vol2 - Page 36

Page 36 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 :1:_efully mark_ed_i-n-i_e _mr_.'_espur_uant to the Federal = _ood, _"_,_g and
 Cosmetic Act of 1938 .... .g "
 The Untied States Court of Appeals for the First C_rc_it held that the
 "" : _''' m ": _:___ i n S 0 _l i nl" _0 That COUrt VaCated the final order of
 _. _ .... October 8, 1988 and remanded, the matter of MDMA_s scheduling for further cone
 sideration. The court directed that, en remand, the Administrator would not be
 permit_d-t_--Crea;_._he_.e_b,sen_e of_._i_ter_tatm marketing approval by FDA as con_
 .:ciusive evidence o_ the question of accepted medical use _nder the Act. :;
 Zn his third final rule 11 on the matter of the scheduling of MDMA the
 Administrator made a series of findings of fact as to MDPA, the drug there under
 comsideration_ with respect to the evidence i_ that record. On those findings
 he based his _ast final rule i_ the caseo 12
 _ v, Dru9 Enforcement Administra_i_on, 828 F.2d 88] (Ist_ Cir.,
 ll 53 Fed. Reg. 5156 (1988)o A second final rule had been issued on January ;:
 20, 1988. It merely removed HDMA from Schedule _ pursuant to the mandate of
 the Co_rl: of Appeals which had voided the first final rule placing it there°
 Subsequently the third final rule was issued, _ithout any further hearings,
 again placl_g MDMA in Schedule ;. There was no further appeal,
 12 _ neither the first nor the third final rule in the MOMA case does the
 Administrator take any cognizance o_ the statements to the Congressional
 committee by predecessor Agency officials that the determination as to
 "accepted medical use i_ treatment" is to be made by the medical community
 and not by any part o? the federal government. See page 27, above, it is
 curious that the Administrator makes no effort whatever to show how the BNDD
 representatives _ere mistaken or to explain why he now has abandoned their
 interpretation. They wrote that language into the original bil]o
 - 30

Previous , Next , Return to Index