vol1 - Page 309
Page 309
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
disingenuous is this conclusion that it appears that. the Agency
is more interested in preventing the rescheduling of marijuana
than it is in correctly applying the statute to the facts of this
case° This arbitrary exercise of Agency authority not only
flouts the administrative process, it c_elly perpetuates the
inability of cancer, glaucoma and spastic: patients to secure
licit access to marijuana. Instead these patients are forced to
suffer the adverse consequences of their disease or secure the
...... drug from illicit, potentially dangerous sources. Ultimately the
Agency, by refusing to reschedule marijuana, is violating its
prime directive under the CSA _- the protection of public health_
On the merits, DEA first attempts to distract
attention from the primary issues in this proceeding by alleging
that marijuana cannot be #standardized _ and is #variable. u As
discussed in Section IXX, i_r_, this argument is meritless. DEA
not only can define and identify marijuana for purposes of
criminal law enforcement, but FDA has established a Drug Master
File setting forth all of the safety information DEA claims does
not exist -- information FDA has relied upon in authorizing IND
studies using marijuana on _mans.
DEA alleges marijuana is unsafe. As discussed in
Section IV_ infrA, and in its initial briefs the Alliance
demonstrates that this position is insupportable.
Finally, DEA arques marijuana does not have an
accepted medical use in the treatment of emesis resulting from
anticancer therapy, the reduction of intraocular pressure and in
controlling spasticityo As discussed in Section V, _nfra_ and in
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index