13. The Hearing's Conclusions
Government's proposed findings
Agency's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Argument by Stephen Stone and Charlotte Johnson, December 10, 1985.
(The DEA's statement that MDMA currently has no accepted medical use, has a high potential for abuse, and has not been studied sufficiently to allow therapeutic use in humans)
Pharmaceutical company's proposed findings
Hoffman-La Roche Inc.'s Proposed Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Argument
A pharmaceutical company's argument regarding the DEA's narrow interpretation of "accepted medical use" and the limits this places on research
Greer et al's proposed findings
Memo from Richard Cotton to interested parties.
Enclosures: Brief, Including Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Behalf of Drs. Greer and Grinspoon, et al. January 15, 1986
Government's response to Greer et al.'s proposed findings
Government's response to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Arguments Submitted by Drs. Greer and Grinspoon, et al., February 10, 1986
Administrative Law Judge's decision
Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of Administrative Law Judge, on Issues Two through Seven, recommending that MDMA be placed in Schedule III.
May 22, 1986
Government's exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Decision
Governments Exceptions to the Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge,
June 13, 1986
Submitted to the DEA Administrator from Stephen E. Stone and Charlotte A. Johnson, Counsel for DEA, arguing that Judge Young is biased and did not consider the evidence, and MDMA should be placed in Schedule I.
Greer et al's response to government's exceptions
Cover Letter from Richard Cotton to Judge Young, June 27, 1986
Enclosures: Response of Drs. Grinspoon, Greer, et al., to the Government's exceptions to the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge, June 27, 1986
