norml23 - Page 50

Page 50 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 the DEA argued that referral of the NORML petition to HEW was
 unnecessary because DEA had received a letter from HEW's Acting
 Assistant Secretary for Health, which stated that there were no
 currently acceptable medical uses for marijuana, and that no New Drug
 Applications had been processed. In concluding th;t this letter did not
 satisfy the rescheduJing procedures contained in Section 201, the Court
 "The one-page Ietter makes conclusory statements
 without providing a basis for or explanation of its
 findings, it is unctear what Dr. Cooper means when he
 writes that marijuana has no currengy acceptable
 medical use. As a legal conclusion his statement cannot
 be doubted: Placement in Schedule _ creates a self-
 fuJfilling prophecy, Tro at 1 70, because the drug can be
 used only for research purposes, Tr. at 488, and there-
 fore is barred from general medical use. But if Dr.
 Cooper's statement is meant to reflect a scientific
 judgment as to the medicinal potentiai of marijuana,
 then the basis for his evaJuation should be elaborated.
 Recent studies have yielded findings to the contrary:
 HEW's Fifth Annuat Report to the U.S. Congress, Mari-
 juana and Health (19I 5), devotes a chapter to the
 therapeutic aspects of marijuana, discovered through
 medicaJ research. Jd. ch.9, at 117-127. PossibJe uses
 of marijuana include treatment of glaucoma, asthma, and
 epilepsy, and provision of "needed relief for cancer
 patients undergoing chemotherapy." Id. at 117. These
 promising findings were discussed by Dr. Fort in his
 testimony before ALJ Parker. Tro at 163-165, 169-170.
 Only a formal referram and hearing will allow due weight
 to be given to such findings. Accordingly, recognizing
 that it is our obligation as a court to ensure that the
 agency acts within statutory bounds, we ho6d that Dr.
 Cooper's letter was not an adequate substitute for the
 procedures enumerated in Section 201 (a)-(c)o The case
 must be remanded for further proceedings consistent with
 those statutorY requirements. (Footnotes omitted).
 Id. at 749-50.
 Dr. Cooper's letter, which is set out verbatim in the Court's

Previous , Next , Return to Index