norml02 - Page 10
Return to Index
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
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;
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).
Return to Index