>>> Part 2 of 28...
               VII.   ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE IN TREATMENT 
                       - MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, SPASTICITY & 
                         HYPERPARATHYROIDISM                  40 
                         Findings of Fact                     40 
                         Discussion                           54 
               VIII.  ACCEPTED SAFETY FOR USE UNDER MEDICAL 
                       SUPERVISION                            56 
                         Findings of Fact                     56 
                         Discussion                           65 
               IX.    CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED DECISION    67 
                      CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE                69 
                                   - i - 
                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
                      Drug Enforcement Administration 
_______________________________________ 
                                       ) 
  In The Matter Of                     ) 
                                       )              Docket No. 86-22 
     MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION   ) 
_______________________________________) 
                 OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF 
                   FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF 
                        ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. 
                                     1. 
                                INTRODUCTION 
     This is a rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 
U.S.C. Sec. 551, et seq., to determine whether the marijuana plant (Cannabis 
sativa L) considered as a whole may lawfully be transferred from Schedule  
I to Schedule II of the schedules established by the Controlled  
Substances Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. Sec. 801, et seq.  None of the parties  
is seeking to "legalize" marijuana generally or for recreational  
purposes.  Placement in Schedule II would mean, essentially, that  
physicians in the United States would not violate Federal law by  
prescribing marijuana for their patients for legitimate therapeutic  
purposes.  It is contrary to Federal law for physicians to do this as  
long as marijuana remains in Schedule I.  This proceeding had its origins  
on May 18, 1972 when the National Organization for the Reform of  
Marijuana Laws (NORML) and two other groups submitted a petition to the  
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) [footnote 1], predecessor 
______________________ 
1    The powers and authority granted by the Act to the Attorney General 
     were delegated to the Director of BNDD and subsequently to the 
     Administrator of DEA.  28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.100, et seq. 
agency to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or the Agency), asking 
that marijuana be removed from Schedule I and freed of all controls 
entirely, or be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule V where it would  
be subject to only minimal controls.  The Act by its terms had placed 
marijuana in Schedule I thereby declaring, as a matter of law that it had 
no legitimate use in therapy in the United States and subjecting the 
substance to the strictest level of controls.  The Act had been in effect 
for just over one year when NORML submitted its 1972 petition. 
     On September 1, 1972 the Director of BNDD announced his refusal to 
accept the petition for filing, stating that he was not authorized to 
institute proceedings for the action requested because of the provisions  
of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.  NORML appealed this  
action to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia  
Circuit.  The court held that the Director had erred in rejecting the  
petition without "a reflective consideration and analysis," observing  
that the Director's refusal "was not the kind of agency action that  
promoted the kind of interchange and refinement of views that is the  
lifeblood of a sound administrative process."  NORML v. Ingersoll, 162  
U.S. App. D.C. 67, 497 F.2d 654, 659 (1974).  The court remanded the  
matter in January 1974 for further proceedings not inconsistent with its  
opinion, "to be denominated a consideration on the merits."  Id. 
     A three-day hearing was held at DEA [footnote 2] by Administrative  
Law Judge Lewis Parker in January 1975.  The judge found in NORML's favor  
on several issues but the Acting Administrator of DEA entered a final  
order denying NORML's petition "in all respects."  NORML again petitioned  
the court for review.  Finding fault 
_________________ 
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------