norml02 - Page 40

 provide the basis for such opinions° In this case, some of the
 II anecdotal evidence provided by physicians was not even based on
 their personal observations° See, 9=__q__ ALJ ii_ _ 7-8 (emesis);
 Ii ALJ 19 _ 26 (emesis) _ ALJ 36 _ i0 (glaucoma); ALJ 43,
 13
 (spasticity); ALJ 54, _ 50 (spasticity). The anecdotal evidence
 li provided by patients_ of course, was not based on information
 I obtained in a controlled settings Therefore_ it could not
 support any scientific findings about marijuana's effectiveness
 I in the conditions discussed.
 treating
 Petitioners _ assertions that sufficient evidence exists to
 I show that marijuana has an accepted medical use with respect to
 I the treatment of specific illnesses is not supported by the
 record° Petitioners offer no evidence obtained pursuant to
 I responsible scientific methods in support of their position. Nor
 do they dispute the testimony of the government's expert
 I witnesses that there is no legitimate medical research indicating
 the usefulness of marijuana in treating the illnesses discussed°
 See Final Order II_ 57 Fed° Reg. at I0_500 - 10,501 (emesis);
 (glaucoma); I0_501 - 10,502 (spasticity) o
 3_ THE ADMINISTRATOR PROPERLY JUDGED TEE SAFETY OF
 MARIJUANA WITHIN TEE CO_TEZT OF MEDICAL
 EFFECTIVENESS.
 Petitioners also seek to rely upon several opinions that
 marijuana is "safer _' than many drugs, including drugs commonly
 used to treat emesis, glaucoma and spasticity. They point to
 numerous side effects of other drugs and claim that marijuana has
 no lethal toxicity. Pet. 42-45_ Contrary to petitioners _
 34