norml02 - Page 11
Return to Index
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.
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.
Return to Index