vol2 - Page 12

 _:,_- _:l_l!y_be'll'ImIlt_nl_ l_rm Sclledule ( to Schedule II of
 _ .-th_:_:hedul_ est_bllsht_ci:-by t_ Controlled Substances Act.
 "T_ _s,_s_diary_is_ues • were aged on, as follows:
 ,.-_ -:I_ _et_r-the marijuana plant has a currently accepted
 '_i_Yl_.al _se l_ treat_nt i_ the United States, or
 -- .... . ._curr_ntly accepted _edical _se with severe r_stric_ -,
 :_: C_ °
 Wheth_'_tl_ev_ Is_._.!:lack ..of accepted safety for _se .oil
 -, :the n_riJ_na pl_ under medlcal supervlsion_
 As stated above, the parties favori_ng (:ransfer from Schedule I to Schedule IZ )
 are NORML, ACT, CCA and Carl _rlc Olsen. Those favoring r_talni_g marijuana in
 Schedule _ are the Agency, NFP and )ACPo
 During the Spring and Summer of _987 the panics identified their _itne_ses -.
 amd put the direct examinatlom testimony of each _itness In _riting in affidavit
 form. Copies of these affidavits _ere exchanged_ Similarly, the parties assem-
 bled their proposed e×hibits and excha_gec_.copieso Opportumlty was provided for :.
 each party to submit objections to the dlr_c_ examination testl_ny and exhibits
 proffered by the others_ The objections submitted were consldermd by the
 administrBtive la) judge and ruled one The testimony and _xhiblts not excluded
 _er_ admitted into the record° Theremfter heari_g sessions _re held at v_hich
 witnesses _ere subjected to cros$-ex_inatio_. _ese sessions were helc_ in Ne_
 Orleans. Loulsla_a on November 18 and Ig, 1987; i_ San Franclsco_ California on
 December 8 and g,. Ig87; and i_ Wa_hington_ D_C_ on January 5 through 8 and 26
 through 2g_ and om February 2, 4 and 5, 1988. The parties have submitted prom
 posed findings and co_cl_slons and briefs, Oral arguments _ere heard by the
 judge on June lO, 1988 in Washingto_