norml01 - Page 19

Page 19 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 I eleven-day, highly-controlled, double-blind evaluation regarding
 i marijuana_s medicinal effects on his glaucoma, which evaluation
 was conducted by DEA's own witness Dr. Robert Hepiero Dro Hepler
 I concluded that marijuana was effective for use in treatment and
 advocated its availability for Randall_s use, even stating that
 l _'[iJf marijuana could be legally prescribed_ and if I were Mr.
 i Randall_s personal physicians I would prescribe that drug to him
 o _ ." See Affidavit of Robert S. Hepler, M.D., submitted as
 j Exhibit 2 to Testimony of Robert C_ Randall, at _ 29(h). This is
 also in complete disregard of the record evidence showing that
 Mro Randall underwent a fourteen-month evaluation by Dro John
 Merritt_ who also concluded that the use of marijuana was
 I critical to preserving Mr. Randall_s sight° See Affidavit of
 J John C° Merritt_ M.D., _ 14-2i_ J_A. 576-°77. This is further in
 complete disregard of the extensive, unambiguous record testimony
 I of Dro Richard North, Mr_ Randall6s ophthalmologist, regarding
 his FDA-approved_ DEA-sanctioned medical and scientific
 i evaluation of Mr. Randall's case° Dr. North unequivocally states
 i that W'[m]arijuana has made a critically important contribution to
 Mrs Randall_s medical welfare. _' See Testimony of Richard D.
 i North_ M.D. at _ 71.
 Respondent also reasserts the Administratorts finding
 that _'[t]here are no reliable scientific studies that show
 j marijuana to be significantly effective in controlling nausea and
 vomiting. '_ Respo Br_ at 30. Again, the government disregards
 i the voluminous evidence presented by Petitioners_ including the
 j six state studies demonstrating marijuana_s use in controlling
 I - 14 -

Previous , Next , Return to Index