stokes Cannabis Sacrament Minister
Joined: 28 Nov 2004 Posts: 1061 Location: Down By
the River
|
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:37
pm Post subject: |
|
|
FDA Delay of RX Pot
Petition May be Ploy to Put Off DQA Case
FDA Week April 21st, 2006
HHS for the sixth time
has postponed deciding on a medical marijuana petition under the
Data Quality Act, according to the
department’s Web site. The string of 60-day delays may mean that the
government fears the DQA is judicially reviewable, according to a
group that supports a policy of judicial review under the data quality law. Industry observers
say possible future court action on the medical marijuana issue
could set a judicial precedent on the DQA’s legal scope.
An
ASA spokesperson says the group will wait until fall before trying
to get the courts to force a decision under the Administrative
Procedures Act. The
source says judges have a lot of discretion under the APA so waiting
for further delays will help the group’s case. If HHS is forced to
decide and it denies ASA’s request, the group will ask a court to
review the denial under the DQA.
The DQA, sometimes called
the Information Quality
Act, requires that
federal agencies justify regulatory decisions with scientific data. If the government
disseminates information that a group believes violates the law, the
group may petition the government for a correction. However,
Congress did not clearly state if courts could review agency
decisions, and the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, which
lobbied for the DQA, have been lobbying for judicial review.
A U.S. appeals court recently refused to review an HHS
decision on a DQA petition by the salt industry. But CRE says that
was a poor case, and hopes the medical pot case will make its way to
the courts (see FDA Week, March 30). The CRE is not involved with
the ASA petition.
Bruce Levinson of the CRE interprets HHS’
delay to mean that FDA believes marijuana has the potential for
medical use, and HHS fears the courts could review their decision.
“If the agency believed that marijuana did not have medical
value, they could have rejected the petition and provided their
rationale,” Levinson states in an e-mail. “If the FDA thought that
the 4th Circuit case was definitive, they could dismiss the petition
without any concern of court action. My only conclusion is that the
6th extension reflects FDA unease with both their own formal
position on the medical value of marijuana and with their legal
position should the issue go to court.”
Americans for Safe
Access, which supports medical marijuana, petitioned HHS in October
2004 under the DQA to correct what it argues are misstatements that
marijuana and its constituent compounds have no medical use.
“Specifically, in 2001, HHS issued statements in its review
of the Marijuana Rescheduling Petition of 1995 that violate both
government- wide data
quality standards and the
HHS guidelines implementing those standards,” ASA writes in the
original petition. “The conclusion of HHS that ‘marijuana has no
currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’
lacks objectivity, utility, transparency, peer review, and public
participation. Thus, HHS has failed to ensure that the information
it disseminates is based on sound science, as required by [the
DQA].”
After some back and forth, HHS April 2005 said it was
not acting on ASA’s request. Instead, HHS said it would consider the
request in connection with a petition to reschedule marijuana, which
has been pending since 2002. ASA appealed a month later. Since then,
HHS has delayed answering six times.
http://safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=3318 _________________
| |