norml04 - Page 6

 10 11
 trator with instn_ctions to reopen the record for the submis- previous Administrator's ruling stemmed from reasoned deci-
 sion of new evidence, sionmaking, however, because we remanded it. to the agency.
 We decline to do so because petitioners have failed to We thus confine our review to the current Administrator's
 demonstrate that they have in fact, been adversely affected by treatment of 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 long 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 impor- 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 ty strident decision" rejecting the administrative law judge's
 criteria. Their failure to do so suggests either that they were recommendation that the drug be reseheduled. The}, abe
 satisfied that the evidence already presented would meet the cite various statements by the present Administrator in the
 test or that they had no further evidence to offe,'. Thus, we Final Order as evidence of a lack of objectivity. Se< e.g., 57
 have no reason to believe that. petitioners would have pursued Fed. Reg. at t0,802 ("The only favorable evidence that could
 an "alDrnative course of conduct" had the test been pub]ished be found by [petitioners] consists of stories by mari. iuana
 earlier. Zaha_kis, 744 F°2d at 714. users"); ig ("[slick people are not objective scientific observe -
 Fm%hermore, we do not agree that McLo_tk Stee{ Prod- ere, especially when it comes to their o_a health/'); id. at.
 ucts v. 7'homo.s, 838 F.2d 1317 (D_C. Cir. 1988), supports their 10,503 ("Sial{ men, women and children can be fooled by these
 position. That case is distinguishable. McLo,zth arose in the claims and experiment "_fit,h the drug .... It is a erue! hoax
 context of a ratemaking in which an agency failed to identify to offer false impe to desperately ill people."?,
 adequately a key standard in its notice of proposed rulemak- We are not impressed. The need to remand a case several
 ing in violation of 5 ILS.C. § 553. Unlike petitioners, the times is not ev{dence per ._e of agency prejudice. Nor do we
 McLoe_L;_ challengers knew the governing legal standard by think the statements cited by petitioners show that the
 the time they were called on to submit evidence; their Administrator was unfair, especially when considered in the
 complaint was that they had r_t had a chance to challenge the context of a reasonab!e preference for rigorous scientific
 standard at the time it was adopted. 838 F.2d at t322-Z?, proof over anecdotal evidence, even when reported by re-
 We held that %e challengers were not required to demon- speeted physicians.
 strate that the fa{lure of notice had caused "specific preju- Moreover, our review of the record convinces us that the
 dice" because "we cannot say with certainty whether petition- Administrator's findings are supported b)' substantial evi-
 cts' comments would have had some effect [on the adoption of" deuce. See 21 U.S.C. § 877 (1958) (substantial evidence
 the standard] if they had been considered when the issue was standard appiies to findings o_ tact in reschedulin_ proceed°
 tet_t_oners eha!lenge is not to
 lugs). The Final Order canvasses the record at length. It
 open/' Id. at 1323-24. Here, ) '" '
 the standard but to theft_ claimed inability to respond to it. recites the testimony of numerous experts that marijuana's
 2, Tke Reasoned Decision_a_ing Claim, medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific
 In ACZ A!liance and NORNL argued that the prior Ad- studies. The Administrator reasonably accorded more weight
 ministra_r had been biased and ignored the record. On this to the opinions o[' these experts than to the anecdotal teatime-
 appeal, petitioners repeat these claims and accuse his suttee- ny of laymen and doctors on which petitioners relied. The
 sor of the same errors. We need not eonsider whether the Administrator noted that