norml03 - Page 3

 4 5
 Schedule II criteria are somewhat different: (1) the drug (2)(B). In a scheduling proceeding involving another drug,
 "has a high potential for abuse," (2) it "has a currently the Administrator determined that "[t]he characteristics of a
 accepted medical use in treatment in %e United States or a
 drug or other substance with an accepted medical use" in-
 currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions," and elude:
 (3) "[a]buse of the drug ... may lead to severe psychological
 or physical dependence." 21 U.S.C° § 812(b)(2) (1988) (era- (1) scientifically determined and accepted knowledge of
 phasis added). Petitioners' central claim is that the Adminis- its chemistry;
 trator misinterpreted the language italicized above. (2) the goxicoloD, and pharmacdoD' of the substance in
 animals;
 B. Procedural History (3) establishment of its effectiveness ir_ humans thrm_gh
 This is the latest chapter in petitioners' efforts to move seientifically designed clinical trials;
 marijuana into a less restrictive CSA schedule. The}, claim (4) general availability of the substance and information
 that marijuana is misclassified because it has been shown to regarding the substance and its use;
 serve various medicinal purposes. Specifically, they contend (5) recognition of its clinical use in generally accepted
 that marijuana alleviates some side effects of chemotherapy pharmacopeia, medical references, journals or textbooks;
 in cancer patients, aids in the treatment of glaucoma, an eye (6) specific indications for the treatment of recognized
 disease, and reduces muscle spasticity in patients suffering disorders;
 from multiple sclerosis and other maladies of the central
 nervous sys_mo In support of these contentions, they intro- (7) recognition of the use of the substance by organiza-
 duced affidavits and testimony of a number of patients and tions or associations of physicians; and
 practicing physicians who insist that, in their experience, (8) recognition and use of the subs_nee by a substantial
 marijuana has woven san and effective, segment of the medical practitioner_ in the United
 The petition to resehedule marijuana was first filed in 1972 States.
 and has been beNre this court on four prior oecasions_ 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,157-58 (Feb. 22, 1988).
 Nation_d Orb. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws u Inter, Applying these criteria be the petition to reschedule marl-
 sea 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974); National OW. for the juana, the Administrator found on December 29, I989, that
 Reform of Marijuana Laws v. DrW Nnforcemen_ Admina, marijuana bad no currently accepted medical use and thus
 559 F.2d 735 (D.Co Cir. 1977); National OE˘ for the Reform had to remain in Schedule I. 54 Fed° Reg. 53,767, 53,768
 of Mar_iuana Laws v. Drug Enforcement Admino & Dep't of (1989). The eight-factor test had been published in the
 Health Education & Welfare, No. 79-1660 (D.C. Cite Oct. 16, Federal Register on February 22, 1988, 17 days after the
 1980); and most recently, ACT. 930 F.2d 986 (D.C. Cir_ 199D close of the evidence but: before the oral arguments to the
 ACT is the only part of this histo_ we need recounto administrative law judge in the marijuana resch eduling pro-
 In ACT, the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics ("Alli- ceedings.
 ante") and the National Organization for the Reform of On reviewing the Admird_tratnr's decision, we found the
 Marijuana Laws ("NORML") argued that the Administrator's eight-factz_r test for determining whether a drug had a "cur-
 refusal to reschedule marijuana rested on an unreasonable rently accepted medical use" to be "in the main acceptable."
 interpretation of the statuary phrase, "currently accepted ACT, 930 F.2d at 937. We noted the ambiguity of the phrase
 medical use." 930 F.2d at 939; see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(b)(1)(B), and the dearth of legislative history on point and deferred to