norml23 - Page 44

 36123, COto 3, 36124 Col. 1. In considering medical uses, the DEA
 refers to "marijuana, extracted and synthetic and extracted THCo n 44
 Fed. Reg. at 36124 Col. 2. Nowhere in the DEA decision does the DEA make
 separate and distinct findings or conclusions with respect to the four
 categories of cannabis materials specified by the Court.
 The DEA decision also acknowledges that the medical and scientific
 findings of HEW are "statutorily binding" on the Administrator of DEA,
 44 Fed. Reg. at 36124 Col. 3, and it adopts the HEW findings by
 reference. 44 Fed. Reg. at 36124 Col. 2.
 NORML again flied a petition for review of this finding with the
 Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit° It argued that
 the DEA's decision did not compare with the mandate of the Court in
 NORML v. DEA, with the requirements of the CSA and with the Due Process
 clause.
 On October 17, 1980, the Court of Appeals for the District of
 Columbia issued a Memorandum Opinion where it fl3und that the DEA had
 failed to comply with the prior decision of the Co_rt and remanded the
 matter back to the DEA for further findings in conformity with that
 opinion.
 Bo Overview of the Structure and Purpose of the Controlled
 Substance Act of 1970
 The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970,
 Public Law 91-513, was designed to deal in a coordinated fashion with a
 perceived drug problem in the United States by providing authority for
 expanded drug abuse prevention and rehabilitation programs, a more
 effective means of prevention and control for law enforcement officers,
 and an overall balanced scheme of criminal penalties for drug offenses.
 See 1970 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News, at p. 4602.
 The key feature of the CSA is a provision whereby the Congress woutd
 list the drugs initially subject to contro% and provide a procedure
 for future determination of drugs to be subject to such controls by the
 Attorney General and the Secretary of Health, Ed_Jcation and Welfare.
 Not surprisingly, conflict immediately arose between the Attorney
 General and the Secretary over their respective roles in making the
 controlled determination. EquaJly unsurprisingJy= the compromise uJti-
 mately struck provided ultimate authority for the decision as to which
 drugs should be controlled in the hands of the Attorney Genera%
 subject to criteria and procedures which must be followed before drugs