norml02 - Page 41

 assertions, however_ the Administrator did not improperly dismiss
 U evidence of marijuana's safety. Firsts petitioners do not
 contest the Administrator's findings regarding the dangers posed
 l by marijuana inhalation° These dangers includes among others_
 lung damage, sudden drops in blood pressures weakening of the
 l immune system and bacterial infection. See Final Order II, 57
 U Fed. Reg_ at 10,500_ More importantly_ however, the
 Administrator concluded that evidence of a drug's safety is
 i relevant only within the context of the druges effectiveness
 a conclusion based on a reasonable interpretation of the
 i statutory standard.
 As the Administrator observes, although "the existence of
 adequate safety tests is a separate analytical question, the
 I ultimate determination of whether a drug is safe for a specific
 use is not a distinct issue, e' See 57 Fed. Reg. at i0,504 (citing
 I United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544, 555 (1979)
 t (interpreting the FDCA to mean that _a drug [is] safe when the
 expected therapeutic gain justifies the risk entailed by its use _
 i and that effectiveness is measured by _'objective indicesH)). The
 statutory language, "accepted safety fo_ use under medical
 I supervision, _' 21 U.S.C. 812(b) (1988), necessarily contemplates
 such use only in the context of treating a specific disorder°
 l The Administrator maintains that marijuana is a dangerous
 drug. But even assuming that were not so, separating the
 question of safety from the question of effectiveness could
 permit the transfer of a drug with a high potential for abuse
 _5