In the debate over the legal status of marijuana, one of the major obstacles to more lenient federal treatment is the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of cannabis as a dangerous drug with no medical use. A federal appeals panel declined Tuesday to change that classification, finding that the DEA’s decision not to reschedule marijuana was not so improper that it warranted court invalidation:

On the merits, the question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits. Rather, the limited question that we address is whether the DEA’s decision declining to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana under the CSA was arbitrary and capricious. [...]

Petitioners … are left with the difficult task of showing that the DEA has misapplied its own regulations. [...]

[W]e are obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of “adequate and well-controlled studies.” Judged against the DEA’s standard, we find nothing in the record that could move us to conclude that the agency failed to prove by substantial evidence that such studies confirming marijuana’s medical efficacy do not exist.

Since the Controlled Substances Act was first passed in 1970, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive of the five schedules. The initial House of Representatives report recommended that Congress classify marijuana as Schedule I at least temporarily “until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue,” reasoning that uncertainty remained about the effects of the drug. But multiple requests that the DEA reconsider its decision have failed, on the grounds that there is still insufficient research to make a determination.

Plaintiffs in this case had cited more than 200 peer-reviewed studies, and argued that larger-scale studies are precluded precisely because the government doesn’t support research on Schedule I drugs. The Schedule I designation also means no prescriptions can be written for the drug, and Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee cited the designation as the reason for blocking that state’s medical marijuana law. Both Chafee and Washington Gov. Christie Gregoire have called for the drug to be rescheduled.

In a deferential and unsurprising ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said it was bound by the DEA’s determination about what types of studies constitute “adequate and well-controlled.” But as the court explains, this decision represents courts’ extreme hesitance to disturb the determinations that agencies make, rather than any assessment of the medical benefits of the drug.

Nonetheless, it signifies the intractable battle to remove one of the major hurdles in reforming federal marijuana law. The classification of marijuana as a drug with no medical value appears increasingly at odds with the opinions of many doctors who attest to the medical benefits of the drug, and of patients, who take advantage of dispensaries in the 18 states where they are now legal.

A number of highly addictive and potent drugs, such as cocaine, opium poppy, morphine and codeine, are listed as Schedule II, designated for those drugs that have a high potential for abuse and dependence, but which have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.” And the synthetic version of THC, known as dronabinol, is listed as Schedule III, even though THC is the ingredient in cannabis that causes psychoactive effects.

Virginia Senate Republican Leader Tommy Norment defended Monday’s GOP sneaky maneuver to subvert majority rule and gerrymander the Senate maps as nothing more than politics. And, even though he voted for the current bipartisan maps, he blamed Senate Democrats for having employed an unfair process two years ago.

Norment conceded that the sneak attack “may have been annoying, painful, and even strained some friendships,” but attacked Senate Democrats for being sanctimonious:

NORMENT: I would remind those who have been so critical of what happened yesterday: redistricting is always a combination of politics and policy and that is what was dealt with yesterday. When the original redistricting plan came through, there can be cries of how collaborative it was and how inclusive. And it was so inclusive that originally it ran me almost from the North Carolina line to the outskirts of Richmond. … and [that 2011 initial bill] was voted out, strictly on a partisan line. In other words, the will of the majority was invoked against the will of the minority, and that is the process.

But Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) vetoed that initial bill. And the amended bill he signed, establishing the current maps, passed the Senate on a 32-5 bipartisan vote with Norment’s own vote in support as well as the majority of Norment’s Republican colleagues.

Seemingly forgetting his own support for the existing maps — and the Department of Justice’s pre-clearance of those maps as acceptable under the Voting Rights Act — Norment defended the GOP re-redistricting as necessary to fix an inadequate map. “It corrects the egregious and gratuitous splits of localities which existed under those boundaries,” he explained, “Deliberately, intentionally, and with calculation, they split towns, they split precincts, and they did it for one reason.” That reason, he added, was “trying to maintain a Democratic majority for years to come.”

Watch Norment’s speech:

While Norment concluded by admitting, “I understand that yesterday was not one of the finest days in the Senate,” he admonished Democrats not to attempt to block future legislation because they had their “feelings hurt on a political move.” But should this bill become law, he will have done exactly what he attempts to scold the Democrats for.

A freshman Republican congressman is arguing that the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted broadly enough to allow ordinary citizens access to the same equipment that the military uses.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), who unseated longtime Rep. Cliff Stearns last year thanks in large part to Tea Party support, sat down with Florida political blog The Shark Tank over the weekend to discuss gun violence. The freshman GOPer said he’d spoken with a number of constituents recently and approvingly relayed their sentiment: “when you read the Second Amendment,” Yoho said, “the militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government.” Preserving those protections, he argued, is “more important today than ever”:

YOHO: On guns, [my constituents] were saying that the sentiment, when you read the Second Amendment, is that the militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government. I think it’s more important today than ever, that we uphold our Second Amendment.

Watch it:

Military weapon technology is considerably more advanced today than when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and so is U.S. military structure. Back then, the pinnacle of firearm technology was cannons and muskets, and citizens joining the military were expected to supply their own weapons. Nowadays, hydrogen bombs and tanks exist. The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by originalist Justice Antonin Scalia, sensibly ruled that Congress may prohibit citizens from carrying “dangerous and unusual weapons.” After all, we all know at least a few people who we’d prefer not to possess nuclear arms.

This is why Yoho’s declaration is a dangerous one. When single-shot guns that took a long time to reload were the most advanced gun available, there was less to fear in citizens having the same access to weapons as soldiers. To hold that same standard in the nuclear age is naive and alarming.