From: <RickMAPS@aol.com>
Amusing Development from DEA regarding
UMass Amherst project
posted July 17, 2002
Friends,
For the last several years, MAPS has been
working with Prof. Lyle Craker,
UMass Amherst Dept. of Plant and Soil Sciences, in an effort to
obtain a DEA
license to establish a small facility to produce high-potency
marijuana for
FDA-approved research. If we can break NIDA's monopoly on the
supply of
marijuana (low-potency) that can be used in FDA-approved research,
medical
marijuana research will move forward with a substantially greater
chance of
success.
In informal discussions, a senior DEA official
has indicated to me that DEA
is likely to cite US international treaty obligations from the
Single
Convention as preventing private production facilities. As a result,
I've
asked Graham Boyd of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Group, and
Peter Hutt
and Alexei Silverman of DC law firm Covington & Burling to
draft a legal
opinion regarding US Int. treaty obligations, for submission to
DEA. This
opinion is being completed early next week. It's clear to us that
the Single
Convention would permit DEA to issue the license, in a manner
similar to the
Home Office's licensing of GW Pharmaceuticals. However, it's quite
possible
that DEA will disagree.
As an amusing aside, we submitted the application
to DEA last June, at the
same time as the MA. Dept. of Public Health application. I'd been
told by
DEA that it wouldn't consider the application until it had state
approval,
but thought it best to submit both applications at the same time.
In
December, MA. Dept. of Public Health said it had no objections
in principle
if DEA was willing to grant the license. I called DEA then to
see what it
had to say, and was told the application was lost!! UMass Amherst
Dept. of
Grants and Contracts had saved a photocopy of the original application,
with
date stamp showing it was mailed in June 2001, so we faxed that
in. In Feb.
2002, DEA refused to accept the application, saying that it lacked
an
original signature (DEA lost the application with the original
signature).
I then planned to resubmit a new application
with the legal analysis and a
letter from several Congressional reps (signatures gathered by
Steve Fox at
MPP) saying they support licensing private production in order
to facilitate
medical marijuana research.
Last week, Prof. Craker received a package
from DEA. The package had a
printed return address of DEA headquarters, but didn't identify
anyone in
particular. There was no letter or card inside. The only thing
inside was
the
original application and cover letter, date stamped by DEA showing
it was
received in June 2001!
DEA has now broken the Administrative Procedures
Act, though of course that
doesn't mean much. I spoke to a senior DEA administrator who was
incredibly
embarrassed and I think unaware of the license having been found
(if it ever
was really lost) and then returned without comment.
Next week the same old application will be
returned with the legal analysis
of US Int. Treaty obligations, and a letter from 5 MA. Congressmen
saying
they support licensing private production in order to facilitate
medical
marijuana research.
Rick Doblin, Ph.D.,
MAPS (www.maps.org)
-----------------
MAPS-Forum@maps.org,
a member service of the Multidisciplinary Association
for Psychedelic Studies (see www.maps.org/cgi-bin/thatsanorder_LE
).
To [un]subscribe, email the message text,
[un]subscribe maps-forum youraddress to majordomo@maps.org
List archives: www.cerebral.org/Maps
Guidelines for authors: www.maps.org/guidelines.txt
MAPS Forum is supported by a generous grant from the Promind Foundation.
