norml02 - Page 19

 t
 I with this court's order in ACT v. DE A, sup_g_.a, in that he has
 established a standard with which marijuana still cannot comply.
 In support of their arguments, petitioners first assert that
 I the Controlled Substances Act and the FDCA serve legislative
 objectives that are so disparate as to render standards set forth
 I in one statute irrelevant to interpretation of the other°
 i According to petitioners, the Controlled Substances Act primarily
 serves law enforcement objectives. Its schedules are part of a
 comprehensive scheme to restrict public access to drugs that are
 subject to abuses Petitioners posit thats by contrasts the
 prerequisites for interstate marketing under the FDCA serve to
 protect consumers from unsafe products and unsubstantiated claims
 of effectiveness. Petitioners conclude that safety and
 effectiveness as interpreted under the FDCA are irrelevant to the
 objectives of the Controlled Substances Act ands consequentlys
 I are also irrelevant to interpretation of the phrase, "currently
 accepted medical uses" in the latter act. Petitioners also note
 that the FDCA does not define the phrase "currently accepted
 I medical use" and that Congress has not expressly incorporated the
 FDCA standards at issue into the Controlled Substances Act.
 I Petitioners in this case offer no legitimate challenge to the
 Administrator's interpretation of the statutory requirement. The
 Controlled Substances Act explicitly directs the Administrator to
 consider scientific evidence of a drug's pharmacological effect
 and the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug
 when making findings relevant to the transfer of the drug from
 13