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