norml17 - Page 3

 o 1972: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
 (NORML) petitioned the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
 (precurser to the DEA) to reclassify medical rnafij_Jana. The agency
 refused to act on the petition. NORML appealed to the U.So Court of
 Appeals.
 o 1974: The court held that the agency's position had no merit, and that the
 petition should be processed.6
 o 1975: The DEA dismissed the petition without hearing testimony.
 NORML appealed.
 o 1977: The Court of Appeals reversed the ddsrnissal, criticizing the DEA
 for not providing scientific and medical evaluation_ as required by law,
 which were to be provided the Department of Health, Education and
 Welfare (HEW).7
 o 1979: Unreasonable delays resulted in NORML filing motions to compel
 against both DEA and HEW. Facing sanctions, HEW produced a
 response. DEA then dismissed the petition again with no hearings°
 NORML appealed agaJno
 * 1980: The Court of Appeals for the third time reprimanded the DEA and
 affirmed NORML's fight to a "full and fair" heating.
 Q 1981" NORML filed another Motion to Compel° Within three days the
 agencies announced the approval of synthetic THC (Mafinol), and
 promised a "legislative type hearing" would be forthcoming.
 - • 1982: Another Motion to Compel° The Court issued a Mandatory
 Progression Order requiring the DEA and HEW to provide them with 90-
 day progress notes°
 o 1986: Hearing procedures set.
 o 1987: Written affidavits, evidence and exhibits filed. Hearings held in
 New Orleans and San Francisco.
 ® 1988: Further evidentiary hearings held in Washington, D.C., and oral
 arguments held in June before the DEA's Chief Adrrfinistrafive Law Judge,
 6 NafionM Org. for_the_iLe£omLo,fMarij_taa Laws _IiigersolL 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
 7 National Org. for the R.c.i_LMatijuaaa Laws v. DFE_o 559 F.2d 735 (D.Co Cir. 1977)
 3