norml11 - Page 36

 deny that. _t5
 o
 Since the substance being considered in _h_s case is a nat_ra-I plant ¢ather
 than a syntheticnew drug, {t is unreasonablel to makeFOA-type cri{eria deter-
 minative of_the issue in this case, particulacly so when such criteria are irrele-
 o .
 °rant to the question posed bylthe Act: Does the substance have an accepted.
 .
 medical use. in treatment?
 Finally, the Agency in this proceeding relies in part on the FDA's
 recommendation that the Administrator retain marijuana in Schedule I. But, as
 in the MDMA case, that recommendation is based upon FDA's equating "accepted
 medical use" under the Act with being approved for marketing by FDA under the
 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the interpretation condemned by the First Circuit
 in the MDMA case° See Attachment A, p.24, to exhibit G-I and exhibit G-2.
 The over, helming preponderance of the evidence in this record establishes
 that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United
 States for nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotheraphy treatments in some
 cancer patients. To conclude otherwise, on this record_ would be unreasonable,
 arbitrary and-capricious.
 15 Tr. XV-37.
 - 34 -