page
2.
http://www.takeourword.com.
October
31,
2001.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.takeourword.com/TOW136/page2.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
10
Musto,
David
F.,
M.D.
“The
1937
Marihuana
Tax
Act.”
https://docs.google.com.
December
2,
1971.
[Online].
Available:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yjJvE-‐qQU-‐
gJ:www.mikuriya.com/s6_1.pdf+http://www.mikuriya.com/s6_1.pdf&hl=en&gl=us
&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg_a_wN70VDhtPG4Tje97DavWBtXdO6Hr1vNz3n3pM9xok2
VRFvgiv6NF5XcBkofNQbs7j6_rXHXZEnWM-‐
Ej6aAE5LNTx7HkRo5QvcpvzTyezNUkvOhEkJZui2dKxpcGcijlNRa&sig=AHIEtbSDSBi
_Z8k1RXHvlxupnkeXv9ytyg.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Nerz,
Ryan.
“Could
Legalizing
Medical
Marijuana
Boost
The
Economy?”
http://www.thetakeaway.org.
July
22,
2010.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.thetakeaway.org/2010/jul/22/could-‐legalizing-‐medical-‐marijuana-‐
boost-‐local-‐and-‐state-‐economies/.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“Patient
Advocates
Appeal
Federal
Decision
To
Deny
Medical
Marijuana
To
Millions
Of
Americans.”
http://safeaccessnow.org.
July
21,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=6760.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Peter.
“The
Truth
About
Marijuana.”
http://www.erowid.org.
November
27,
1995.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_culture11.shtml.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Phillips
Erb,
Kelly.
“IRS
Just
Says
No
To
Medical
Marijuana
Deductions.”
http://www.forbes.com.
October
6,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/10/06/irs-‐just-‐says-‐no-‐to-‐
medical-‐marijuana-‐deductions/.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Roman,
Anita.
“DEA
Raids
Medical
Marijuana
Clinic
In
Tempe.”
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com.
September
29,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/dea-‐raids-‐medical-‐marijuana-‐
clinic-‐in-‐tempe-‐9-‐29-‐2011.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Separating
The
Marijuana
And
Industrial
Hemp
Issues.”
North
American
Industrial
Hemp
Council,
Inc.
http://www.naihc.org.
Copyright
2006.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/naihc_position_paper.html.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Smith,
Phillip.
“DEA
Raids
California,
Colorado
Medical
Marijuana
Operations.”
http://stopthedrugwar.org.
October
14,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/oct/14/dea_raids_california_colorado_
me.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Steve
McWilliams
Remembered
At
Tuesday
Vigils.”
http://stopthedrugwar.org.
July
22,
2005.
[Online].
Available:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-‐
old/396/steveremembered.shtml.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
11
Swartz,
Ronald.
“Medical
Marijuana
Users
In
Substance
Abuse
Treatment.”
Harm
Reduction
Journal.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com.
March
5,
2010.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-‐7517-‐7-‐3.pdf.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Taylor,
Tia,
MPH.
“Supporting
Research
Into
The
Therapeutic
Role
Of
Marijuana,
A
Position
Paper
Of
The
American
College
Of
Physicians.”
The
American
College
Of
Physicians.
http://www.acponline.org.
July
2008.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana
.pdf.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“The
La
Guardia
Committee
Report,
The
Marijuana
Problem
In
The
City
Of
New
York,
Mayor’s
Committee
On
Marihuana.”
The
New
York
Academy
Of
Medicine.
http://druglibrary.net.
Published
1944.
[Online].
Available:
http://druglibrary.net/schaffer/Library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“The
Report
Of
The
National
Commission
On
Marihuana
And
Drug
Abuse,
Marihuana:
A
Signal
Of
Misunderstanding,
Commissioned
By
President
Richard
M.
Nixon.”
http://www.druglibrary.org.
March
1972.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
“Title
21
United
States
Code
(USC)
Controlled
Substances
Act
–
Part
C
–
Registration
Of
Manufacturers,
Distributors
and
Dispensers
Of
Controlled
Substances,
Section
823.
Registration
Requirements.”
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
Effective
January
3,
2007.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/823.htm.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Title
21
United
States
Code
(USC)
Controlled
Substances
Act
–
Part
D
–
Offences
And
Penalties,
Section
841.
Prohibited
Acts
A.”
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
Effective
January
3,
2007.
reeeed[Online].
Available:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/841.htm.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Title
21
United
States
Code
(USC)
Controlled
Substances
Act
–
Part
D
–
Offences
And
Penalties,
Section
844.
Penalties
For
Simple
Possession.”
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
Effective
January
3,
2007.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
“Title
27:
Alcohol,
Tobacco
And
Firearms,
Part
24
–
Wine.”
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
Data
current
as
of
December
16,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-‐
idx?c=ecfr;sid=a9a49788ca7827864d9d443caf245ad7;rgn=div5;view=text;node=2
7%3A1.0.1.1.19;idno=27;cc=ecfr.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
12
“Title
27:
Alcohol,
Tobacco
And
Firearms,
Part
25
–
Beer.”
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.
Data
current
as
of
December
16,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-‐
idx?c=ecfr;sid=33fc0c0194b58b6fe95208945b5c637a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=27
%3A1.0.1.1.20;idno=27;cc=ecfr.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Tyrel.
“Republicans
Are
Endorsing
Marijuana
Legislation.”
http://www.hailmaryjane.com.
July
25,
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.hailmaryjane.com/republicans-‐are-‐endorsing-‐marijuana-‐legislation/.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Williams,
Nancy
J.;
Bridget
Freisthler;
Revel
Sims.
“Crime
And
Medical
Marijuana
Dispensaries.”
California
Center
For
Population
Research
–
University
Of
California
–
Los
Angeles.
http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu.
October
2011.
[Online].
Available:
http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-‐CCPR-‐2011-‐010/PWP-‐CCPR-‐2011-‐
010.pdf.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.
Young,
Francis
L.
“United
States
Department
Of
Justice
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
In
The
Matter
Of
Marijuana
Rescheduling
Petition
Docket
No.
86-‐22
Opinion
And
Recommended
Ruling,
Findings
Of
Fact,
Conclusions
Of
Law
And
Decision
Of
Administrative
Law
Judge.”
http://www.druglibrary.net.
September
6,
1988.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.druglibrary.net/olsen/MEDICAL/YOUNG/young4.html.
Retrieved
December
19,
2011.
Yurchey,
Doug.
“The
Marijuana
Conspiracy:
The
Reason
Hemp
Is
Illegal.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com.
July
19,
2010.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/reason-‐hemp-‐is-‐illegal.html.
Retrieved
December
20,
2011.