norml01 - Page 18
Page 18
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
|
I -- and more disappointingly -- in its brief, Respondent has erred
in much the same manner as did the Administrator, repeatedly
disregarding the record evidence and demonstrating the govern-
i mentes continued refusal fairly to judge this issue on the
merits.
j Respondent seems to assert that Petitioners _ decision
i not to dispute each and every one of the Administrator's
misstatements is proof of their accuracy, and thus of the
I fairness and reasonableness of the Administrator's decision. See
Resp. Bro at 30_ 32. Rather_ Petitioners simply chose not to
I burden the Court with a recitation of all of the overwhelming
l record evidence. Given Respondentgs continued mischaracteri-
zation of the records however, Petitioners feel compelled to
g correct the most glaring factual distortions, which examples
highlight the extent of the governmental bias against this
petition.
U Firsts Respondent continues the AdministratorSs
disregard of the wealth of evidence regarding marijuana's medical
I usage for the treatment of glaucoma, including in the specific
case of Robert Randall. Although Respondent is aware that Mro
l Randall has been under virtually continuous DEA-sanctioned and
i FDA-approved scientific and medical evaluation since 1975_ in an
unfair and unsubstantiated personal attack on Mr. Randall,
Respondent cites "the absence of any valid scientific evaluation
of Randall's case .... _ Respo Br. at 29° This is in complete
I disregard of the record evidence showing that, among other valid
i scientific evaluationse Mro Randall underwent an intensive
- 13 -
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index