thank you you're on a good afternoon a minute please the court i represent the petitioners in this case who are challenging the drug enforcement administration is final war rule two o five that banning hemp stock fiber seen in oil all stock driver seat in oil to the controlled substances act to bring them under control for the first time and the key issue in this case is whether these substances were already covered by the controlled substances act prior and the statute is clear that in order to do that d n a must undertake a formal will make in making on the record after opportunity for hearing notice and comment making not being sufficient under the statute and the d is structured off forms are naturally occurring t h c being known to exist in a world are already covered as marijuana except for the very stop senses that are explicitly excluded from interim emergency authority they can exercise there wouldn't be there wouldn't be such an argument and the other key distinction is that the hypothetical or the new plan to try publicising is not something that congress specifically on the  that extensive delegated legislative authority that by providing when d n a doesn't effect amend the statute to add something that's not there they have to follow the scheduling procedure involving formal making specified findings and they've including as a controlled substance should now be added as a controlled substance they've done this with new drugs that congress never heard of even in one nine hundred seventy like ecstasy and some of these other dangerous new drugs which they've successfully the legal status of products made from the qantas plant in addressing this question your honour's the drug enforcement administration took into account all the relevant provisions of the controlled substances act most controlled substances in any amount take into account the objections that people might say that this doesn't make a lot of sense i mean you know like well say they took everything in account but they just well i hadn't published  s and the agency understood this and what the agency did clearly wasn't popular with everyone but the agents attempted to strike a balance between the competing statutory provisions and what the agency felt with the appropriate never focused on his partners particular products and so anyone can get high from them or that they pose a harm to people now at the same time we certainly haven't said that with any degree of certainty we know that these are necessarily safe from people and that covers that doesn't cover most of just about everything we see in trafficking up to this point however there is an important loophole that would be created if the t h c were limited to synthetic  did was they harvested off the good parts of the plant that the stuff that's good for smoking that the buds and the leaves and what they had left discarded part that nobody would want to smoke even though that had very low t h c content that was still used to make a and yes absolutely right and in the first sentence in fact includes resin extracted from any part of the plant so there is no part of the plant if you got resin from any part of the mine sorry i'm going to have to go over this one more possible the resin it's been determined and both the government and the petitioners have cited the studies as recently as two thousand and two thousand and one sided and in both the briefs where not only the resin but also that the recognition that congress had that those parts of the plant the stocks did indeed have resin on the surface from contact with the more potent parts of the plant but congress i think it's fairly safe to say did not know what we know now in fact the the leading experts in the country just released the studies in two thousand and two thousand and one to specifically look at the question of whether the resin still have to reach the conclusion that they did already have that substance in them that wouldn't be considered that would be consistent with that in addition to that for t h c the determination has already been made that it meets the criteria for placement of schedule one for at least for synthetic t h c everyone agrees  a schedule one that meets the criteria well scientifically speaking there is absolutely no distinction between synthetic and natural t h c as a molecule and therefore there would be no scientific point in respectfully while your honor accurately points out that there was historical practice to treat the from the not marijuana part of the plant as non controlled least for practical purposes that's absolutely correct once these new products came on the market consistent with supreme court precedent the agency is permitted to adapt its reading of the statute in america sees fit to deal control which is what it says for schedule nugent's what it says is that the substances must be extracted from substances the vegetable origin so if someone took poppy seeds and put them in an extraction opium opiates and so forth and then any compound mixture of preparation which contains any quantity of the substances referred to meaning opium or opiates not notwithstanding that in the fact that that definition clearly covers both natural and