In 1984-85, the DEA refused to wait for the procedural path of hearings and testimony re the actual scientific evidence and anecdotal findings from clinical psychologists and therapists who were using MDMA in counseling, and made an emergency determination that MDMA was a Schedule I substance with no medical or scientific value whatsoever.
Later that same year (1985) the administrative judge who did review the documentation and evidence provided by the DEA as well as scientists and doctors made the determination that MDMA should be a Schedule III substance, available for both research and prescription use. In his recommended ruling, contained in his full findings and rulings at http://tinyurl.com/2f9cf7 the judge rejected the DEA's and the government's position on MDMA, writing "The administrative law judge recommends that the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by the participants be rejected by the Administrator, except to the extent they are included in the judge's recommendations, for the reason that they are irrelevant, unduly repetitious or not supported by substantial evidence." Unfortunately, the law allows the DEA to trump the admin law judge's determination and to continue with emergency scheduling despite the evidence. ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It used to be out in CA MDMA (Ecstasy) was legal for talk therapy > which I think was wonderful. People who were totally estranged even > could open their hearts and heal. I remember when it used to legal > nationwide. > > It's amazing how much our politicians and lawmakers fear humans > having use of their own nervous systems. > > On May 14, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > Shulgin and his partner came and lectured at a class I took in law > > school, though I wasn't there the day they came (bummer). > > > > Here is another experience report from Erowid.org that is interesting > > in this context: > > > > http://tinyurl.com/yuoqay >
