>>> Part 4 of 28...
          Vol. I     -  Prehearing Conference, October 16, 1987 
          Vol. II    -  Cross Examination, November 19, 1987 
          Vol. III   -  Cross Examination, December 8, 1987 
          Vol. IV    -  Cross Examination, December 9, 1987 
          Vol. V     -  Cross Examination, January 5, 1988 
          Vol. VI    -  Cross Examination, January 6, 1988 
          Vol. VII   -  Cross Examination, January 7, 1988 
          Vol. VIII  -  Cross Examination, January 26, 1988 
          Vol. IX    -  Cross Examination, January 27, 1988 
          Vol. X     -  Cross Examination, January 28, 1988 
          Vol. XI    -  Cross Examination, January 29, 1988 
          Vol. XII   -  Cross Examination, February 2, 1988 
          Vol. XIII  -  Cross Examination, February 4, 1988 
          Vol. XIV   -  Cross Examination, February 5, 1988 
          Vol. XV    -  Oral Argument, June 10, 1988 
Pages of the transcript are cited herein by volume and page, e.g. "Tr. V- 
96"; "G-" identifies an Agency exhibit. 
5    Throughout this opinion the term "marijuana" refers to "the marijuana 
     plant, considered as a whole". 
                                  - 5 - 
          lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II of the 
          schedules established by the Controlled Substances Act. 
     Two subsidiary issues were agreed on, as follows: 
          1.  Whether the marijuana plant has a currently accepted 
              medical use in treatment in the United States, or a 
              currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. 
          2.  Whether there is a lack of accepted safety for use of 
              the marijuana plant under medical supervision. 
As stated above, the parties favoring transfer from Schedule I to 
Schedule II are NORML, ACT, CCA and Carl Eric Olsen.  Those favoring 
retaining marijuana in Schedule I are the Agency, NFP and IACP. 
     During the Spring and Summer of 1987 the parties identified their 
witnesses and put the direct examination testimony of each witness in 
writing in affidavit form.  Copies of these affidavits were exchanged. 
Similarly, the parties assembled their proposed exhibits and exchanged 
copies.  Opportunity was provided for each party to submit objections to 
the direct examination testimony and exhibits proffered by the others.   
The objections submitted were considered by the administrative law judge  
and ruled on.  The testimony and exhibits not excluded were admitted into  
the record.  Thereafter hearing sessions were held at which witnesses  
were subjected to cross-examination.  These sessions were held in New  
Orleans, Louisiana on November 18 and 19, 1987; in San Francisco,  
California on December 8 and 9, 1987; and in Washington, D.C. on January  
5 through 8 and 26 through 29, and on February 2, 4 and 5, 1988.  The  
parties have submitted proposed findings and conclusions and briefs.   
Oral arguments were heard by the judge on June 10, 1988 in Washington. 
                                  - 6 - 
                                   II. 
                            RECOMMENDED RULING 
     It is recommended that the proposed findings and conclusions  
submitted by the parties to the administrative law judge be rejected by  
the Administrator except to the extent they are included in those  
hereinafter set forth; for the reason that they are irrelevant or unduly  
repetitious or not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  21  
C.F.R. Sec. 1316.65(a)(1). 
                                   III. 
                                  ISSUES 
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------