Appeals Court hears case on medical value of marijuana

“Standing” refers to the ability of a person or organization to be a party to a lawsuit. According to constitutional principles a person will not have standing to a controversy unless they have somehow been injured, the injury was caused by the person’s opponent in the suit, and action by the court is capable of redressing the injury. In the order requesting the clarification, the Court of Appeals made special mention of Mr. Kravitz’s alleged injury.

Kravitz, a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, suffered an auto accident in 1984 which left him totally and permanently disabled. Veterans Affairs put him on a regimen of potent pain pills with terrible side effects, and when he began using cannabis to help manage his pain and reduce his pill intake, the VA punished him by pulling him from the pain management program. ASA alleges that a rescheduling of cannabis out of Schedule I would open the door for the VA to reform its policies, so that Kravitz will no longer have to choose between legal treatments and tolerable ones.

What does the court’s request mean? Joseph Elford, counsel for ASA, says that the request is a sign that the court is taking the issue of medical marijuana seriously. But the move could presage a serious blow for medical activists.

Jeremy Daw, the author of Weed the People: From Founding Fiber to Forbidden Fruit and a graduate of Harvard Law School, notes that the move could signal a willingness by the court to delay the appeal or even dismiss it on procedural grounds. “Although it’s quite possible that the court is treading carefully, as ASA contends,” said Daw, “the request for further briefs on a procedural issue may indicate that the court intends to further delay the case by bogging it down on the standing issue. It could even mean that some of the judges on the court mean to try to dismiss the case on procedural grounds without even reaching the merits.”

The three judges on the D.C. Circuit panel expressed some sympathy for claims that plaintiffs were harmed by the Schedule I classification, necessary to establish standing to sue in the first place. Judge Harry T. Edwards said at least one of the plaintiffs, Michael Krawitz, had established a strong argument that he had standing based on his inability to obtain medical marijuana through his Veterans Administration doctor to treat chronic pain and trauma. But neither the parties nor the judges devoted much time to an even tougher hurdle: overcoming the court’s traditional stance of extreme deference to the decisions of administrative agencies like the DEA.

Even if the court did side with the plaintiffs, it would likely return the case to the DEA to reconsider its decision or require a hearing on the issue, and the agency has already declined to reclassify marijuana several times before in 1972 and again in 1988, even after an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the drug should be reclassified.

A disabled United States Air Force Veteran, Michael Krawitz served from 1981 to 1986 and was injured in an accident in Guam that was
deemed "in the line of duty" although not in any way combat related.

Mr. Krawitz had 13 surgeries to put him back together including some done in the Air Force and some done by the Department of Veterans Affairs. His job title in the Air Force was Electronic Warfare Systems Technician.

In Guam he worked on avionics equipment onboard B-52's. Since his disability - separation he attended college at Virginia Tech and although attaining a 4.0 grade point average in his Junior year of Computer Engineering he had to leave
college because of his medical disability.

Since leaving college Mr. Krawitz tried to use his time well as an advocate and in 1997 he was part of a small team of activists that protected Virginia's longstanding medical marijuana law from being repealed. In 1998 he was able to be part of a United Nations drug summit. He gave testimony and presented information inside the UN General Assembly Hall on the basic right to access required medicine. In 1999 Mr. Krawitz presented testimony to the National Academy of Science, Institute of Medicine and his story and that of a patient he advocated for were both chosen as reference patient stories and published in the reports written.