norml11 - Page 41



Page 41 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 little to the carrying of Petitioner's.burden of showing that marijuana ]s accepted
 .Z oZ
 for medical treatmentof glaucoma by a respectab]e m_ority ofphysicianso See :
 pages 26-29, above,:, i
 Petitioners have placed in-evidence-copies of a-number of newspaper clippings
 rep'orting statements by persons claiming that marijuana has helped their, glaucoma.
 The administrative law judge is unable to give sigaif#cant weight to this evidence.
 Had these persons tesified so as to have been subject to cross-examination, a
 different situation would be presented. But these newspaper reports of
 e×tra=judicia_ statements, neither tested by informed inquiry nor supported by a
 doctor's opinion, are not entitled to much weight° The), are of _ttle, _f any,
 materiality.
 Beyond the evidence referred to above there is l itt_e other "hard"
 evidence, pointed out by petitioners, of physicans accep_:ing marijuana for treat-
 ment of glaucoma. Such evidence as that concerning a survey of a group of San
 Francisco ophthalmologists is ambiguous_ at best. The relevant document establishes
 merely that most Of the doctors on the grand rounds, who responded to an inquiry,
 believed that the TH_ c_su]es or marijuana ought to be available.
 in sum, the evidence here tending to show that marij_,.ana is accepted for
 treatment of 91aucoma falls far, far short of the quantum of evidence tending to
 show that marijuana is accepted for treatment of emesis in cancer patients. The
 preponderance of the evidence here, identified by petitioners in _heir briefs,
 does not establish that a respectable minority of physicians has accepted
 marijuana for glaucoma tpeatment°
 - 39 - ........................ i ..................................................................




Previous , Next , Return to Index