vol1 - Page 317

Page 317 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 States N is determined by the medical community and society-ate
 large. Indeed, this very issue is frequently the subject of
 medical malpractice cases _ is there an accepted medical use fox
 a particular drug prescribed in a particular case? I-_/ In this
 context, the ultimate decision is made by the jury representing
 society-at-large. This approach compo_:s exactly with the
 statutory lan_aages legislative history and structure of the
 Controlled Substances Act. 2_q/
 Regardless of what standard the ALJ selects, however,
 the evidence of marijuana_s medical utility is so overwhelming
 that the standard is unquestionably satisfied° Clearly, the
 medical community overwhelmingly recognizes marijuanaSs medical
 utility as an antiemetic and as a drug for the reduction of
 intraocular pressure. Likewise, numerous adequate and well
 controlled investigations, approved by FDA and DEA, have been
 conducted demonstrating marijuanaes medical utility for these
 19/ ACT Brief at 12_ 15_16.
 __Q/ ACT Brief at I0_16. Without discussing the statute's
 language, legislative history or purpose, DEA rejects this
 standard as being _clearly inappropriate o H DEA Brief at 84°
 The Agency then claims that the Grinspo¢_1 court rejected this
 standard by failing to impose it upon DEA. I_. These con-
 tentions are meritless. Firsts ACTes approach comports with al3
 aspects of the statuteSs language, structure and legislative
 history =- none of which are refuted by DEA. Second, to the
 extent that the _ court rejected this approach, it did _
 i_ _ and through deference to an Agency initially interpret _
 ing its own statute_ Since DEA has readopted the efficacy-base_
 approach rejected by the First Circuit_ it is unlikely that any
 Federal Court would be as willing to defer to the Agency in this
 case. Indeed, given DEA_s continued recalcitrance in promul_
 gating a legitimate standard, it is doubtful that any court wil3
 be willing to defer to this Agency on appeal. See INS v.
 Cardoza=Fonsecae 107 S. Ct. 1207, 1221 no30 (1987).
 - II -

Previous , Next , Return to Index