norml23 - Page 34

Page 34 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 ment's then Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs ("BNDD"). More
 than three months later, the BNDD director published a notice in the
 Federal Register which stated that the petition was not "accepted for
 filing, principally on the ground that reclassification of marijuana
 would violate U.S. treaty obligations under the single Convention on
 Narcotic Drugs ("Single Convention"). 37 Fed. Reg. 1 8097, 18098 (Sept.
 1, I972).
 A petition for review was filed in the Court of Appeals for the
 District of Columbia and on January 1 5, 1974, the Court reversed and
 remanded the case back to the newly created Drug Enforcement
 Administration for consideration on the merits. NORML v. Ingersoll,
 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Ciro 1974)o The Court suggested that on remand the
 proceeding be divided into two phases° In the first phase, the DEA
 would determine whether the Single Convention treaty allows the
 rescheduling of marijuana. "The second phase woutd arise only if some
 latitude were found, and would consider how the pertinent executive
 discretion should be exercised." NORML Vo Ingersoll, supra, 497 F.2d
 at 661 fn. 17.
 On remand, the DEA adopted the Court's suggestion for a two-phase
 proceeding. A three day heanng was heJd focusing on treaty
 obligations, after which the Acting Administrator of DEA published a
 notice in the Federal Register denying the petition "in all respects°"
 40 Fed. Reg. 44164, 44168 (Sept° 25, 1975). The Acting Administrator
 acknowledged that all components of the marijuana plant, as well as
 synthetic tetrahydrocannabinoU (THC), could be rescheduled from
 Schedule I of the CSA consistent with the Single Convention. He
 concluded that different degrees of rescheduling were permissible for
 the different components of marijuana. 40 Fed° Reg. at 4.4167-68.
 Turning to the second phase of the proceeding, the Acting
 Administrator stated that it was unnecessary to refer the petition to
 the Department of HEW for medical and scientific findings under Section
 201(a)-(c) of the CSA. The Acting Administrator based this conclusion
 principally on one page letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
 Health which stated that "there is currently no accepted medical use of
 marijuana in the United States" and that there 'qs no New Drug
 Application" for marijuana on file with the FDA. The Acting
 Administrator concluded that this letter required marijuana to remain
 in Schedule _ because it is "the only schedule reserved for drugs
 without a currently accepted medica_ use in treatment in the United
 States°" 40 Fed_ Reg. at 44i67.

Previous , Next , Return to Index