norml23 - Page 60

 to the state marijuana programs, it is defendant's understanding that
 in every instance in which the U.S. government has provided marijuana
 or THC to researchers or patients in the past few years, the government
 has first tested the marijuana or synthetic THC sample for the level of
 THC potency and indicated this on the label. There has never been a
 problem in administering a known amount of THC to a patient, because
 the THC content is always determined in advance. The variance in the
 amount of THC in different marijuana plants does not indicate a lack of
 safety to use marijuana under medical supervisio_o HEW's findings on
 this criterion are totally inadequate. HEW should have focused on the
 experience of the states and approved research projects authorizing
 access to marijuana to determine whether it can be used safely under
 medical supervision.
 As part of its "second reason" for preferring Schedule I over
 Schedule 11, HEW pointed out that one criterion for Schedule il is
 that: "Abuse of the drug or other substance may mead to severe
 psychological or physicam dependence." Section 202(b)(2)(C)o HEW noted
 that there was "no convincing evidence to suggest that abuse of
 marijuana materials leads to severe psychological or physical de-
 pendence." 44 Fed. Reg. at 36126 Colo 2, and concluded that his supports
 the placement of marijuana materials in Schedule _, Id., at 36127 Col.
 Thus, however anomalous it may seem the lack of
 strong evidence of "severe psychological or
 physical dependence" militates in favor of
 placement in Schedule I rather than ScheduJe IL
 (Emphasis added).
 If HEW had considered the full range of scheduling options, it
 would have been obvious that the reverse is true -o the less the
 evidence of dependence, the lower the ScheduJe of control. The criteria
 for Schedule Ill refer to "moderate or low physical dependence or high
 psychological dependence;" the analogous criterion for Schedule IV is
 "limited physical dependence relative to the drugs or other substances
 in ScheduSe 011." and the analogous criterion for Schedule V is
 "limited physicat dependence or psychological dependence relative to
 the drugs or other substances in Schedule W." See, Section
 202(b)(3)-(5)o
 The lack of evidence of severe dependence from marijuana use must
 favor reschedu_ing of marijuana out of Schedule I, not keeping it
 there. HEW would have come to this conclusion if it had considered the