norml02 - Page 10

 parties stipulated as to marijuana's high potential for abuse, a
 determinative factor in Schedules I and II, as well as to the
 fact that abuse may lead to severe psychological or physical
 dependence. ALJ 4-5° ] The latter stipulation precluded
 classification more lenient than Schedule If. The parties agreed
 that resolution of the primary issue, whether or not the DEA
 could lawfully transfer marijuana to Schedule iI_ depended on the
 resolution of:
 i. 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;
 and
 2. Whether there is a lack of accepted safety for use of
 the marijuana plant under medical supervision.
 ALJ 6. In essence, the DEA could not transfer marijuana to
 Schedule II without first finding that it had some currently
 accepted medical use.
 The parties submitted direct and rebuttal testimony in
 affidavit forms objections to such testimonyf and proposed
 exhibits to the administrative law judge (ALJ) _ After ruling on
 the objections, the AIJ admitted into the record the direct
 testimony of 54 witnesses and numerous exhibits. The parties
 orally cross-examined 25 of these witnesses on 15 days between
 November 18_ 1987 and February 5, 1988. The administrative
 record also included rebuttal testimony from seven witnesses.
 Throughout this briefs citations to the record are as
 follows: ALJ (Opinion and Recommended Rulings Findings of Facts
 Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge,
 Sept. 6_ 1988); Pet° (Petitioners _ brief in this appeal); Bro
 1/11/91 (NORFML's brief in the previous appeal).
 4