norml11 - Page 8

Page 8 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 lawfully be transferred from Schedule ! _to Schedulel_ of -
 the schedules established by. the Controlled Substances Act.
 Two subsidiary issues were agreed on, as follows: - °
 I. Whether the marijuana plant.has a currently accepted
 medical°use in treatment ° in the Unfired States, ora
 currently accepted medical use with severe_cestric -
 ' tions.
 2. Whether there _s a lack of accepted safety foil use of
 the marijuana plant-under medical supervision;
 As stated above, the parties favoring transfer from Schedule I to Schedule 11
 are NORNL_ ACT, CCA and Car] Eric Olsea. Those favoring retaining marijuana in
 Schedule I are the Agency, NFP and IACP.
 During the Spring and Summer of ]987 the parties identified their witnesses
 and put the direct examination testimony of each witness in writing ia affidavit
 form. Copies of these affidavits were exchanged. Similarly, the parties assem-
 bled their proposed exhibits and exchanged copieSo Opportunity was provided for
 each party to submit objections to the direct exami_ation testimony and exhibits
 proffered by the others. The objections submitted _ere considered by the
 administrative law judge and ruled on. The testimony and exhibits not excluded
 were admitted into the record. Thereafter hearing sessions were held at which
 witnesses were subjected to cross-examination. These sessions were-held in New
 Orleans, Louisiana on November ]8 and 19, 1987; in San Francisco, California on
 December 8 and 9, 1987; and i_ Washington, DeC. on Jar_uary 5 through 8 and 26
 through 29, and on February 2, 4 and 5, ]988. The parties have submitted pro-
 posed findings and conclusions and briefs. Oral arguments were heard by the
 judge on June ]0, 1988 in Washington. ::

Previous , Next , Return to Index