norml23 - Page 81

 considered.
 At pp. 29-30.
 The cases which have rejected other challenges to the
 classification of marijuana do not dea_ in any meaningful way with the
 substance of the arguments advanced in the instant case. Thus, in
 United States v. Gramlich, 55! F.2d 1359 (5th Qr. 1977), the court
 herd that it was not error to refuse to hold an evidentiary hearing as
 to the constitutionality of the classification of marijuana as a
 controlled substance. See also United States v. Sp.ann, 51 5 F.2d 579
 487 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. (2d Cir. 1973) cert. 0Oth Ciro 1975); United
 States v. LaFroscia, 1973); United States v. Kiffer, 477 F.2d 349
 denied, 414 U.S. 831, 94 SoCt. 62, 38 LoEd. 2d 65 {1973); United States
 v. Rodriquez_Comacho, 468 F.2d 1220 (9th Cir. 1 972), c _. denied, 4.10
 U.So 985, 93 S.Ct. 1512, 36 L. Edo2d 182 (1973); Bettis v. United
 States, 408 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1969). See also United States v.
 Horsley, 519 F.2d 1264- (Sth Ciro 1975); United States v. Drotar, 4t6
 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1969), vacated on other grounds, 40Z U.S. 939, 91
 S.Ct. 1628, 29 UEd.2d 107 (1971); Daut v. United States, 405 F.2d 312
 (gth Ciro 1968), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 945, 91 S.Ct. 1624, 29 LoEd.2d
 114 (1 971); United States v. Ward, 387 F.2d 843 {7th Ciro 1967); Leafy
 w United States, 383 F.2d 851 (5th Cir. 1967), rev'd, on other
 grounds, 395 UoSo 6, 89 S.Cto 1 532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1 969); United States
 v. Creswe[L 515 F. Supp. t 268 (E.D.N.Y. ! 981)o
 Similarly, in United States v. Huerta, 547 F.2d 545 (lOth Cir.
 1977) the Court he_d that the statutes were not invalidated by the
 failure of the Attorney GeneraJ to semiannuaJly republish the schedules
 and in United States v. Gaertner, 583 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1978) it was
 held that the statutes were not unconstitutional because defendant
 alleged that marijuana was arbitrarily and irrationally c_assified as a
 controlled substance. None of these arguments is advanced here.
 Defendant's position is that the Administrator of the DEA has
 grossly abused its discretion in refusing to comply with the procedures
 of the CSA and in refusing to reclassify marijuana° Further, defendant
 contends that he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless one of
 three conditions obtain° First, if this court is prepared to rule that
 the showing made in these papers and the decisions in the NORML cases
 cited above establish that the Administrator of the DEA has abused his
 discretion in refusing to reclassify marijuana. Secondly, if the