Own your ow legal marijuana business
Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
Carl Olsen's Marijuana Archive
                 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW


I.   Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
     Administration erred in ruling that marijuana must have an
     accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
     before it can be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II
     of the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970.


II.  Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
     Administration erred in ruling that only synthetic
     dronabinol in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin
     capsules, not dronabinol itself, was transferred to Schedule
     II of the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970.


III. Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
     Administration erred by ruling that marijuana is not the
     source of a Schedule II controlled substance under the
     federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970.


IV.  Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
     Administration erred by ruling that the scheduling of
     dronabinol is irrelevant to the scheduling of marijuana
     under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970.


                    STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

     The pertinent statues and regulations are set forth in an

addendum bound with this brief.


                          JURISDICTION

     The final order of the Drug Enforcement Administration was

issued on May 16, 1994 [App., p. 17].  I received the final order

by mail on May 19, 1994.  My Petition for Review, with attached

Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, was filed by this Court on

June 17, 1994, and assigned Docket No. 94-8015.  My Motion to

Proceed in Forma Pauperis was subsequently denied, and my

Petition for Review was refiled by this Court on September 16,


                              - 1 -

1994, and reassigned Docket No. 94-1605.  This Court has

jurisdiction of this petition for review of a final order of the

Drug Enforcement Administration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 877.


                      STATEMENT OF THE CASE

     1.   THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

     In 1970 Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act

(CSA), a comprehensive statute designed to rationalize federal

control of dangerous drugs.  The Act contains five categories of

controlled substances, designated as Schedules I through V and

defined in terms of dangers and benefits.  21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)-

(5).  The control mechanisms imposed on manufacture, acquisition,

and distribution of substances listed under the Act vary

according to the schedule in which the substance is contained.

Substances in Schedules I & II are subject to the most severe

restrictions, and substances in Schedule V are subject to the

least severe restrictions.  In drafting the CSA Congress placed

marijuana in Schedule I, one of two classifications that provide

for the most severe restrictions (the other is Schedule II).

     Recognizing that the results of continuous research might

cast doubt on the wisdom of initial classification assignments,

Congress created a procedure by which changes in scheduling could

be effected.  Pursuant to Section 201(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. §

811(a), the Attorney General "may, by rule," add a substance to a

schedule, transfer it between schedules, or remove it from the

schedules.  A reclassification rule promulgated under this

section must be made on the record after opportunity for hearing,


                              - 2 -

in accordance with the rulemaking procedures prescribed by the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 5, subch. II.  Section

201(a) further provides that rescheduling proceedings may be

initiated by the Attorney General on his [or her] own motion, at

the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS),

or, as in the present case, on petition of any interested party.

     Section 501(a) of the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 871(a), authorizes

the Attorney General to "delegate any of his functions under this

subchapter to any officer or employee of the Department of

Justice."  The functions vested in the Attorney General by the

CSA have been delegated to the Administrator of the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§

0.100(b) & 0.132(d).

     DEA's Acting Administrator must share his [or her] decision-

making function under the Act with the Secretary of HHS.  Section

201(b), 21 U.S.C. § 811(b), provides that, prior to commencement

of reclassification rulemaking proceedings, the Attorney General

must "request from the Secretary a scientific and medical

evaluation, and his [or her] recommendations, as to whether such

drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a

controlled substance."  The evaluation prepared by the Secretary

must address the scientific and medical factors enumerated in

Section 201(c), 21 U.S.C. § 811(c); these factors relate to the

effects of the drug and its abuse potential.  Pursuant to Section

201(b), the Secretary's recommendations "shall be binding on the

Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and

if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be


                              - 3 -

controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or

other substance."

     Section 201(d) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 811(d), contains a

limited exception to the referral procedures detailed in Section

201(b)-(c).  Subsection (d)(1) provides:

          If control is required by United States obligations
     under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in
     effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue
     an order controlling such drug under the schedule he [or
     she] deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations,
     without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of
     this section or section 812(b) of this title and without
     regard to the procedures prescribed by sections (a) and (b)
     of this section.


     2.   THE SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS.

     In 1948, in order to simplify existing treaties and

international administrative machinery, members of the United

Nations undertook codification of a single convention on

international narcotics control.  In 1961, after three

preliminary drafts, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,

1961, 18 U.S.T. 1407 (1967), 520 U.N.T.S. 204 (1964), was opened

for signature.  The United States ratified the Single Convention

in 1967 -- three years prior to enactment of the CSA.

     Like the CSA, the Single Convention establishes several

classifications or "schedules" of substances, to which varying

regimes of control attach.  Schedule I of the Single Convention

contains substances considered to carry a relatively high abuse

liability; included in this category are heroin, methadone,

opium, coca leaf, and cocaine.  Schedule II and III contain those


                              - 4 -

substances regarded as less susceptible to abuse.  Finally,

Schedule IV of the Single Convention -- unlike CSA schedule IV --

embraces certain Schedule I substances, such as heroin, the abuse

liability of which is not offset by substantial therapeutic

advantages.  Marijuana (cannabis) is listed in Schedules I and IV

of the Single Convention.  However, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

(delta-9-THC) is not listed in the schedules of the Single

Convention.


     3.   THE CONVENTION ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES.

     In 1978 Congress enacted the Psychotropic Substances Act

(PSA), Pub. L. 95-633, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 2768, to coincide

with the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, signed at Vienna,

Austria on February 21, 1971 [The Convention entered into force

in respect to the United States on July 15, 1980], 1019 U.N.T.S.

175 (1976), Treaty No. 14,596.  Section 101 of the PSA, 21 U.S.C.

§ 801a, provides, in part:

          The United States has joined with other countries in
     executing an international treaty, entitled the Convention
     on Psychotropic Substances and signed at Vienna, Austria, on
     February 21, 1971, which is designed to establish suitable
     controls over the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and
     use of certain psychotropic substances.

     The Convention on Psychotropic Substances contains four

categories of controlled substances, designated as Schedules I

through IV and defined in terms of dangers and benefits.  The

international control mechanisms imposed on manufacture,

acquisition, and distribution of substances listed under the

Convention on Psychotropic Substances vary according to the


                              - 5 -

schedule in which the substance is contained.  Substances in

Schedule I are subject to the most severe restrictions, and

substances in Schedule IV are subject to the least severe

restrictions.

     In drafting the Convention on Psychotropic Substances the

parties placed tetrahydrocannabinols in Schedule I, the

classification that provides for the most severe restrictions.

     However, "At its 1,045th meeting, on April 29, 1991, the

Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in accordance with article 2,

paragraphs 5 and 6, of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances,

1971, decided, by a vote of 33 in favor and 5 against, with no

abstentions, that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (also referred to

as delta-9-THC) and its stereochemical variants should be

transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II of that Convention."

Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1991,

Supplement No. 4 (E/1991/24, Supp. No. 4), pp. 23 and 98 [App.,

p. 10].  The five States voting against the decision were

Colombia, Ivory Coast, Egypt, France and Pakistan.  Id.


     4.   HISTORY OF THIS CASE.

     The scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances

Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 812, as well as under international

obligations, has been considered by this Court on several prior

occasions.  NORML v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974);

NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977); ACT v. DEA, 930 F.2d

936 (D.C. Cir. 1991); and ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir.

1994).


                             - 6 -

All of these cases originated from one petition filed with

the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) on May 18,

1972.  NORML filed the petition seeking to have marijuana removed

from the CSA.  The BNDD refused to accept the petition for

filing, and this Court then ordered the DEA to accept the

petition and respond.  NORML v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C.

Cir. 1974).  Upon remand the DEA held that international treaty

obligations required it to place marijuana in Schedule I of the

CSA.  This Court then remanded the petition back to the DEA

again, holding that marijuana can be placed in either Schedule I

or Schedule II of the CSA without violating international treaty

obligations, and requiring the DEA to hold hearings to determine

in which of the two schedules, Schedule I or Schedule II,

marijuana properly belonged.  NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 757

(D.C. Cir. 1977).

     As the issue became more narrowly focused, the Alliance for

Cannabis Therapeutics (ACT) became the lead petitioner in the

case.  The ACT, and the other parties seeking rescheduling,

advanced the argument that marijuana has accepted medical use in

treatment in the United States, 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2)(B), and

sought rescheduling solely on that basis.  The DEA administrator

again denied the petition, listing several criteria for

determining accepted medical use which marijuana failed to meet,

and this Court then remanded the case for clarification of the

DEA administrator's final order.  ACT v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C.

Cir. 1991).  The DEA administrator clarified and affirmed his

prior ruling in a subsequent final order, issued on March 26,


                              - 7 -

1992, finding that marijuana does not have accepted medical use

in treatment in the United States.  57 Fed. Reg. 10,499.  The ACT

sought review of the March 26, 1992, final order, and this Court

affirmed the final order of the DEA.  ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131

(D.C. Cir. 1994).

     In ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994), the

Administrator listed five criteria for determining accepted

medical use, and found that marijuana failed to satisfy all five

criteria.  The Administrator said, "First, marijuana's chemistry

is neither fully known, nor reproducible."  57 Fed. Reg. at

10,507.  The Administrator's findings that marijuana failed to

satisfy the remaining four criteria are due to the failure to

satisfy the first criterion, which would necessarily dictate

failure to satisfy the remaining four.

     After reading the Administrator's final ruling of March 26,

1992, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499, I sent a letter to the Administrator

on July 21, 1992 [App., p. 1], asking why coca and opium poppy

plants are scheduled in Schedule II of the CSA, since both of

these plants are subject to the same variances in chemistry as

the marijuana plant and neither are reproducible in standardized

dosages.

     On August 17, 1992, the Administrator replied [App., p. 5]

by stating that "these plant materials [coca and opium poppy]

have historically been recognized as the source for a variety of

accepted and useful medications."  The Administrator also stated

that "the petition to reschedule marijuana did not involve the


                              - 8 -

scheduling of any medically useful compound to be extracted from

the plant material."

     Interpreting the Administrator's statements regarding the

scheduling of coca and opium poppy plants as general rules of

statutory construction, I then filed my own Petition to

Reschedule Marijuana [App., p. 2] based on the fact dronabinol,

delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta-9-THC), the principle

psychoactive substance in the marijuana plant, was rescheduled to

Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act in 1986, and,

therefore, because marijuana is the source of dronabinol, it must

be moved into the same schedule as dronabinol.  See Final Order

of the Drug Enforcement Administration, May 13, 1986, 51 Fed.

Reg. 17,476 (placing dronabinol in Schedule II).

     My petition was filed on September 11, 1992, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 811 and 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03, in the form prescribed by

21 C.F.R. § 1308.44(b).

      In his final order of May 16, 1994, the Deputy

Administrator responded to my petition [App., p. 23] by stating,

"Only the pharmaceutical product was transferred from Schedule I

to Schedule II, i.e., 'dronabinol (synthetic) in sesame oil and

encapulated in a soft gelatin capsule in a U.S. Food and Drug

Administration approved drug product.'  No rescheduling action

was taken with regard to (-) delta-9-trans-THC, i.e., dronabinol,

which remains in Schedule I of the CSA."

     The Deputy Administrator further stated [App., p. 24],

"Under the CSA, the regulation of chemicals and the plant

material are distinct from each other.  The classification of


                              - 9 -

delta-9-THC has no bearing on the classification of marijuana.

Under the CSA, a proposed change in the schedule of either a

tetrahydrocannabinol or the plant marijuana requires the Attorney

General to proceed independently."  Id.


                       SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

     By definition, a synthetic drug is the same as its natural

occurring twin.  Dronabinol is only one substance, not two.

Synthesizing, adding sesame oil and encapsulating in soft gelatin

capsules, while having significance to the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) for marketing purposes, does not make

dronabinol into another drug for scheduling purposes.  In 1986,

Health and Human Services (HHS) recognized that synthetic delta-

9-THC is the same as its naturally occurring twin [App., p. 8].

The DEA must accept the scientific and medical findings of HHS.

     The DEA is trying to do something with delta-9-THC that it

doesn't do with any other drug, placing the synthetic drug in a

different schedule than its naturally occurring twin.  The DEA is

not authorized to make such distinctions.  The DEA must defer to

HHS for scientific and medical findings regarding the structure

of a drug.

     The DEA cannot rely on FDA marketing approval of  Marinol®

(synthetic dronabinol "in sesame oil and encapsulated in soft

gelatin capsules"), as a reason for keeping the dronabinol found

in the marijuana plant in Schedule I.  Sesame oil and gelatin

capsules are simply foods, which are not subject to control under


                             - 10 -

Click here for part 2

Library Highlights

Drug Information Articles

Drug Rehab