Jon Gettman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gettman at the Third National Clinical Conference on Cannabis Therapeutics.

Jon Gettman is a marijuana reform activist and leader of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis. Gettman has a Ph.D. in public policy and regional economic development from George Mason University and is a longtime contributor to High Times magazine. A former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Gettman filed a petition in 1995 to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. The petition was denied on technical grounds, since the petitioners lacked standing. A new petition was filed in 2002, with different plaintiffs.

1 Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition
2 Criticism of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)
3 See also
4 References

[edit] Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition

In 1999, Gettman presented a landmark speech, Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition, at the 12th International Conference on Drug Policy Reform[1]. He noted that under the Controlled Substances Act, the key decision-makers on marijuana are the scientists at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, whose scientific and medical findings are binding on the Drug Enforcement Administration. Pointing out that Schedules I and II are, by law, reserved for drugs like heroin and cocaine with a "high potential for abuse," Gettman proposed that drug policy reformers use the petitioning process to "cross-examine under oath and penalty of perjury every HHS official and scientist who claims that marijuana use is as dangerous as the use of cocaine or heroin."

[edit] Criticism of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)

In November 2004, Gettman wrote an article for High Times accusing the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) of wasting money on state level reform[2]. MPP's Bruce Mirken responded with a column noting the success of medical marijuana initiatives and citing state-by-state efforts of the pro-choice and anti-same-sex-marriage movements as proof that "[v]irtually every political movement which has had achieved success in America has pursued state and local reforms as an integral part of a national strategy"[3]. Gettman apparently remained unconvinced; in January 2005, he wrote another article repeating his arguments against state level campaigns and accusing MPP of "misguided, self-serving strategies that hurt the cause of reform"[4]. These comments appeared unlikely to repair the bitter rift between NORML and MPP.