HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Drug Policy (Group) » Appeals Court hears case ... » Reply #5

Response to RainDog (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 12:41 PM

5. The ASA's brief to the DC Court of Appeals was due Monday, Oct. 22nd

The court has five days to respond after they receive the brief (noted in an earlier post) to further clarify "standing."

http://www.cannabisnowmagazine.com/breaking-news/update-on-asa-appeal

“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.”

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
RainDog Oct 2012 OP
RainDog Oct 2012 #1
LineLineNew Reply The ASA's brief to the DC Court of Appeals was due Monday, Oct. 22nd
RainDog Oct 2012 #5
RainDog Oct 2012 #2
felix_numinous Oct 2012 #3
RainDog Oct 2012 #4
Please login to view edit histories.