The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the appeals court for trial cases in Washington, D.C.) will review scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of medical marijuana – the first time in 20 years that a federal court has agreed to hear oral arguments on the subject.  Opening arguments will take place in this case, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, on October 16.

This development, hailed by many as a milestone for federal cannabis policy, comes on the heels of a long legal battle for the petitioners (or appellants) in this case, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) – a group of physicians, medical professionals, and patients advocating legal access to marijuana for research and medical use.  Last year, the respondent (or appellee), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), denied a 2002 petition to reclassify marijuana by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC), an organization founded to support removal of marijuana from its Schedule I classification.  Schedule I, the most restrictive category under the federal government’s drug classification system, is reserved for drugs that “have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.”

The DEA’s denial of the CRC’s petition prompted a lawsuit by the ASA, which is hoping that next week’s legal challenge will prompt the court to reconsider marijuana’s Schedule I classification.  The ASA appeal brief argues that the DEA “acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and without substantial evidence, in concluding that marijuana does not have a ‘currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.’”  The brief cites a slew of studies showing the benefits of medical marijuana, and argues that the DEA has neglected to take more than 200 such studies into consideration.  These studies indicate, for instance, that medical marijuana is effective in reducing neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake – especially in patients with reduced muscle mass – and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.

The DEA, meanwhile, has argued that there is not substantial evidence that the drug should be rescheduled.  In its petition denial to reschedule marijuana last year, it cited an assessment from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that found that there exists no consensus in the medical community regarding the supposed medical benefits of marijuana.  It further argued that the drug continues to meet the criteria for Schedule I control, given that it “has a high potential for drug abuse” and “lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision,” among other factors.

In its reply brief, the ASA states that the criteria used by the DEA and the HHS for scheduling drugs is flawed, arguing that the two organizations failed to compare marijuana to other scheduled substances – a violation of the federal requirement that, when scheduling any given drug, a comparative analysis be performed to determine relative abuse potential.

There does not appear to be any conclusive scientific evidence proving medical marijuana’s efficacy.  Indeed, there are a host of studies that dispute its effectiveness.  Nonetheless, the ASA remains optimistic, arguing that the government’s position is out of step with increasing evidence of the benefits of the drug.  The growing number of medical groups advocating a change in federal cannabis policy seems to point towards this fact.  The American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American College of Physicians, for instance, support either medical access to marijuana, or advocate that it should be reclassified as a drug that has a medical benefit.