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