Military vets, football players and moms across the U.S. band together to fight for cannabis legalization

A nearly three-year-old case, Washington v. Barr, which pits former NFL star Marvin Washington and plaintiffs against Attorney General William Barr, received a boost this week.

A slew of organizations, including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Americans for Safe Access and U.S. law firm Ansell Grimm & Aaron have joined the fight, filing amicus briefs in the case, which challenge the constitutionality of weed’s Schedule 1 status.

If the Supreme Court of the United States chooses to hear the case, it could change U.S. drug policy.

“Patients today face an untenable choice,” cannabis attorney Joshua Bauchner said in a statement. “They can either risk federal prosecution for using medical cannabis in accordance with state and local laws at the advice of their doctors, or risk serious, even fatal, health consequences. This is an unacceptable trade-off that no one should be forced to make any longer,” Bauchner argued.

Ansell, Grimm & Aaron are representing five organizations with a vested interest in the case, including Athletes for CARE, a non-profit of former pro athletes turned cannabis advocates, After The Impact Fund, an organization that helps military vets and ex-athletes receive treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, among other conditions, and NFL Sisters in Service, Inc., a non-profit comprised of the spouses, daughters and mothers of current and former NFL players who advocate on behalf of those players.

In its amicus brief filed last week, NORML representative David Holland, Esq., argued that the federal scheduling of cannabis is unconstitutional due to all three levels of government engaging in activity that’s in direct conflict with the plant’s Schedule I status.

“The brief exposes a fundamental paradox — if cannabis is federally illegal for all purposes, and the three coordinate branches of the federal government have acted to allow for cannabis businesses, then the federal government is nullifying its own law,” Holland wrote. “Simply put, under the Constitution, something cannot be illegal and legal at the same time, especially when it comes to state laws that conflict with federal laws.”

The Schedule I classification means cannabis is listed alongside heroin and the plant is deemed to have “no accepted medical use,” despite the plethora of research that indicates the opposite and the more than 3 million Americans who depend on medical cannabis, as Ansell, Grimm & Aaron notes in its statement.

“The decision to use cannabis for medical reasons is no less important than the decision to use common prescription drugs,” said Anthony Mellaci, a retired Superior Court judge.

“It is no less personal than the deeply intimate decision to refuse medical treatment for ethical or other reasons. My own son, Daniel, age 30, suffers from ALS and requires medical cannabis to have any quality of life. The federal government’s placement of cannabis in Schedule I would relegate him, and other patients, to a lifetime of suffering. It’s time to end that suffering,” Judge Mellaci added.