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
17
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index