norml02 - Page 42

 I
 I from Schedule I to Schedule II even in the absence of objective
 I scientific evidence of medical usefulness_ Plainly_ this would
 run contrary to Congress _ intent. See 21 U.S.C. 812(b) (1988).
 I Petitioners also complain that the Administrator has
 perfunctorily dismissed consideration of marijuanaŠs medical use
 I because it is smoked. The Administrator justifiably sets forth
 I his assessment of the potential problems associated with inhaling
 a substance as well as the specific evidence of physiological
 I problems marijuana use° See 57 Fed° Reg. 10,499
 associated
 with
 - i0_500. His presentation does not reflect improper bias;
 rather it demonstrates appropriate medical concerns.
 The Administrator properly evaluated the expert witnesses _
 qualifications and the data that served as the basis for expert
 I testimony as to marijuana_s medical usefulness. The
 Administrator properly disregarded lay testimony and other
 opinions that were not based on scientifically valid evidence°
 The administrative record, although vast, simply does not contain
 reliable, scientifically valid evidence as to the medical
 usefulness of marijuana in treating emesis_ glaucoma or
 spasticityo In additions there is no consensus among experts as
 to marijuana's usefulness in treating any of these disorders°
 As this court has previously concludedf it is within the
 Administrator's discretion to elevate the problems posed by
 scientific uncertainties over proclaimed menefits supported only
 by anecdotal evidence. See ACT Vo DEA_ 9130 Fo2d at 939. The
 Administrator in no way underestimates the need for further
 36