Are you saying that the framers of the constitution left citizens with no remedy against bad laws? As for the paper money argument, that was a stretch to reply to a deleted comment, after the comment was deleted, my response no longer applies. Now, with over 20 years of research, including hushed executive branch commissioned studies, there is enough evidence to make a case that the FDA is not doing their job. They'll blame the Controlled Substances Act and wait for Congress. Congress in turn will wait for FDA. Please revise your answer accordingly with proper instruments of remedy.

@irth There is a remedy. It's called voting. What policies are good or bad is not a matter for the courts.

I find that point of view ridiculous. If a person has a life-threatening illness and research indicates positive treatment comes from a controlled substance, yet none of the responsible parties acknowledge the mistake, there must be recourse. Please revise your post to answer the question directly or move commentary to a comment under the question. Thank you.

Also, no part of the FDA's job includes overriding acts of Congress, and Congress need not wait for the FDA to do anything. Congress gets to make laws. They may be stupid, but the courts don't care. Executive agencies may be delegated power to regulate in accordance with the law, but Congress need not legislate in accordance with regulation.

@irth You may find it ridiculous. I'm at a loss why you think the legal system cares.

I disagree entirely with that viewpoint. It's my understanding that the judicial system's responsibility in checks and balances is to check congress's laws are constitutionally valid and that no rights are being infringed on by legislation. Please review this link so we're on the same page. cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/legislation.html

@irth It checks if things are constitutionally valid. But "this is dumb and experts disagree" isn't a constitutional issue.

According to the 9th amedment, all rights not listed are still reserved. According to the WHO, "Entitlements include the right to a system of health protection that gives everyone an equal opportunity to enjoy the highest attainable level of health." -who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs323/en.. so if it's proven that cannabis has medicinal benefit, and tests do show this, then clearly, only citizens in certain states have an equal opportunity to a "highest level of health" and so the state and federal laws that prohibit such medicine should rightfully be viewed as unconstitutional.

@irth Can you cite a single US court case accepting a right to an equal opportunity to a highest attainable level of health?

@cpast, i'm no lawyer and not sure of case law to cite, that's why i'm on this site. you sound like a u.s. lawyer who is knowledgeable in common use of the law and i thank you for your opinions.

what would you recommend as a smart strategy to use in this situation?

At the end of the day, the reason the government can create laws about marijuana boils down to the commerce act. see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich Honestly, your best bet is to join with a group attempting to get congress to change their mind.