>>> Part 3 of 28...
2    DEA became the successor agency to BNDD in a reorganization carried 
     out pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973, eff. July 1, 
     1973.  38 Fed Reg. 15932 (1973). 
                                  - 2 - 
with DEA's final order the court again remanded for further proceedings  
not inconsistent with its opinion.  NORML v. DEA, 182 U.S. App. D.C. 114,  
559 F.2d 735 (1977).  The Court directed the then-Acting Administrator of  
DEA to refer NORML's petition to the Secretary of the Department of  
Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) for findings and, thereafter, to  
comply with the rulemaking procedures outlined in the Act at 21 U.S.C. Sec.  
811 (a) and (b). 
     On remand the Administrator of DEA referred NORML's petition to HEW 
for scientific and medical evaluation.  On June 4, 1979 the Secretary of 
HEW advised the Administrator of the results of the HEW evaluation and 
recommended that marijuana remain in Schedule I.  Without holding any 
further hearing the Administrator of DEA proceeded to issue a final order 
ten days later denying NORML's petition and declining to initiate 
proceedings to transfer marijuana from Schedule I.  44 Fed. Reg. 36123 
(1979).  NORML went back to the Court of Appeals. 
     When the case was called for oral argument there was discussion of  
the then-present status of the matter.  DEA had moved for a partial  
remand.  The court found that "reconsideration of all the issues in this  
case would be appropriate" and again remanded it to DEA, observing: "We  
regrettably find it necessary to remind respondents [DEA and HEW] of an  
agency's obligation on remand not to 'do anything which is contrary to  
either the letter or spirit of the mandate construed in the light of the  
opinion of [the] court deciding the case.'"  (Citations omitted.)  NORML  
v. DEA, et al., No. 79.1660, United States Court of Appeals for the  
District of Columbia Circuit, unpublished order filed October 16, 1980.   
DEA was directed to refer all the substances at issue to the Department  
of Health and Human Services (HHS), successor agency to HEW, for scien- 
                                  - 3 - 
tific and medical findings and recommendations on scheduling.  DEA did so 
and HHS has responded.  In a letter dated April 1, 1986 the then-Acting 
Deputy Administrator of DEA requested this administrative law judge to 
commence hearing procedures as to the proposed rescheduling of marijuana 
and its components. 
     After the Judge conferred with counsel for NORML and DEA, a notice  
was published in the Federal Register on June 24, 1986 announcing that  
hearings would be held on NORML's petition for the rescheduling of  
marijuana and its components commencing on August 21, 1986 and giving any  
interested person who desired to participate the opportunity to do so.   
51 Fed. Reg. 22946 (1986). 
     Of the three original petitioning organizations in 1972 only NORML  
is a party to the present proceeding.  In addition the following entities 
responded to the Federal Register notice and have become parties, 
participating to varying degrees:  the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics 
(ACT), Cannabis Corporation of America (CCA) and Carl Eric Olsen, all 
seeking transfer of marijuana to Schedule II; the Agency, National 
Federation of Parents for Drug free Youth (NFP) and the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), all contending that marijuana 
should remain in Schedule I. 
     Preliminary prehearing sessions were held on August 21 and December  
5, 1986 and on February 20, 1987. [footnote 3]  During the preliminary  
stages, on January 20, 1987, NORML filed an amended petition for  
rescheduling.  This new petition abandoned NORML's previous requests for  
the complete descheduling of marijuana or rescheduling to Schedule V.  It  
asks only that marijuana be placed in Schedule II. 
     At a prehearing conference on February 20, 1987 this amended  
petition was 
_______________ 
3    Transcripts of these three preliminary prehearing sessions are 
     included in the record. 
                                  - 4 - 
discuss. [footnote 4]  All Parties present stipulated, for the purpose of 
this proceeding, that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and that 
abuse of the marijuana plant may lead to severe psychological or physical 
dependence.  They then agreed that the principal issue in this proceeding 
would be stated thus: 
          Whether the marijuana plant, considered as a whole, [footnote 
          5] may 
________________ 
4    The transcript of this prehearing conference and of the subsequent 
     hearing session comprise 15 volumes numbered as follows: 
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------