RETHINK POT LAW, DEA TOLD

Court: Regs outta date

An appeals court ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration Thursday to promptly reconsider its policy that marijuana has no medical use, citing the drug ’s life-changing effects.

The 2-1 ruling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals came in a case brought by a former Jets player and four others who said the feds’ classification of weed in the same category as heroin and LSD makes no sense.

“Plaintiffs claim that a shift over time in our understanding of the uses and dangers of marijuana warrants a change in marijuana’s classification,” Judge Guido Calabresi wrote for the majority.

“It is possible that the current law, though rational once, is now heading towards irrationality; it may even conceivably be that it has gotten there already.”

The judges said they might intervene if the DEA did not act “with adequate dispatch” to a request to review its classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.

Attorney Michael Hiller said the decision represented a monumental moment in the effort to decriminalize marijuana.

“This case represents the first time in history that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act has survived dismissal,” he said.

The attorney represents former Jets defensive end Marvin Washington, who said the DEA’s classification of marijuana hampered his ability to work in the medical marijuana business. The four who joined Washington in the suit said marijuana had helped them cure seizures and manage pain.

“Plaintiffs should not be required to live indefinitely with uncertainty about their access to allegedly lifesaving medication or live in fear that pursuing such medical treatment may subject them or their loved ones to devastating consequences,” Calabresi wrote.

Dissenting Judge Dennis Jacobs argued in a four-page buzzkill that the court had no role to play in the dispute. He also doubted the DEA would change its policy any time soon.

“There is no reason to anticipate a swift ruling that entails the assessment of countervailing risks, the pendency of legislation, and the eliciting of opinions on issues of medicine and public health,” he wrote.