Fight For Those Who Fought For You
The Issue
The Petition for redress of grievances: Starting with the Randall Precedent (US v Randall 1976/Randall v US 1978) — and Ending the War on Federal Patients.
This has evolved since it was first created in 2014, fighting for PTSD research using cannabis. What follows is essentially a position paper, a policy primer, and a statement for the record.
THE ASK:
We are calling on Congress, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services to:
Recognize veterans as federal patients;
Apply the Randall precedent to protect medical cannabis access;
End the systemic denial of cannabis as life-saving care;
Create a federal program that reflects both medical science and moral obligation.
If you believe veterans deserve access to the medicine that helps them live—sign this. Share this. Demand this.
U.S. military veterans who receive care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are federal patients. Full stop. As such, the federal government bears legal, moral, and medical responsibility for their care—including access to life-saving treatments like medical cannabis when other therapies fail.
The Randall precedent—where the U.S. government authorized marijuana use for a federal patient—proves this obligation. The denial of cannabis access to veterans today isn’t just medical negligence—it’s institutional betrayal.
The Core Argument:
If the federal government could authorize cannabis access for one civilian in 1976, it can—and must—do the same for its own patients today.
Robert C. Randall was: A medically documented patient; Under federal oversight; Supported by a physician; Using cannabis when no other treatment worked. The federal courts ruled that when no other treatment worked, cannabis was not only medically necessary—it was legally defensible. That ruling hasn’t been revoked. It has been ignored.
Today’s veterans are: Medically documented patients; Under federal oversight via the VA; Supported by physicians in legal states; Using cannabis when other treatments fail or cause harm.
The difference?
Randall got a federal exception.
Veterans get gaslighted, punished, or ignored.
Why It Matters That Veterans Are Federal Patients
1. Federal Duty of Care
The VA is a federal agency. By enrolling in VA healthcare, veterans become federally recognized medical beneficiaries—not state-level patients.
That means: Their constitutional rights as patients fall under federal jurisdiction. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its enforcement affect them directly. Inconsistent access across states violates equal protection and continuity of care.
2. Uncle Sam Is Already Their Healthcare Provider
You broke it, you bought it. Uncle Sam: Recruited them; Trained them for war; Exposed them to trauma and injury.
And now denies them cannabis—a plant shown to help with: PTSD; Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); Chronic pain; Opioid withdrawal; Moral injury; Sleep disruption; Suicidal ideation.
If the VA can prescribe fentanyl, benzos, SSRIs, and stimulants… Why can’t it authorize cannabis, which has less risk and more efficacy in many cases?
3. Medical Necessity Is a Protected Legal Concept
The Randall ruling carved out federal medical necessity as a viable defense and policy path.
Veterans with documented treatment resistance qualify under the same logic. Yet there is no Compassionate Use pathway for VA patients, even though they are the most systemically burdened group in U.S. healthcare.
4. This Is a Federal Civil Rights Issue
Denying veterans access to cannabis when they are under exclusive federal care constitutes: Disparate treatment based on jurisdiction (state vs federal); Discrimination based on medical choice; Violation of bodily autonomy for patients who can’t “opt out” of federal care without losing benefits
1. Create the Federal Veterans Cannabis Access Program
Administered by the VA & HHS
Authorize cannabis as a federally protected therapy under VA supervision
Include a federal patient ID for legal interstate travel, care continuity, and protection
2. Reinstate the Compassionate IND Program
Veterans meet all criteria: No effective alternatives; Documented use; Medical supervision
Federal care eligibility.
3. Deschedule Cannabis
Schedule I is scientifically invalid and legally contradictory given the IND precedent
Descheduling allows: Interstate access; Prescribing by VA doctors; Research across federal institutions.
4. Recognize Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) as a Weaponized Diagnosis
Enact protections so that cannabis use cannot be used to:Deny access to care or housing; Block participation in VA programs or trials; Reduce disability ratings or discharge status.
Supporting Evidence
RANDALL: Granted legal federal cannabis access under IND #13-387 after proving medical necessity
VETERANS: Over 9 million enrolled, with many using cannabis therapeutically
VA: Has acknowledged benefits of cannabis in limited studies but remains barred from recommending it
STATES: Nearly 40 allow medical cannabis, many for PTSD—but federal patients can’t receive it through their provider
Key Talking Point
If the federal government allowed Robert Randall to access cannabis in 1976 to avoid going blind, it can’t deny veterans today the same right—to save their lives.
Veterans didn’t stop being federal property when they left active duty.
Uncle Sam just swapped their uniform for a VA card—and kept the leash.
If we call them heroes, we owe them more than folded flags and over prescribed pills.
We owe them real medicine.
We owe them cannabis.
“That’s exactly what should be done.
Should have been done a long time ago.”
Stay tuned, stay loud, and if you’ve got a little light, now’s the time to let it shine.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
Why hasn’t the Randall precedent been widely invoked in cannabis reform movements?
What are the legal implications of redefining veterans as federal patients?
How does this framing disrupt typical red-state/blue-state divides around cannabis?
How do we protect whistleblowers from institutional erasure?
Can a federal patient bill of rights be established—and what would it look like?
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
—Ricardo Pereyda
International Veterans Leadership Committee (IVLC) Founding Member
U.S. Army Veteran, Combat MP
156,078
The Issue
The Petition for redress of grievances: Starting with the Randall Precedent (US v Randall 1976/Randall v US 1978) — and Ending the War on Federal Patients.
This has evolved since it was first created in 2014, fighting for PTSD research using cannabis. What follows is essentially a position paper, a policy primer, and a statement for the record.
THE ASK:
We are calling on Congress, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services to:
Recognize veterans as federal patients;
Apply the Randall precedent to protect medical cannabis access;
End the systemic denial of cannabis as life-saving care;
Create a federal program that reflects both medical science and moral obligation.
If you believe veterans deserve access to the medicine that helps them live—sign this. Share this. Demand this.
U.S. military veterans who receive care through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are federal patients. Full stop. As such, the federal government bears legal, moral, and medical responsibility for their care—including access to life-saving treatments like medical cannabis when other therapies fail.
The Randall precedent—where the U.S. government authorized marijuana use for a federal patient—proves this obligation. The denial of cannabis access to veterans today isn’t just medical negligence—it’s institutional betrayal.
The Core Argument:
If the federal government could authorize cannabis access for one civilian in 1976, it can—and must—do the same for its own patients today.
Robert C. Randall was: A medically documented patient; Under federal oversight; Supported by a physician; Using cannabis when no other treatment worked. The federal courts ruled that when no other treatment worked, cannabis was not only medically necessary—it was legally defensible. That ruling hasn’t been revoked. It has been ignored.
Today’s veterans are: Medically documented patients; Under federal oversight via the VA; Supported by physicians in legal states; Using cannabis when other treatments fail or cause harm.
The difference?
Randall got a federal exception.
Veterans get gaslighted, punished, or ignored.
Why It Matters That Veterans Are Federal Patients
1. Federal Duty of Care
The VA is a federal agency. By enrolling in VA healthcare, veterans become federally recognized medical beneficiaries—not state-level patients.
That means: Their constitutional rights as patients fall under federal jurisdiction. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its enforcement affect them directly. Inconsistent access across states violates equal protection and continuity of care.
2. Uncle Sam Is Already Their Healthcare Provider
You broke it, you bought it. Uncle Sam: Recruited them; Trained them for war; Exposed them to trauma and injury.
And now denies them cannabis—a plant shown to help with: PTSD; Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI); Chronic pain; Opioid withdrawal; Moral injury; Sleep disruption; Suicidal ideation.
If the VA can prescribe fentanyl, benzos, SSRIs, and stimulants… Why can’t it authorize cannabis, which has less risk and more efficacy in many cases?
3. Medical Necessity Is a Protected Legal Concept
The Randall ruling carved out federal medical necessity as a viable defense and policy path.
Veterans with documented treatment resistance qualify under the same logic. Yet there is no Compassionate Use pathway for VA patients, even though they are the most systemically burdened group in U.S. healthcare.
4. This Is a Federal Civil Rights Issue
Denying veterans access to cannabis when they are under exclusive federal care constitutes: Disparate treatment based on jurisdiction (state vs federal); Discrimination based on medical choice; Violation of bodily autonomy for patients who can’t “opt out” of federal care without losing benefits
1. Create the Federal Veterans Cannabis Access Program
Administered by the VA & HHS
Authorize cannabis as a federally protected therapy under VA supervision
Include a federal patient ID for legal interstate travel, care continuity, and protection
2. Reinstate the Compassionate IND Program
Veterans meet all criteria: No effective alternatives; Documented use; Medical supervision
Federal care eligibility.
3. Deschedule Cannabis
Schedule I is scientifically invalid and legally contradictory given the IND precedent
Descheduling allows: Interstate access; Prescribing by VA doctors; Research across federal institutions.
4. Recognize Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD) as a Weaponized Diagnosis
Enact protections so that cannabis use cannot be used to:Deny access to care or housing; Block participation in VA programs or trials; Reduce disability ratings or discharge status.
Supporting Evidence
RANDALL: Granted legal federal cannabis access under IND #13-387 after proving medical necessity
VETERANS: Over 9 million enrolled, with many using cannabis therapeutically
VA: Has acknowledged benefits of cannabis in limited studies but remains barred from recommending it
STATES: Nearly 40 allow medical cannabis, many for PTSD—but federal patients can’t receive it through their provider
Key Talking Point
If the federal government allowed Robert Randall to access cannabis in 1976 to avoid going blind, it can’t deny veterans today the same right—to save their lives.
Veterans didn’t stop being federal property when they left active duty.
Uncle Sam just swapped their uniform for a VA card—and kept the leash.
If we call them heroes, we owe them more than folded flags and over prescribed pills.
We owe them real medicine.
We owe them cannabis.
“That’s exactly what should be done.
Should have been done a long time ago.”
Stay tuned, stay loud, and if you’ve got a little light, now’s the time to let it shine.
REFLECTION QUESTIONS
Why hasn’t the Randall precedent been widely invoked in cannabis reform movements?
What are the legal implications of redefining veterans as federal patients?
How does this framing disrupt typical red-state/blue-state divides around cannabis?
How do we protect whistleblowers from institutional erasure?
Can a federal patient bill of rights be established—and what would it look like?
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
—Ricardo Pereyda
International Veterans Leadership Committee (IVLC) Founding Member
U.S. Army Veteran, Combat MP
156,078
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition created on July 9, 2014