QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 
I.	Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration erred in ruling that the final rule of May 13, 
1986, placing synthetic dronabinol in sesame oil and encapsulated 
in soft gelatin capsules in Schedule II did not included the 
rescheduling of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol itself. 
II.	Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration erred in ruling that the final rule of May 13, 
1986, placing synthetic dronabinol in sesame oil and encapsulated 
in soft gelatin capsules in Schedule II did not included the 
rescheduling of marijuana. 
III.	Whether the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration erred procedurally by refusing to accept the 
petition and ruling on its merit, simultaneously. 
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 October 23, 1992.  My Petition for Review was received 
by this Court on November 12, 1992, and assigned Docket No. 92-
8041.  My Petition for Review was subsequently filed in forma 
pauperis by this Court on February 8, 1993, and reassigned Docket 
No. 93-1109 [App., p. 17].  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 the two classifications that 
provides for the most severe restrictions. 
	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, 
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 Acting Administrator of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) pursuant to 28 C.F.R.  
0.100(b) & 0.132(d) (1992). 
	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 
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 
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 
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. 
	There are currently two other petitions for review, seeking 
to have marijuana moved from Schedule I to Schedule II of the 
CSA, now pending before this Court.  Alliance for Cannabis 
Therapeutics v. Drug Enforcement Administration, No. 92-1168, and 
Drug Policy Foundation v. Drug Enforcement Administration, No. 
92-1179.  The Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics (ACT) and the 
Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) allege that marijuana has accepted 
medical use in treatment in the United States, 21 U.S.C.  
812(b)(2)(B), and seek rescheduling on that basis.  They are 
seeking review of a final order of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA), issued on March 26, 1992, finding that 
marijuana does not have accepted medical use in treatment in the 
United States.  57 Fed. Reg. 10,499. 
	The scheduling of marijuana under the Controlled Substances 
Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C.  812, as well as under international 
obligations, has been under consideration 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); and, ACT 
v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991).  The issue is still 
pending before this Court in ACT v. DEA, No. 92-1168, and DPF v. 
DEA, No. 92-1179. 
	ACT and DPF inherited their case from NORML which filed a 
petition to have marijuana removed from the CSA with the Bureau 
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) on May 18, 1972.  The 
BNDD refused to accept the petition for filing, and this Court 
had to order the DEA to 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 belongs.  NORML v. DEA, 559 
F.2d 735, 757 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 
	In the final order for which ACT and DPF seek review, 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 went on to explain why marijuana 
failed to satisfy the remaining four criteria, but these four 
will not be repeated here, because failure to satisfy the first 
criterion would almost certainly mean failure to satisfy the 
remaining four. 
	After reading the Administrator's final ruling of March 26, 
1992, I sent a letter to the Administrator on July 21, 1992, 
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 (neither are 
reproducible in standardized dosages) [App., p. 1]. 
	On August 17, 1992, the Administrator replied 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."  Letter from the Administrator, 
dated August 17, 1992 [App., p. 5].  The Administrator also 
stated that "the petition to reschedule marijuana did not involve 
the scheduling of any medically useful compound to be extracted 
from the plant material."  Id. 
	Interpreting the Administrator's statements regarding 
scheduling of coca and opium poppy plants and scheduling of a 
medically useful compound extracted from marijuana as general 
rules, I then filed my own Petition to Reschedule Marijuana based 
on the fact that in 1986 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, and, therefore, marijuana must be moved into the 
same schedule as dronabinol [App., p. 2].  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). 
	 The Administrator responded to my petition by stating, "In 
a final rule published on May 13, 1986, then Administrator John 
C. Lawn placed a very specific substance, synthetic dronabinol in 
sesame oil and encapsulated in soft gelatin capsules, in Schedule 
II.  Administrator Lawn's action did not involve the rescheduling 
of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol itself, nor did it include any 
form of dronabinol other than the synthetic."  Final rule of the 
Administrator, October 23, 1992 [App., p. 7]. 
	The Administrator stated further, "Since I am not accepting 
your petition on the grounds that dronabinol is a wholly 
synthetic substance, not obtained from marijuana, it is 
unnecessary for me to consider the broader question of whether 
the rescheduling of marijuana would be appropriate if accepted 
medications were indeed obtained from that source."  Id.