norml09 - Page 41

Page 41 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 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 discussions these factors can be
 divided as follows:
 (4) _a) General availability of the substance...;
 (4) (b) General availability Ofoooinformation
 regarding the substance and its use;
 (5) Recognition of its clinical use in generally
 accepted pharmacopeias medical, references,
 journals or textbooks;
 (8) (a) Recognitiono_oOf the su_bstance by a
 substantial seqment 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
 I have found no evidence indicating initial factors
 (4)(a) or (S) (b) played any role in my predecessor's
 decision° In light of my understanding of the legal
 standard involvedr 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

Previous , Next , Return to Index