norml10 - Page 7

tRU6 POLICY FOUNDATION TEL : 202-:537-3007 Rpr 26:91 12:54 ft0.003 F'.07
 f
 7
 ing (not contested by the petitioners) is only tha_ a
 , "respectable minority" take that posit:ion. The determina-
 _,ion as to how much weight to plaee on scientific
 uncertainties as opposed to anecdotal evidence in applying
 the statutory phrase "current]y accepted medical uses,"
 then, is very much a policy judgment which we have no
 authority to challenge° See .generally Chevron. We cero
 tainly have no grounds, on this record, to dispute the
 Administrator's premise that without much more com-
 pletz,, scientific data American physicians witl not "'accept"
 marijua_a°
 Petitioners, however, mount something of a flanking
 att:ack o_ that premise. They assert that the Administra-
 tor's eight t_aetor test_ which emi,nasizes, in factors 1, 2
 and 3, scier_fifie knowledge of ghe chemistry of the drug
 and its effectiveness in humans established through
 scientifically-designed clinical trials, is improperly drawn
 from the Food, [)rug a_,,d Cosmetic Act (administered by
 _he Food and Drug Administration) and not _he Con-
 trolled Substances Act which the Administrator is aut,ho_
 rized to apply. The First Circuit in Grins'pooh u. Drug
 Enforcement Administration, 82S F.2d 881,891-92 (1st Cir.
 1987), upon which pe_.itioners re!y, had hetd that earlier
 criterfa _he Administrator had employed to define
 "currently accepted medical use" were contrary to the
 statute because they were a carbon copy of those used by
 tiae FDA in licensing _ew drugs° The present criteria, it:
 is argued, duplicate a number of those original criteria.
 But the criteria challenged in Grinspoon included several
 elements, such as the availability of patent i_brmation
 or FDA-required labelling, which were necessary only to
 market, the drug in interstate commerce. These criteria
 are clearly relevam to the FDA's mission, but not to the
 DEA's, ,'ee Orir_spoon, 828 Fo2d at 887. The First Circuit
 never suggested tile DEA Admhfistramr was tbreclosed
 from ineorporming and relying on those standards
 employed by the FDA that are relevant to the pharmaceu-
 tical qualities of the drug. The court merely held that
 while FDA approvaI is sufficien_ to establish the existence