norml04 - Page 2

 2 3
 _)e_n_iv doctors to p>>
 No. 92-117.9 Rescheduling to Schedule [I would . ," "" .
 scribe marijuana for therapeutic purposes. Petitioners' cep,-
 I.)au<_ PomcY FOUmmTION AUU_) "q'.' NATm'aAI. trai claim is that the Administrator's order rests on an
 unreasonable interpretation of the statute Because our pre
 ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF bIAK[JUANA I,A\VS,
 '.JiO_lS disposition of this matter in. At'glance for Cau._:abis
 PETITIONEI{S
 Theropeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT")
 v. constitutes the law of the case, we decline to reconsider this
 claim. We also find that the Administrator satisfied ACT's
 DRUG ENFORCE'_iENT ADMINISTRATION, mandate on remand and that petitioners' other claims lack
 ReSPOND_:NT merit,.
 L t]ACKGROI!N D
 Petitions for Review of an Order of the A. Statutory Scheme
 Drug Enforcement Administration The Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") places hazardous
 drugs in five categories, or schedules, which impose varying
 restrictions on access to the drugs. See 21 U.S.C. § 812
 (1988). Marijuana is assigned by statute to Schedule I, the
 Stevoz t£ Davidson, argued the cause for petitioners. With most restrictive of these. See id Schedule I drugs may be
 him on the briefs were Am,y _: Lu,sti 9 and Kevi_ f¢. Zecse. obtained and used lawfully only by doctors who submit a
 Tk. om.a_ (l Cotlie_; ,hi entered an appearance for petitioner detailed research protocol for approval by the Food and Drug
 Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics and intervenors in No. Administration and who agree to abide by strict, record-
 92-1168. keeping and storage miles. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 1301.3;-L
 Le*_a D. MitcheK Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, !201.42.
 argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was The CSA allows the Attorney General to reschedub a drug
 Johrz C Keeneg Acting Assistant Attorney Generah E,trot if he finds that it does not meet the criteria for the schedule
 L. Choi entered an appearance for respo_dent, to which it. has been assigned. 21 U.S.C. § 811(a). The
 S_eve_z K. David_on and Amg Z'< L_stig were also on the Attorney General has delegated this authoNt,y to the Admin-
 brief for inter_'enors, istrator. See 28 C.FR. § 0.100(b). Ir_ resd::eduling a drug,
 :: the Administrator must consider, ire. for a_ic_ "[s]cientifie evi-
 :: Before ,}0_"w',,_,,, Ckief ,hMge and Bt_c>:_,m' ar'.,d O:_s,,_m,,_, deuce a_,., _ o .,
 •., - , ith_ drug's] pharmaeol%dcal effect., if knox_m," an,:]
 ii Cirezdt Judges. "at}he state of cur_nt sdontifie knowledge regarding the
 [ .......
 Opinion for the court filed by Ciro.u:t Judge Bt'cm.F< d_'ug or other substance" in determining whether to resched-
 ule the dm,,g. 21 U.S.C. § 811(e)(Z), (g).
 BUCKLES', Cire_df Judge: The AIIiance for Cannabis Thera-
 peutics, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the National Orga. A drug is placed in Schedule I if (I) it "}!as a high potential
 nization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws petition for review f_r abuse," (2) it has "no cu)_nfZy accepted rnedica_ _sc in
 of a final order of the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement treatment in the United States," and (3) "[tlhere is a lack of
 Administration declining to reschedule marijuana from Sched- accepted safety for use of the drug ._. under medical super-
 ule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. vision." 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1) (1988) (emphasis added). The