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