Drug Enforcement Administration

Footnote 4: Petitioners also quarrel with the Administrator's decision that marijuana lacks "accepted safety for use." Since the Administrator based this determination on his decision that no medical uses are possible (and thus any use lacks "accepted safety"), we do not see that "safety" issue as raising a separate analytical question.

Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 940 (D.C. Cir. 1991)

The scheduling criteria of the Controlled Substances Act appear to treat the lack of medical use and lack of safety as separate considerations. Prior rules of this Agency purport to treat safety as a distinct factor. 53 FR 5156 (February 22, 1988). In retrospect, this is inconsistent with scientific reality. Safety cannot be treated as a separate analytical question.

57 FR 10499, Vol. 57, No. 59, p. 10504, Thursday, March 26, 1992

DEA Acting Administrator Chuck Rosenberg (2016):

Schedule I includes some substances that are exceptionally dangerous and some that are less dangerous (including marijuana, which is less dangerous than some substances in other schedules). That strikes some people as odd, but the criteria for inclusion in Schedule I is not relative danger.

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration (August 11, 2016)

Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge (September 6, 1988)

DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young (1988):

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.

Source: DEA Docket No. 86-22 (September 6, 1988), pp. 58-59

28 C.F.R. §0.100 (2019)

Subpart R—Drug Enforcement Administration

§ 0.100 General functions.

The following-described matters are assigned to, and shall be conducted, handled, or supervised by, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration:

(a) Functions vested in the Attorney General by sections 1 and 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1968.

(b) Except where the Attorney General has delegated authority to another Department of Justice official to exercise such functions, and except where functions under 21 U.S.C. 878(a)(5) do not relate to, arise from, or supplement investigations of matters concerning drugs, functions vested in the Attorney General by the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, as amended. This will include functions which may be vested in the Attorney General in subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, and not otherwise specifically assigned or reserved by him.

(c) Functions vested in the Attorney General by section 1 of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 and not otherwise specifically assigned.

[Order No. 520–73, 38 FR 18380, July 10, 1973, as amended by Order No. 960–81, 46 FR 52348, Oct. 27, 1981; Order No. 1203–87, 52 FR 24447, July 1, 1987; Order No. 2204–99, 64 FR 4295, Jan. 28, 1999; Order No. 2666–2003, 68 FR 14899, Mar. 27, 2003]