norml01 - Page 20

 |
 i chemotherapeutically-induced emesis. The government's criticism
 of these studies is particularly curioust given the fact that
 each of these large scale studies was DEA_sanctioned and FDA-
 I approved. See J.Ao 119-61.
 With regard to marijuana's safety, Respondent defends
 I the Administratores finding that marijuana_s dangers "includes
 i among others_ lung damage, sudden drops irL blood pressures
 weakening of the immune system and bacterial infections _' Resp.
 I Br. at 35_ and thus that _marijuana is a dangerous drug. 'w !d.
 This conclusion fails to address the repeated assertion of
 g Petitioners _ witnesses -- that_ even with such potential side
 i effects_ marijuana is much safer than many other alternative
 treatments_ which have much more devastating side effects. See
 I ALJ Decision at 55-66_ J.Ao 429-40_ In downp!aying the dangers
 of other medications while reciting each and every one of
 I marijuanaqs potential adverse effects_ the Administrator and now
 l Respondent have unfairly portrayed the factual record.
 Moreover_ Respondent is unable to offer any sufficient
 I explanation for the Administrator's complete dismissal of the
 testimony of Petitioners' expert and lay witnesses, or for the
 I voluminous factual record established by Petitioners regarding
 i marijuana's medical utility. The Administratorts decision in no
 way reflects Respondent's assertion that "[t]he Administrator
 I shares petitioners _ compassion for those who suffer from these
 illnesses and are so desperate to find relief. _' See Resp. Bro at
 37. Rather, the decision reflects the DEA_s unfounded but
 i completely unwavering refusal fairly to consider this petition to
 I _ 15 -