norml23 - Page 79

 The analysis above puts defendant's claims in the instant case in
 perspective. He is raising the argument that the Schedule [
 cQassification of marijuana was initially improper, or is no Eonger
 rational. The defendant also argues that the Administrator of the DEA
 has failed to follow the statutori[y prescribed procedures regarding
 recJassification, has failed to proper_y consider a lawful pet}tion of
 NORML regarding reclassification and has failed to reclassify marijuana
 in dereliction of the discretion invested in him by Congress. if this
 court does not find that the showing made here is sufficient to show a
 gross abuse of discretion, defendant seeks leave of the court to
 require the Administrator of the DEA to jtJstify his refusal to exercise
 his statutory mandate to reconsider the cJassification of marijuana and
 to fait to abide by the statutory procedures of the CSA.
 Defendant offers to prove that the Administrator of the DEA has
 faiEed to abide by its own procedures and has failed to exercise its
 discretion to reclassify marijuana. Defendant offers to prove further
 that although research conducted since the enactment of the CSA has
 shown the lack of precision of the criteria specified in the statute,
 under any definition of relevant criteria the classification of
 marijuana in Schedule [ cannot be sustained by substantial scientific
 evidence; that is, whether marijuana's harmfut and beneficial
 propel-ties are analyzed in isolation, or whether, instead, the effects
 of the substance are compared with the harmful and beneficial
 properties of controlled substances in Schedules II, _[I, iV or V, the
 weight of scientific evidence does not support the proposition that
 marijuana is validly classified in Schedule _. Cf., Industria_ Union
 department, supra, where the Court heJd that although an agency
 administering a statute in which difficult technica_ and scientific
 questions play a pivotal part is not constrained by a mathematical
 strait-jacket, n nor required to support its findings "with anything
 approaching scientific certainty," the agency bears the burden to
 establish that its findings and policies "are supported by a body of
 reputable scientific thought°" 100 S.Cto at 2870. The report "An
 Analysis of Marijuana Policy" (June 1982) prepared by the National
 Research CounciPs Committee reached these and other concJusions:
 For the last decade, concern with heatth
 hazards attributable to marijuana has been rising°
 The hearts, lungs, reproductive functions, and
 mental abilities of children have been reported to
 be threatened by marijuana, and such threat.,; are