norml02 - Page 38

 |
 H iI-12_ in support of their argument that marijuana has an
 l accepted medical use in the treatment of glaucoma. Petitioners
 do not contest that an effective treatment for glaucoma must
 satisfy three criteria: (I) lower the pressure within the eye
 (intraocular pressure); (2) for prolonged periods of time, and
 i (3) actually preserve sight (visual fields). Final Order II_ 57
 Fed° Reg. at 10,501. Nevertheless_ petitioners cite to no
 studies or data showing that marijuana satisfies these criteria.
 l Instead_ petitioners rely on and anecdotal
 scientific
 evidence
 showing that large doses of marijuana owgr short periods of time
 l may relieve intraocular pressure, but only temporarily so. The
 I relevant studies also show that such large doses of marijuana
 significantly impair the subjects' ability to function.
 l Furthermore_ these studies indicate with to the
 nothing
 respect
 preservation of eyesight. I d.
 I The record also reflects that a qualified expert who testified
 on behalf of petitioners had concluded several years earlier that
 "marijuana inhalation is not an ideal therapeutic modality for
 i glaucoma patients." See _do at i0_502o In 1980, the same expert
 had testified that there were no data indicating the
 effectiveness of marijuana in lowering intraocular pressure for
 prolonged periods of time. I do In the 1986 administrative
 proceedings_ this witness offered no new evidence in support of
 the belief that marijuana is an effective treatment for glaucoma°
 Ido Petitioners _ citation to a government expert's
 acknowledgement that marijuana "cause[s] an acute fall in
 I 32