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
States°
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
41
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index