norml01 - Page 20
Return to Index
i chemotherapeutically-induced emesis. The government's criticism
of these studies is particularly curioust given the fact that
each of these large scale studies was DEA_sanctioned and FDA-
I approved. See J.Ao 119-61.
With regard to marijuana's safety, Respondent defends
I the Administratores finding that marijuana_s dangers "includes
i among others_ lung damage, sudden drops irL blood pressures
weakening of the immune system and bacterial infections _' Resp.
I Br. at 35_ and thus that _marijuana is a dangerous drug. 'w !d.
This conclusion fails to address the repeated assertion of
g Petitioners _ witnesses -- that_ even with such potential side
i effects_ marijuana is much safer than many other alternative
treatments_ which have much more devastating side effects. See
I ALJ Decision at 55-66_ J.Ao 429-40_ In downp!aying the dangers
of other medications while reciting each and every one of
I marijuanaqs potential adverse effects_ the Administrator and now
l Respondent have unfairly portrayed the factual record.
Moreover_ Respondent is unable to offer any sufficient
I explanation for the Administrator's complete dismissal of the
testimony of Petitioners' expert and lay witnesses, or for the
I voluminous factual record established by Petitioners regarding
i marijuana's medical utility. The Administratorts decision in no
way reflects Respondent's assertion that "[t]he Administrator
I shares petitioners _ compassion for those who suffer from these
illnesses and are so desperate to find relief. _' See Resp. Bro at
37. Rather, the decision reflects the DEA_s unfounded but
i completely unwavering refusal fairly to consider this petition to
I _ 15 -
Return to Index