norml08 - Page 17

Page 17 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 There are doctors willing to testify that marijuana has
 medical uses° NORML found over a dozen to testify in this
 case. We have a natural tendency to believe doctors. We
 assume their opinions are entitled to respect. But what if
 a doctor is giving an opinion beyond his professional
 competence? Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of
 drugs is a specialized area. Does the doctor have this
 specialized expertise? Is he familia_c with all the
 published scientific studies? Or is he improperly basing
 his opinion on mere stories or anecdo°_al evidence? Does he
 really know what he is talking about? Does he have a
 personal motive to exaggerate or lie? Questions like these
 led the United States Supreme Courtf in 1973_ to warn about
 theopinions of doctors concerning the value of drugs as
 medicines when not supported by rigorous scientific testing,
 Weinberqer v. Hynson_ Etc_ 412 U.So 609, 639:
 [I]mpressions or beliefs of physicians, no matter
 how fervently held, are treacherous.
 Nearly half the doctors who testified for NORML are
 psychiatrists. They do not specialize in treating or
 researching cancers glaucoma or MS. .One is a general
 practitioner who works as a wellness _ounselor at a health
 spa. Under oath he admits to using every illegal_ mind-
 altering drug he has ever studied, and he prides himself on
 recommending drugs that would never be recommended by
 medical schools or reputable physicians° Another is a
 general practitioner who _ait practicing in 1974. He admits

Previous , Next , Return to Index