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