norml08 - Page 41

 The Court of Appeals remanded the decision of my
 predecessor for clarification of what role factors (4), (5)
 and (8) of the initial eight-point test played in his
 reasoning. For ease of discussion, these factors can be
 divided as follows:
 (4) (a) General availability of the substance..o_
 (4)(b) General availability of...information
 regarding the substance and its use;
 (5) Recognition of its clinical use in generally
 accepted pharmacopeias medical references,
 journals or textbooks;
 (8) (a) Recognition.°.of the substance by a
 substantial segment of the medical practitioners
 in the United States; and
 (8) (b) [U]se of the substance by a substantial
 segment of the medical practitioners in the United
 ...... States.
 I have found no evidence indicating initial factors
 (4) (a) or <8) (b) played any role in my predecessor's
 decision. In light of my understanding of the legal
 standard involved_ these factors are irrelevant to whether
 marijuana has a currently accepted medical use.
 My predecessor emphasized the lack of scientific
 evidence of marijuana_s effectiveness_ and the limited data
 available on its risks, as reflected in the published
 scientific studies° He also emphasized the importance of
 this data to the conclusions reached by experts concerning
 the drug° 54 FR 53783. i take this to mean that, under
 initial factor (4) (b), he believed the information available
 to experts is insufficient for them responsibly and fairly
 41