norml23 - Page 2

 uses" for marijuana, including the treatment of gtaucoma and
 cancer patients' recurring chemotherapy, which have now been
 recognized by twenty-seven states, in addition, recent
 government reports and studies have shown that marijuana does not
 have a "high potential for abuse," an@ may be safeEy used under
 medical supervision.
 "The cJassification of marijuana in Schedute i is also
 u_constitutlonal in that mar{juana is irrationa{{y c{assified
 with dissimilar and much more dangerous substances, including
 heroin and the hallucinogens. In fact, recent evidence
 demonstrates that marijuana has a significantJy _ower potential
 for abuse than substances classified in Schedules H-IV of the
 CSA, including the barbiturates and amphetamines.
 The defendant also contends that the Attorney General and
 his delegee, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
 Administration ("DEA"), have failed to abuse by the Controlled
 Substances Act ("CSA") and, in refusing to reclassify marijuana
 from its original Schedule B cJassification, have abused its
 discretion under the CSAo
 The megismative history of the Controlled Substances Act,
 and particularly the testimony of then Attorney General MitchelR
 and then director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
 ("BNDD") Jntersoll, make dear that the theory and structure of
 the Controlled Substance Act was guided by three overriding
 principles: First the creation of five tiers of controls
 (codified in the give scheduJes of 21 U.S.C. 81 2) was designed
 to ensure both actual fairness (in the sense that offenses and
 offenders of varying degrees of severity would be dealt with by
 means of graduating penaJties and the appearance of fairness (in
 the sense that judges, prosecutors, and the pubmic perceive that
 the penalty fits the crime in as many senses of that phrase as
 are possible). Second, the stress upon scientific criteria and
 constant updating and republishing of the schedules was designed
 to insure that the classification and penalty structure was
 rational and credible, in the sense that the cJassification of
 drugs into one of the various schedules conformec_ to the best
 available scientific knowledge as to the relative harmfulness and
 benefit of such substance. Third, and in the eyes of the
 sponsors of the legislation, the most important feature of the
 CSA, was the granting of tetat discretion to the Attorney