norml23 - Page 38

 201(b)-(c) the Acting Administrator precluded the
 balancing process contemplated by Congress.
 Admittedly, Section 202(b), 21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(b),
 which sets forth the cdteda for placement in each
 of the five CSA schedules, established medical use
 as the factor that distinguishes substances in
 Schedule II from those in Schedule L However,
 placement in Schedule _ does not appear to flow
 inevitably from _ack of a currently accepted
 medical use. Like that of Section 201(c), the
 structure of Section 202(b) contemplates balancing
 of medical usefulness along with several other
 considerations, including potential for abuse and
 danger of dependence° To treat medical use as the
 controflin 0 factor in classification decisions is
 to render irrelevant the other "findings" required
 by Section 202(b)o The Begislative history of the
 CSA indicates that medical use is but one factor to
 be considered, and by no means the most important
 one. (Footnotes omitted).
 NORML v. DEA, supra, 559 F.2d at 748.
 The Court then found that the letter from the Acting Assistant
 Secretary for Health was not an adequate substitute for the Section
 201(a)-(c) proceedings. The Court noted that even in terms of medical
 uses, there have been a number of promising findings concerning medical
 uses for marijuana, and only a referral to HEW "wilt allow due weight
 to be given such findings:"
 The one-page letter makes conclusory statements
 without providing a basis for or explanation of its
 ,_ findings. It is unclear what Dr. Cooper means when
 he writes that marijuana has no currently
 acceptable medicaJ use. As a legal conciusion his
 statement cannot be doubted: Placement in ScheduJe
 I creates a self fulfilling prophecy, Tr. at 1 70,
 because the drug can be used onmy for research
 purposes, Tr. at 488, and therefore is barred from