norml02 - Page 18

 I erred by using the standards used by the FDA in licensing new
 I drugs (id. at $39-940)° 5 While the court did not expressly
 address petitioners' claim that adopting the eight factor test
 I violated the Freedom of Information Acts that claim was raised by
 one petitioner in the prior appeal (see Br. I/li/91 at 17-20)_
 I and the court implicitly rejected it when it concluded that "the
 I Administrator's interpretation of the statute was in the main
 acceptable _' (930 F.2d at 937)°
 Petitioners cannot show that continued adherence to the
 decision in ACT vo DEA would result in a _'manifest injustice"
 I (Christianson, 486 UoS_ at 817) ° Accordingly_ this court's prior
 i rejection of petitioners' challenges is binding as law of the
 case.
 I If. _EN WERE THIS COURT TO CONSIDER TEE ISSUES PETITIONERS
 RAISEs IT SHOULD STILL AFFIRM TEE ADMINISTRATOR'S ORDER.
 I A. THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS PROPERLY D_iTERMINED TEAT MARIJUANA
 KAS NO CURRE_FfLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE BY REFERENCE TO FDA
 STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING A DRUG'S EFFECTIVENESS.
 I Petitioners renew their argument that the Administrator has
 unreasonably interpreted the phrase "currently accepted medical
 use," 21 U.S.C. 8i2(b) (1988), because he referred to standards
 I that the FDA uses to determine the safety and efficacy of drugs
 when approving them for interstate marketing. In additions
 I petitioners argue that the Administrator has failed to comply
 i
 5 The court was unable to _'conceive of a reason the
 ! Administrator should be barred from employing notions developed
 I by a sister agency insofar as tno .... notions serve the missions of
 both agencies. _ _Ido at 940.
 12