norml23 - Page 51

 decision at 743 fn. 41, is actua[Jy longer and more thorough than the
 discussion of medical uses HEW has provided in response to the Court's
 remand. And, the only reference cited by HEW was a book pubJished in
 1 976, one year before the Court's decision°
 2. The DEA Has Made Inadequate And Improl3er
 Findings Under Section 201 Of The CSA
 Section 201 (c) of the CSA, 21 UoS.Co Sec. 811 (c), sets out eight
 factors which HEW and DEA must consider in a reschedu[ing proceeding
 involving a controlled substance:
 (1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
 (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological
 effect, if known.
 (3) The state of current scientific knowledge
 regarding the drug or other substance.
 (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
 (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
 (6) What, if any, risk there is to the pubtk:
 health°
 (7) Its psychic or physiological dependence
 liability.
 (8) Whether the substance is an immediate
 precursor of a substance already controlled
 under this title.
 The findings made by HEW and DEA after the NORML v. DEA proceeding
 were inadequate and not in accordance with the CSA's legislative
 history. The House and Senate Reports on the CSA discuss in detail the
 findings required for Section 201(c). See, Report of the House
 Committee on interstate and Foreign Commerce, H.R.Rep. No. 91-1444,
 91st Cong. 2d Sesso, pt. 1 (1970), 1970 U.S. Code Congressional and
 Administrative News at pgso 4601_03; Report of the Senate Judiciary
 Committee, S.Rep. Noo 91-613, 91st Congo 1st Sess. (1969), at pgs.
 14-16.
 The House and Senate Reports on the CSA are the key sources in
 determining what findings are required by Section 201(c). The Reports
 contain the only detailed breakdown of the findings required for each
 of the eight areas, using often identical language. The Reports were