norml02 - Page 12

Page 12 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 3o The Administrator's Interpretation of the Statutory
 While the administrative proceedings in this case were
 pending, the Administrator issued a final rule placing another
 drug_ 3,4-methylenedicxymethamphetamine (MDMA), into Schedule I
 I 51 Fed. Reg. 36,552 (Drug Enforcement Administration, DepOt Just.
 1986). This ruling rested partially on the Administrator's
 conclusion that any drug having a "currently accepted medical use
 in treatment in the United States" must have FDA approval for
 I marketing in the United States pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug
 and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA) _ 21 U.S_C_ 355 (1988) _ The
 Administrator noted that FDCA procedures require the FDA to
 "approve a new drug as being safe may
 introduced into interstate commerce." 5] Fed. Reg. at 36,558.
 J On review of that order, the First Circuit remanded the case
 I to the Administrator. Grinspoon vo Druq Enforcement
 Administration, 828 F02d 881 (ist Ciro 1987) [hereinafter
 Grinspoon]. The court noted that, because of numerous
 requirements under the FDCA that are unrelated to safety and
 I efficacy, a safe and effective drug may not necessarily be
 approved for interstate marketing. I do at 887 The court also
 observed that, in the absence of "economic or other incentive to
 I seek interstate marketing approval" for a particular drug, the
 FDA may never review it for safety and efficacy. Id. Therefore,
 i the court forbade the DEA's "blind reliance on the lack of an FDA
 interstate marketing approval" as the basis for placing a drug
 into Schedule I. id. at 888_

Previous , Next , Return to Index