The federal government is lying when it states that “there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any condition” and we have called them on this.  Under a little known law called the “Data Quality Act” or “Information Quality Act,” federal agencies have an obligation to disseminate truthful information.  So, back in October of 2004, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a Petition with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requesting that it correct the above statement, and three others, regarding the efficacy of marijuana for medical use.  After years of evasion and delay, HHS told us that it would defer consideration of our request to a different agency proceeding, which may take years, so we took them to court.

In February of 2007, we sued HHS under the Data Quality Act in order to achieve two goals — first, the force HHS to give us a substantive response to our Petition and, second, if necessary, have the court decide whether that response is arbitrary and capricious.  Three months later, we filed a motion for summary judgment accompanied by dozens of scientific studies, which contradict the federal government’s claims that such studies don’t exist.  Unfortunately, the district court gave our suit short shrift a dismissed the suit on the government’s motion based on the contention that there is no right to judicial review under the Data Quality Act.  In other words, the court reduced the Data Quality Act to an exhortation to federal agencies to disseminate truthful information, not a command.  But, despite what several people have written in our discussion forums, that was not the end of the line.

The case would continue on appeal in the Ninth Circuit and, luckily, our big gun, Alan Morrison, would stay on the case.  Alan co-founded the Public Citizen Litigation Group with Ralph Nader nearly forty years ago and was, until recently, an administrative law professor at Stanford.  As proven today, he’s an extremely effective oral advocate.

When I first came to ASA, I had few demands.  One of them was that I would argue every case I briefed, but to have Alan Morrison on behalf of ASA warranted an exception.

The oral argument was held today and the sparks flew.  Alan went first and the three-judge panel peppered him with questions on standing, whether there is a right to judicial review under the Data Quality Act, and whether ASA had an alternative remedy under the Controlled Substances Act (through rescheduling) that would preclude judicial review under the Data Quality Act.  Alan answered all of the questions eloquently and succinctly.  Near the end of Alan’s presentation, Judge Berzon lamented that the Court should have allotted more time for oral argument because this was such an interesting case.  The audio of the argument can be found here .

Ultimately, in addition to the medical marijuana issue, the case puts President Obama’s statements that the federal government will make scientific decisions based on science, rather than politics, to the test.  It does not seem too much to ask that federal agencies tell the truth and for courts to ensure this when it is demonstrated that they are lying.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 at 3:38 pm and is filed under Americans for Safe Access (ASA), FDA/HHS, Federal, Legal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.