norml01 - Page 10

B
 opinions ef two courts of appeals, including this Court. Pet.
 Br. at 24-32_
 I Although Respondent insists that the Administ rator_s
 standard is reasonable_ it fails to rebut the central premise of
 Petitioners _ argument -- that the mission of the FDA is to make
 I therapeutic substances readily available8 nationwide, while the
 mission of the DEA is to restrict the availability of substances
 I with a potential for abuse. See Pet. Br_ at 23° Respondent
 i devotes considerable space to explaining the requirements of the
 1962 amendments to the FDCA (Respo Bro a_ 14-16), but it does not
 I explain how those requirements relate to the _principai purpos e'_
 of the CSA_ as described in its legislative history:
 I This legislation is designed to deal in
 a comprehensive fashion with the growing
 menace of drug abuse in the United States (I)
 through providing authority for increased
 efforts in drug abuse prevention and
 rehabilitation of users, (2) through pro-
 I riding more effective means for law enforces
 ment aspects of drug abuse prevention and
 control, and (5) by providing for an overall
 balanced scheme of criminal penalties for
 offenses involving drugs.
 I H.R. Rep° No. 1444, 91st Cong._ 2d Sesso, re_intedi_ 1970
 U.S.C.C.A.No 4566, 4567. Nor is it apparent that dealing with
 I the "menace of drug abuse _' can be enhanced by interpreting
 _accepted medical use in treatment" (21 UoS.C° § 812(b) (2) (B)) to
 require compliance with standards developed to ensure that a drug
 U has _'the effect it purports or is represented to have under the
 conditions of use prescrib ed-_' 21 U.SoC. § 355(d) o In short,
 "accepted" is not synonymous with ,_effective°"
 I