norml03 - Page 6

 10 11
 trator _th instructions to reopen the record for the submis- previous Administra_r's ruling stemmed from reasoned deci-
 sion of new evidence, f sionmaking, however, because we remanded it to the agency.
 We decline to do so because petitioners have failed to We thus confine our renew to the current Admm:.trator s
 demonstrate that they have in fact been adversely affected by treatment ef the record in the Final Order.
 the lack of notice. During the nearly two years between the In support of their bias claim, petitioners point to what
 publication of the eight-factor test on February 22, 1988, and they describe as a tong history of the Drug Enforcement
 the Administrator's ruling on December 29, 1989, petitioners ! Administration's anti-marijuana prejudice as evidenced by
 never sought to reopen the record. As parties to an imper- I this court's need to remand their petition on four occasions
 rant controversy, they had a responsibility to proffer any and what they describe as the prior Administrator's "unusual-
 evidence that was made newly relevant by the adoption of the ly strident decision" rejecting the administrative law judge's
 criteria. Their failure _ do so suggests either that they were reco_nmendation that the drug be rescheduled. They also
 satisfied that the evidence already presented would meet the cite various sta_ments by the present Administrator in the
 test or that they had no further e_dence t,_ offer. Thus, we Final Order as evide_ce of a lack of objectivity. See, e.g., 57
 have no reason to believe that petitioners would have pursued Fed. Reg. at 10,502 ("The only favorable e_dence that could
 an "alternative course of conduct" had the test been pub!ished be found by [petitioners] consists of stories by marijuana
 earlier. Zaharakis, 744 F.2d at 714. users"); id. ("[slick people are not objective scientific observ-
 Furthermore, we do not agree that McLvuth Steal Prod- ers_ especially when it comes to their own health "); id_ ai
 notes v. Thoma_s, 838 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 19_), support_ their 10,503 ("Sick men, women and children c. an be fooled by these
 position. That case is distinguishable. MeLouth arose in the claims and experiment _4th the drug .... It is a cruel hoax
 context of a rulemaking in which an agency failed to identify to offer false hope to desperately ill peoples. ).
 adequately a key standard in ik_ notice of proposed rulemak- We are not impressed. The need to remand a case several
 ing in violation of 5 U.SoC. § 553. Unlike petitioners, the _-_'-"
 tunes _s _fi_rYpcr se of agency prejudice. Nor Ēk_ we
 McLou_h challengers knew the governing legal _dard by think the statements cited by petitioners show that, the
 :i the time they were called on to submit evidence; their Administrator was unfair, especially when considered in the
 complaint was that they had not had a chance to challenge the context of a reasonable preference for rigorous scientific
 i_: standard at the time it was adopted. 838 F.2d at 1322-23. proof over anecdotal evidence, even when reported by re-
 We held that the challengers were not required to demon- spected physicians.
 :_ strafe that the failure of notice had caused "specific prej_- Moreover, our review of the record convinces us that the
 dice" because "we cannot say w_th certainty whether petition- Administrator's findings are supported by substantial erie
 ors _ comments would have had some effect [on the adoption of donee. See 21 U.S.C. § 877 (1988) (substantial evidence
 the standard] if they had been considered when the issue was standard appiies to findings of fact in rescheduling proceed-
 open." Id. at 1323-24. Here, pet,itioner_' challenge is not to ing_). The Final Order canvasses the record at length. It
 the standard but to their claimed inability to respond to it. recites the testimony of numerous experts that marijuana°s
 2. The Reasoned Decisivnmaking Claim '\ medicinal value has never been proven m sound scientific
 ..... _,ORM_ argued that the prior Ad- studies. The Administrator reasonably accorded more weight
 _n ACE Alliance _ _
 min_strator had been biased and ignored the record° On this to the opinions of these experts than to the anecdotal testimo-
 appeal, petitioners repeat these claims and accuse his succes- ny of laymen and doctors on which petitioners relied. The
 sor of the same errors° We need not consider whether the Administrator noted that