norml17 - Page 4

Page 4 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 Francis L° Young. In September, Judge Young issued a 68-page opiniOno 8
 He analyzed the use of medical marijuana for treatment of chemotherapy-
 induced nausea, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and other maladies (but not
 AIDS, which was only a glimmer of a problem at the time). He
 concluded that "The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana
 has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of
 very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision, k
 would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to
 stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of
 the evidence in this record." He recommended that the Administrator
 transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II. 9
 o 1989: The DEA rejected its own Chief ALJ's recommendation and refused
 to reclassify the drug, characterizing medical use of marijuana a "cruel and
 dangerous hOaXo"t0 NORML and the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics
 (ACT) immediately appealed.
 o 1991: The Court remanded the case to DEA, noting the circularly" of the
 alleged logic; the DEA admiNstrator refused to reschedule the drug
 because, inter alia, it didn't meet requirements for "general availab_ity of
 the substance" and "recognition of its clinical use in generally accepted
 pharmacopeia, medical references, journaIs and textbooks," and
 "Recognition and use of the substance by a substantial segment of the
 medicaI practitioners in the United States." The Court pointed out the
 impossibility of showing that a drug enjoys "availability" or "use" when it
 is illegal for doctors to obtain it by virtue of being a Schedule I drug°
 Likewise, the drug is not going te show up in any manual or pharmacopeia
 if it is itlegal to prescribe and illegal to possess. 11
 ® 1992: DEA Administrator Rober Bonner issued a new Denial of Petition,
 leaving out the circular logic of the 1989 denial, but asserting baldly (in
 direct contradiction of his ALrs evidence and conclusions) that the answer
 8"Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of
 Administrative Law Judge," in the matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, Docket No. 86-22, U.S.
 l)eparmaent of Justice, Drag Enforcement Ad_ainistration; Freaaeis Lo Young, Aalmigistrative Law Jt_dge,
 September 6, 1988.
 9 Id, page 68.
 _o 54 Federal Register 53767-53785, December 29, 1989, p. 53784.
 _ A " " "" _ ,930F.2d936(DCCiro t991).

Previous , Next , Return to Index