norml23 - Page 48

 aBternatives indicated in the NORML vo DEA decision.
 In considering in which schedule to pJace the different cannabis
 materials, HEW considered only Schedules _ and It, and the criteria for
 controlling substances in those two Schedules. See, Fed. Reg. at 36127
 Cols. 2-3. HEW reviewed the Schedule ! and tl criteria in Section
 202(b), and concluded that aJJ marijuana materials could appropriately
 be placed in Schedule I or H, but on balance Scheduie I was
 preferable. 4.4 Fed. Rego at 36t 27 CoJs. 1-2. HEW therefore recommended
 the retention of marijuana materials in Schedule I_ and DEA adopted
 this in the final order. 44 Fed. Reg. at 36124 CoL 2.
 This NORML w DEA decision was emphatic that DEA and HEW consider the
 full range of rescheduling options available, which include Schedules
 _, Ii, IH, IV, V, and decontrol for the different cannabis materials.
 The Court emphasized the different rescheduling options for each
 category of cannabis material in the "Conclusion" of its decision, id.
 at 757. Three of the four categories of cannabis materials can be
 reclassified below Schedule It. ld. A chart attached to the decision
 indicates the different controR mechanisms contained in the CSA for
 substances on the various Schedules of Control Id. at 758.
 In justifying its refusal to consider rescheduling to Schedules
 iIFV, HEW states that: "No placement in Schedule Ill, IV, or V is
 possible unless the substances have a currently accepted medicare use in
 treatment in the United States." 44 FedoReg. at 36127 Cot. 2. This
 interpretation of the CSA was discussed in detail and specifically
 rejected by the NORML Vo DEA Court:
 If, as respondent contends, a determination that
 the substance has no accepted medical use ends the
 inquiry, then presumably Congress would have
 spelled that out in its procedural guidemines. Its
 failure to do so indicates an intent to reserve to
 HEW a finely tuned balancing process involving
 several medicare and scientific considerations° 8y
 shortcutting the referral procedures of Section
 201(b)-(c) the Acting Administrator precluded the
 balancing process contemplated by Congress.
 Admit idly, Section 202(b), 221 U.S.C. Sec.
 812(b), which sets forth the criteria for placement
 in each of the five CSA schedules, established
 medical use as the factor that distinguishes