norml06 - 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 "it]he characteristics of a
 accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a
 drug or other substance with an accepted medical use" in-
 currently accepted medical use _{th 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) (em_ (I) 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 toxicology and pharmacology of the substance in
 animals;
 B. Procedural History (3) establishment of its effectiveness in humans through
 This is the latest chapter in petitioners' efforts to move scientifically designed ctinical trials;
 marijuana into a less restrictive CSA schedule. They claim (4) general availability of the substance and information
 that marijuana is misclassified because it has been shown to regarding the substance and its ase;
 serve various medicinal purposes. Specifically, they contend (5) recognition of its clinical use in generally accepted
 that marijuana allev-iates some side effects of ehemotherapy pharmacopeia, medical references, journals or textbooks;
 in cancer patients, aids in the treatment of glaucoma, an eye
 disease, and reduces muscle spastieity in patients suffering (6) specific indications for the treatment of recognized
 from multiple sclerosis and other maladies of the central disorders;
 nervous system° In support of these contentions, they intro- (7) recognition of the use of the substance by organizao
 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 substance by a substantial
 maNjuana has proven safe and effective, segment of the medical practitioners in the United
 The petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed in 1972 SLat,es_
 and has been before this court on %ur prior occasions--- 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,15748 (Feb. 22, 19&%
 Natio_al Org..for the Refor_n of Ma_-ijuana La_,_s v. In,get- Appl3dng these criteNa to the petition to reschedu]e mario
 sol_ 497 Fo2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974); Natio_mg ON. fi)r the juana, the Adminislxator %und on December 29, 1989, that
 R@r_ of Mar_fuana La_u,s v. [)_g £'_z/b_'cement Admin., marijuana had no currently accepted medical use and thus
 559 Fo2d 735 (D.Co Cir. 1977); National Org. for the Reform had to remain in Schedule I. 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767, 53,768
 of Ma_ij.uan. a La_ws a Drttg Enforcement Admin. & Dep't of (1989)o The eight-factor test had been published in the
 xYtealth Ed_zcat_on & Welfare, No. 79-1660 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, Federal Register on Febr'umw 22, 1983, 17 days after the
 ....... - ................... " .... ' .......................... '" close of the evidence but before the oral arguments to the
 ACT is the only part of this history we need recount° administrative law judge in the marijuana reseheduling pro°
 In ACT, the Alliance Nr Cannabis Therapeutics CAlli- ceedings.
 ance') and the National Organization %r the Reform of On revie_dng the Administrator's decision, we found the
 Marijuana Laws CNORML") argued that the Administrator's
 re_asa! to resehedule marijuana rested on an unreasonable eight-factor test for determining whether a drug had a "cur-
 rently accepted medical use" to be "in the main acceptable."
 interpretation of the statutory 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 histoD, on poir_t and deferred to