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