norml01 - Page 11

 |
 I Respondent asserts that both the CSA and the FDCA _'call
 l upon the government to determine what purpose a given drug is
 supposed to serve and whether the drug truly serves that pur-
 l pose." Respo Br. at 14o This is an accurate description of the
 FDA's mandate under the FDCA in approving drugs for interstate
 I marketing purposes; the CSA, however, contains no similar man-
 date° Respondent notes that the CSA requires the Administrator
 to consider a drugts pharmacological effect and the state of
 I scientific knowledge about the drug when deciding whether to
 transfer it from one schedule to another. Respo Bro at 13-14.
 i Those factors, however_ have meaning only in the context of the
 i schedule-specific findings required by § 812(b) o
 Here, the only relevant finding is whether marijuana
 i '_has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United
 States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restric-
 i tions." 21 U.SoC_ § 812(b) (2) (B)° For purposes of this
 i proceeding, the parties have previously stipulated that marijuana
 meets the other Schedule II criteria -- it has a high potential
 j for abuse and its abuse could lead to severe dependence. 21
 U.SoC. § 812(b) (2) (A)_ (C) o Evaluation of! a drug's pharma-
 I cological effect is highly relevant to determining whether the
 i drug has a potential for abuse and to assessing the consequences
 of abuse, for purposes of placement withir_ the proper schedule°
 U However_ an instruction to consider a drug's pharmacological
 effect and the state of scientific knowledge about the drug does
 not even remotely suggest that only drugs satisfying FDA approval
 i standards can ever have an accepted medical use in treatment.
 I - 6 -