vol1 - Page 316
Page 316
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
_disingenuous N to equate Waccepted medical use" with the tests
required for proving #safety _ in the NDA procedures.
By equating msafetyW and nefficacym with Wcurrently
accepted medical use in treatments m the Agency not only ignores
the First Circuit's decision in GrinsDoorb but it discards the
language,_structure and legislative history of the CSAo Indeed_
DEA utterly ignores the testimony of Michael Sonenrichs the
Agency's former Deputy Chief Counsel who, during legislative
consideration of the provision0 declared that the phrase means
what it says _-the determination of acceptance is made by the
medical community. I-_/
In sum, as the _ court so eloquently stated_
DEAns continued adherence to a #safety and efficacy u definition
of Uaccepted medical use m is, at very ieast, ndisingenuous_n So
blatant is this Agency's disregard_for judicial precedent,
Congressional intent and the obvious meaning of the CSASs
language that one wonders if the Agency is not more interested in
delaying -- if not preventing _- marijuanaes reclassification as
a Schedule II drugt by whatever means available, than in
developing a permissible interpretation of Wcurrently accepted
medical use in treatmento _
Irrespective of why the Agency continues to cling to a
standard already rejected by the courts, this tribunal is unques o-_
tionably not bound by that standard. The Alliance urges the ALJ
to adopt its interpretation set forth in its initial brief, that
_currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United
!__/ ACT Brief at 13 _
" "% O
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index