DEA Finally Expected To Reclassify Marijuana
The change from Schedule I to Schedule III is welcome, but removing it from the schedules altogether is the best option.

The federal government is finally expected to change the way it regulates marijuana, such that the drug would no longer be completely forbidden. The change is welcome, but it does not go far enough.
"The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug," the Associated Press reported on Tuesday. The proposal "would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation's most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use."
The policy would signal a welcome shift from decades of prohibitionist drug policy. Since 1970, the federal government has regulated marijuana under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, intended for drugs with "a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment." Other Schedule I substances include heroin and peyote.
That description has always been ridiculous when applied to marijuana, but especially in recent years, as more than two-thirds of U.S. states, plus three territories and the District of Columbia, now allow marijuana for medical use—not to mention that 24 states, two territories, and D.C. further allow recreational use.
The proposed reclassification stems from President Joe Biden's October 2022 announcement calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary Xavier Becerra of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to "initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law."
In August 2023, HHS delivered its recommendation: Marijuana should be reclassified from Schedule I to Schedule III. According to the DEA, Schedule III drugs have "a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence" and can be prescribed by a doctor. Examples include ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. Marijuana would not be completely legalized, though: Schedule III substances are still subject to regulation on their sale and use.
Even now, if the DEA decides to reschedule marijuana, nothing will change right away: The proposal "still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget," the A.P. notes, after which "the DEA will take public comment on the plan…. After the public comment period,…the agency would publish the final rule."
Marijuana prohibition is an antiquated notion, and its end is long overdue. Nearly 90 percent of Americans now think marijuana should be legal in some capacity, according to a Gallup poll conducted earlier this year, with 57 percent favoring full legalization and another 32 percent preferring that it be legal only for medical use.
Even the government's excuses for keeping cannabis illegal have never stood up to scrutiny. When HHS decided to recommend reclassification last year, it effectively reversed itself and contradicted its own long-held position on the topic; the DEA has previously declined to reschedule marijuana five times. As Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote in January, "The [HHS] reversal shows that marijuana's classification has always been a political question rather than a legal or scientific matter."
"It is significant for these federal agencies, and the DEA and [Food and Drug Administration] in particular, to acknowledge publicly for the first time what many patients and advocates have known for decades: that cannabis is a safe and effective therapeutic agent for tens of millions of Americans," said Deputy Director Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in an emailed statement. But that's not far enough, Armentano argues: "Just as it is intellectually dishonest and impractical to categorize cannabis in the same placement as heroin, it is equally disingenuous and unfeasible to treat cannabis in the same manner as anabolic steroids and ketamine."
Rescheduling marijuana so that people can use it without fear of being put in prison is a welcome first step. But the best solution would be for Congress to simply decriminalize it altogether.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How about The Libertarian argument for legalizing all drugs because the federal government doesn’t have the authority to prohibit them in the first place?
Is that too much to ask?
Apparently you weren't paying attention when Gary Johnson and Bill Weld articulated the official Libertarian position. We need to decriminalize MJ and tax the hell out of it. But not that other stuff. That would be crazy.
Unfortunately I was paying attention.
Bill Weld certainly is an asshole, trash politician but Johnson was for legalizing weed before it was cool. He deserves credit were credits due on that.
He was certainly protecting his personal supply.
His mistake was getting high on that personal supply. A big no no, and his shitty presidential campaign proves it.
Kinda looks like.
https://www.today.com/news/gary-johnson-sticking-his-tongue-out-more-see-week-s-t103256
"Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson sticking his tongue out during an interview with NBC’s Kasie Hunt"
That means six more weeks of winter.
Ha!
Call me crazy but how about legalize it and tax it just the same as any other intoxicant (ignoring yesterday's article about how malt-based alcohol is taxed at much lower rates than distilled booze)?
Bill Weld: You're crazy.
How about legalize it and then not anything else?
Treat it the same as booze, and the government gets a nifty name for a new alphabet agency. Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Cannabis and Tobacco. Best department store ever. FACT
Appeals to a lack of authority dont work. Mentioning the Constitution or Bill of Rights gets you marked as some right wing wacko, which is less than useful since the aforementioned right wing wackos want nothing to do with ending the war on drugs.
Maybe they've changed on this too, but Reason has historically taken that position. I'd like to say it goes without saying on a libertarian website, but that doesn't always seem to be true these days with what to me are the obvious libertarian positions.
When was the last time they articulated this position?
Historically we have tried to grow the party on disenfranchised Republicans who tire of voting for the party of Socialism Lite. Problem is that hasn't really worked well in 5 decades. So why try to sell the product of individual liberty in a way that will appeal to the right by mentioning the constitution and stuff?
Since the DNC is making a hard left turn and stepped on the gas we will have a better chance going after moderate democrats who see their party has left them behind. For this you need a new sales pitch. Legalize and tax is an argument former Democrats will respond to. Once you have them on board and likening the general idea then sell them on government free roads.
Sure, conservatives don't like the sales pitch. So fucking what. If they haven't already gotten over drugs, porn and abortion then they never will so fuck 'em.
we will have a better chance going after moderate democrats who see their party has left them behind
There is a name for this, they are called "neoliberals".
As opposed to the mainstream democrats. Who are now mostly neo Marxist. Like you.
Jeff replied to one of his wolves in libertarian clothing.
Neo Marxist on the streets, fascist in the sheets.
Sheets? Perhaps a circus sized tent tarp in his case.
Please refrain from including yourself in the libertarian umbrella. Maybe the big L party of Weld that panders to democrats.
Thanks.
I really dislike weed and drugs in general. They damage individual lives and drag down a society. That said, I think they should be legal and will applaud this step in the right direction.
That is the Federalist argument.
Which is ok.
But the better argument is, even with the power to do so, the government should not criminalize drugs.
Because liberty
Agree, I don’t think states should prohibit drugs either, I was strictly commenting on federal law.
Seven months from the election eh? Will recreational dispensaries be able to open bank accounts. Will truck drivers still be dragged off the road for random tests? Will the pro Palestinian activists vote for sleepy Joe? Will Gaza legalize recreational MJ? Will 4/20 finally be declared a federal holiday? I'm more confused than I was before I read this.
These questions and many others will be answered on the next episode...
Oh shit. Totally forgot that show from back when TV was actually funny.
Welcome news.
Because it might help Biden get re-elected?
It will not. SleepyJoe missed an opportunity here by not making it totally legal.
Remember that day the Constitution was Amended to authorize a federal DEA, FDA, HHS, etc, etc, etc....
Yeah; me neither.
F'En [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
What the public wants should be irrelevant.
I'm sure it'll be completely legalized in time for the criminalization of tobacco. In 50 years it'll turn out tobacco has medical and social benefits. We can legalize heroin and ban GMO rice! Blah blah blah.
Humans are a bunch of liberty hating monkey sheep.
Oh and by the way.
We were told, over and over again, that every time Trump did anything that was even vaguely resembling something that was libertarian-ish or libertarian-adjacent, even if it was for the wrong reasons, even if it was only accidentally, that nonetheless Trump deserved praise as The Most Libertarian President Evah and it was just TDS to criticize him for it.
So, here comes Biden, who does something that is at least in the direction of libertarian when it comes to marijuana. Is it because he is a libertarian? LOL no. Is he doing it for libertarian reasons? LOL no, he's doing it to try to get votes from the young voter crowd in an election year. Is Biden still awful in all sorts of other ways? Of course. But nonetheless on this one issue, he is moving in the correct libertarian direction. Let's see if the usual crowd around here will give credit where credit is due.
– Comprehensive Control Act: This 1984 law, spearheaded by Biden and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), expanded federal drug trafficking penalties and civil asset forfeiture
– Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986: This law, sponsored and partly written by Biden, ratcheted up penalties for drug crimes.
– Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988: This law, co-sponsored by Biden, strengthened prison sentences for drug possession, enhanced penalties for transporting drugs, and established the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which coordinates and leads federal anti-drug efforts.
Are you sure this is even Biden’s doing?
Controlled Substances Act Introduced by Harley Staggers[D].
Sure; you show where Biden was the main influence of this change and he'll get credit for it. Should it be as much credit as the left has given Republicans for NOT actually starting the War on Drugs in the first place or what?
He doesn’t care. He’s here to do a job and he’s going to do it.
Pretty sure Trump was a Democrat in the 80s.
Yeah, I remember him co-sponsoring all those bills in the Senate too.
Fucking idiot.
He was throwing money, and lots of it, at Democrats up to and including Hilary Clinton for Senate from New York. Lets not deny the facts.
At best Trump is a moderate populist. I am still thinking of voting for the guy because he's an asshole and pisses a lot of people off. But that's the only reason.
He talks openly about that. As a real estate developer in NYC, you have to donate to the democrats. Or the democrats shut you out.
Was he giving them money to fight the war on drugs?
Try to stick to the topic instead of retreating to your TDS.
>Was he giving them money to fight the war on drugs?
He has openly stated multiple times he wants to execute drug dealers. Criminalize to the max!
He takes his cues from strongman Duerte. Most libertarian dictator ever! Oh wait I am confusing the Trump memes. Apologies. Executing drug dealers would be the most libertarian president ever. And don't forget invading Mexico to fight the cartels. Libertarian goals one and all.
This is why the TDS label exists, in fact. The discussion was about drug prohibition and how Biden was behind a lot of bills that perpetuated the war on drugs. Millions of people that didn't violate anyone's rights thrown in a cage because of Biden's actions.
And you tried to change the subject to Trump donating to democrats so he could build hotels, which means you don't really give a shit about drug prohibition. So go fuck yourself.
Pretty sure Trump was a Democrat in the 80s.
Even Fatass Donnie noticed that the economy fared better with Dem presidents.
Then he went and proved it.
Pretty much everyone who was an adult in the late 70s would disagree.
Trump in 2004: 'The economy does better under the Democrats'
https://theweek.com/speedreads/561052/trump-2004the-economy-does-better-under-democrats
And that was before the Bushpig disasters.
Oh yeah? Well Republicans inherited bad economies thanks to Democrats. And Democrats benefited from the delayed effects of Republican policies.
You know the Trump Cult rules:
All bad economies are Democrats fault.
All good economies are because Republicans.
The 2020 crash was Democrats fault. As was the 2008 crash.
Don't forget the Great Depression. You've got quite a list of "bad economies" under Democrats fault. But low and behold the almighty wisdom of Trump comes to your rescue. lol...
Now do some more worthy examples like Detroit and Venezuela and the USSR and Nazi-Germany. Ya know all those locations that mastered the Democrat belief that 'Guns' (gov-guns) are going to make everything for them.
Don’t forget the Great Depression.
Hoover was a Republican.
Do you think Hoover presided over the Great Depression?
Of course he doesn't, but Buttplug is here to shill for the Democrats and tell lies.
Be fair, both sides have the same rules.
If our tribe writes it and the other tribe signs it, blame the other.
If our tribe writes it and our tribe signs it, blame the other.
If the other tribe writes it and our tribe signs it, blame the other.
If the other tribe writes it and other tribe signs it, blame the other.
Poor sarc.
Watching Dems blindly repeat their narratives is boring. But you persist.
What if one tribe conceives, evangelizes, writes, formally proposes, votes on, and passes it, and the other has to sign it because it's veto proof?
That means it's the signer's fault, right?
If the signer signs it, then yes they are responsible for signing it.
You talk about tacit approval all the time because one of your favorite arguments is to to a Jesse and attack people for what they didn't say: "You never said anything about xyz! That means you think [put whatever it is you're arguing against here]! If you say otherwise you're a liar!"
Well Trump didn't tacitly approve this bill by doing nothing. He signed the fucker. That's explicit approval. Let me repeat that. He signed the bill which means he gave it explicit approval.
So yes that does make him responsible.
No you child raping faggot, he was just playing the game. Because he had to. You democrats rig everything against anyone who doesn’t.
It will be so much better when people like you are in landfills.
Sure; you show where Biden was the main influence of this change and he’ll get credit for it.
Oh, I see. A different standard for Biden than for Trump. Shocking.
By that standard, Trump deserves no credit for the First Step Act because it wasn't even his idea.
How so? Trump was the main influence of the De-Regulation Committees existence, tossing out Obama's illegal E.O. and exiting the Paris Accord.
By that standard, Trump deserves no credit for the First Step Act because it wasn’t even his idea.
Doubling down on being disingenuous. For Biden!
It's what Jeff is.
Reagan was the King of the Drug Warriors.
"Designer drugs" and crack.
DARE to be MADD
I grew to hate Nancy Reagan after a few million JUST SAY NO! advertisements. And then there was her love of astrology and how she pushed it on Ronnie. Fucking vapid bitch.
Worst First Lady ever.
(I know I'm supposed to say Hil-Dog was)
But of course you think Hil-dog was absolutely fucking spectacular. From an early start of smearing 12-year-old rape victims as wanton sluts, to fabricating evidence that was then submitted to a judge, to destroying 33,000 subpoenaed emails, smashing subpoenaed phones and harddrives, and hiding SIM cards.
But Nancy Reagan? Like every elderly woman she believed in astrology and didn’t like drugs. The absolute fucking worst.
You’re like a cartoon, Shrike.
We should treat Shreek like Wile E Coyote. And see how he fares.
Oh come on. Even I who voted for the man can admit he did a lot more flailing around like a drowning man than accomplishing an agenda. He heavily focused on a couple of semi domestic things and managed to open a good dialoge with some bad international actors. Which BTW I think was a great thing he actually did.
But don't give the man credit for all the good things and hide the blame for the bad. He was a mixed bag and beyond pissing off all the people who needed pissing off his domestic accomplishments were very hit or miss.
But don’t give the man credit for all the good things and hide the blame for the bad.
Do you even Reason, bro?
Trump was the Most Libertarian President Evah. And all of those things that were un-libertarian (e.g. CARES Act) were not his fault.
It was definitely Trumps fault for signing it and his squabble with Thomas Massie [R] over it made him look like a real lefty-sh*t.
One thing is obviously certain though; The left didn’t make any squabble about it short of it wasn’t enough $$$$$$. In fact the House leader [D] downright thwarted any vote on the bill and just gave it a “pass” as well the the [D] House wrote the bill.
Course everyone but lefty propagandists know the [D] side is all about government spending. It's not like they try to hide it.
First Step Act introduced by Dan Sullivan [R].
That's right! Trump wasn't involved (except for signing it) so he gets no credit. Isn't that how it works?
For Kreemjeff Radical Shill it is. Trump could raise the dead and you'd bitch about overpopulation. Biden could rape a puppy and you'd praise his love of animals.
Did Biden sign an E.O. to make this happen?
Frankly I don't even credit Trump for the First Step Act but if you want Biden credit for this in contrast to his mountains of history on the contrary there better be something better than it happened on his watch.
“Oh, I see. A different standard for Biden than for Trump. Shocking.”
Not a different standard. A different situation. It was right there, clear as day in his comment.
But you couldn’t help yourself from lying about what he said. For Biden.
Should it be as much credit as the left has given Republicans for NOT actually starting the War on Drugs in the first place or what?
lolol it was NIXON (R) who invented the phrase “War on Drugs”
the War on Drugs has been a very bipartisan matter for a long time now.
Introduced into legislature by a [D].
that's right, BIPARTISAN
maybe you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to realize that both teams suck
Yet somehow every-time I pull UN-Constitutional legislation 99% of the time it’s introduced by a Democrat.
The bipartisan cry from the left only amounts to "but the [R] didn't STOP us!"
Oh, well look at Lying Jeffy! He really owned all the Nixon supporters!
Tricky jeffy!
Won’t be surprised if Biden scraps this idea.
Comprehensive Control Act: This 1984 law
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988
I like how you jacked off to a photo of St Ronnie while you purposely omitted the King Drug Warrior.
I think the new rule around here is that when presidents sign bills into laws, they are not responsible for whatever happens as a result of that law. It is entirely the fault of Congress.
So when Reagan signed strict drug control measures into law, it's not his fault, because Democrats in Congress passed it.
So when Trump signed the CARES Act into law, it's not his fault, because Democrats in Congress passed it.
Evidently the chief executive is not responsible for anything!
Except when it's Biden, in which case the chief executive is responsible for everything. But only if it's bad.
If it's something relatively good, like moving pot from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, then the chief executive is not responsible anymore because he wasn't directly involved.
These shifting rules are tough to keep track of!
Or maybe Reagan is dead and Biden is president and running for reelection Lying Jeffy?
I have to agree with Jeff, it's hard to follow the shifting rules. It's like keeping up with a game my 4 year old grand daughter comes up with.
Your daughter spend a lot of time talking about Ronald Reagan? I can see why you're confused.
So when Democrats write the ARPA bill with the same $ as the Cares Act (which they also wrote) and thwarted the House vote on as well as passed entirely on a partisan line I guess it just disappears into that magical smoke because that was (D)ifferent.... ?
Let’s see if the usual crowd around here will give credit where credit is due.
I've already asked them to give credit to Biden for continuing and expanding upon trade policies that they defended with personal attacks while Trump was president. No takers. Principals, not principles.
Well I know I gave credit to Biden for continuing tariffs but you were so TDS loaded all you wanted to do was trash ?Trumps? Tarrifs.
Leftard Self-Projection 101.
I stand corrected!
One Trump defender gives credit to Biden for being a fellow economic ignoramus.
Please be nice to my guy Biden!
Yes, this is a positive move. Biden is still a piece of shit who is responsible for a lot of the drug war.
What's worse, tough on crime or defund the police?
Yeah Zeb, what’s your favorite bumper sticker?
Or maybe the feds just don't have any legal authority granted by the people to regulate their food, drugs, reproductive systems, houses, water, air, land, cars, education, healthcare, etc, etc, etc, etc.......
Yes he is. It is reason #9,389,397 to not vote for him or Team Blue.
And let's not forget that Trump originally said he was all for medical MJ and leaving legality of cannabis to the states... then he turned around and appointed a hardcore drug warrior as AG, and then did nothing as another drug warrior with the same last name cockblocked all pro-MJ legislation that landed in his committee. This progress on MJ has to happen now, because I can't trust Trump to move in the right direction on this issue.
I gave him credit below for making the effort to move in a good direction.
At the same time, the executive cannot be allowed to make this kind of change in a duly authorized law. The law Congress passed defines Schedule I, and it expressly and explicitly include marijuana by name as a Schedule I drug. The executive branch cannot come along and say, "Yeah, we're moving it to Schedule III."
Or, rather, if/when the executive does that it should be smacked in the face hard by SCOTUS. If Congress wants it to be a Schedule III drug, then Congress can change the law. That's how it's supposed to work.
But Biden has demonstrated time and time again he doesn't give a rat's ass about the law or any limits on the executive authority.
Except the controlled substances act did delegate to the administrator of the DEA the ability to schedule, re-schedule, and de-schedule drugs.
There's a whole process involved. The DEA administrator blocked previous efforts when groups like NORML sued to have it re-scheduled. You should look at the sordid history.
Would you look at that. Huh. Okay then, nevermind. Objection withdrawn.
(a)Establishment
There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after October 27, 1970, and shall be updated and republished on an annual basis thereafter.
The Controlled Substance Act is UN-Constitutional.
That should be the main rebuttal if anyone plans on keeping a USA.
The proposal “still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget,” the A.P. notes, after which “the DEA will take public comment on the plan…. After the public comment period,…the agency would publish the final rule.”
Being a bit of a cynic...at which point the final rule will be whatever the the current administration wants regardless of the performative hearings (c.f. Net Neutrality, Title IX, Independent Contractors, and non-compete agreement regulations).
I look forward to Lying Jeffy’s and sarc’s comments if it never happens.
According to the DEA, Schedule III drugs have "a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence" and can be prescribed by a doctor. Examples include ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.
One supposes the high potential for dependence is what keeps water off Schedule III.
Rescheduling marijuana so that
peoplenon-gun-owners can use it without fear of being put in prison is a welcome first step.FTFY.
"regulates marijuana"
The only way to regulate a drug used to legalize it. If anything the drug war showed how long something something puts it on the black market where there is zero regulation, and complete free market forces at work, and zero control. Has outlawing drug ever succeeded in extinguishing it to use?
Big whoop. So, maybe in another 50 years they'll completely de-schedule it, and certain states will follow suit another 50 years after that.
So, it's basically the 'student loan forgiveness' scam, but just re-tooled for another issue.
"There is always Soma, delicious Soma."
I love how you bring up heroin and peyote up for comparison - like it's a pearl clutching moment that weed would be considered in the same category - but we all know you want those legalized too. An anesthetized/stoned/addicted society is a controlled society.
Please stop pretending to be libertarian. Libertarianism is 100% against drug use/abuse/addiction. What you're advocating is Marxism.
Incorrect. Libertarian are against a Gov-Gun dictated society like they're mindless drones. Marxism is all about Gov-Gun control.
Libertarianism is 100% against drug use/abuse/addiction
^Poe's law post or failed attempt at gaslighting?
"Libertarianism is 100% against drug use/abuse/addiction. "
News to me. I thought libertarians supported the right of people to do what they wanted to do so long as they aren't violating the rights of others. This includes the ability to consume drugs if they choose to, for example. A subsequent DUI as a result would be in the "violating the rights of others".
Or do you mean "against drug use in the general sense? I mean, I am against drug use in the general sense because of the various negatives attached to it, but I'm not ready to force my views to not do them on others.
Like I said - libertarians are actively advocating for a controlled society. That's what you are when you're anesthetized/stoned/addicted. Controllable.
Who else remembers when that douchebag, President Choom, made a campaign promise to legalize cannabis and then did absolutely fuck-all about it when he was in office?
-jcr
The first serious efforts to stop federal enforcement of cannabis laws against state legal medical facilities happened under President 'choom.' Certainly you remember that? The Rohrbacher (sp?) amendments; the Cole memorandum...etc...
How bad is your memory? https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/04/politics/jeff-sessions-cole-memo/index.html
The best solution would be to overturn Gonzales v. Raich.
"According to the DEA, Schedule III drugs have 'a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence...'"
That's actually not "according to DEA." The criteria for each schedule is defined in the Controlled Substances Act, Title 21 USC §812(b)(3). So, it's actually "according to Congress."
If you're serious about removing marijuana from the CSA, write your Congresscritters. They'll jump right on that as soon as they get done preening in front of TV cameras and not doing their jobs.
Dammit! My fairly long comment was eaten by the squirrels.
In short: Good idea, bad execution. Marijuana is explicitly and expressly by name (marihuana) listed as Schedule I drug in 21 U.S. Code § 812 - Schedules of controlled substances. Removing it from Schedule I would take an act of Congress. To allow the executive to wipe away a duly passed law simply because the President wants to is dictatorial.
So: yeah! let's remove it!
But: boo, Biden overreaching executive authority yet again.
Congress could pass a bill that literally removes a single word from 1 U.S. Code § 812 and accomplish this with Biden's signature.
A lawsuit against this change should win - except that no one is actually injured by it, so no one should have standing to sue.