norml02 - Page 35

 I reliability of testimony from witnesses with a history of
 I dependence on marijuana which predates the illnesses they seek to
 remedy. In this context the Administrator specifically refers to
 I the testimony of glaucoma patients Robert Randall. See i d. In
 view of the complete absence of scientifically valid evidence to
 I show that marijuana is an effective treatment for glaucoma_ see
 I i__d_ at i0,501, including the absence of any valid scientific
 evaluation of Randall_s cases the Administrator's prudence cannot
 I be said to reflect an improper bias.
 Petitioners also assert that the Administrator's decision
 I rested on a "mistaken belief" that classifying marijuana as a
 i Schedule iI substance would make it available for
 experimentation. This argument completely mischaracterizes
 I language in the Final Orders I and IIo 9 In each of those
 orders_ the respective Administrators plainly express the general
 I concern that unsubstantiated claims about the therapeutic value
 i of marijuana, rather than its classification in Schedule II_
 would promote dangerous experimentation. See Final Order II, 57
 I Fed° Reg. at 10,503; Final Order I, 54 Fed. Reg. at 53_784_
 Expression of this concern is proper in light of the unscientific
 I data on which petitioners seek to rely.
 I In Final Order If, the current administrator adopted the
 9
 contents of Final Order I. See 57 Fed° Reg. at 10,507.
 29