norml02 - Page 11

 Subsequently_ the ALJ received the parties _ proposed findings and
 recommendations and heard oral argument° 3in 1987, DHHS had
 affirmed its position that marijuana should remain in Schedule Io
 In September 1988, the ALJ issued findings and
 recommendations. The ALJ recommended _tha_ the Administrator
 conclude that the marijuana plant has a currently acceptable
 medical use in treatment in the United Sta_es_ that there is no
 lack of accepted safety for use of it under medical supervision
 and that it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule i to
 Schedule II." ALJ 68. The Administrator rejected the ALJ_s
 findings and recommendations and, instead_ adopted the
 government's (D_) proposed findings of fact, ordering that
 marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled substance. Marijuana
 Scheduling Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767 (Drug Enforcement
 Administration 1989) (final admino order denying petition)
 [hereinafter Final Order !]o On review of that order, this court
 remanded the case to the DEA for clarification of the
 Administrator's interpretation of the statutory standard.
 Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics vo Druc Enforcement
 Administration, 930 Fo2d 936 (D.Co Cir. 1991) [hereinafter ACT v.
 DEAl.
 On remands the DEA again denied NORML_s amended petition°
 Marijuana Scheduling Petition, 57 Fed° Rego 10,499 (Drug
 Enforcement Administrations Dep't Just. 1992) (final admin, order
 denying petition on remand) [hereinafter Final Order iI].
 Petitioners now appeal the Administrator's final order.
 5