vol1 - Page 242

 S
 Earlier in his testimony Dr. North directly addresses
 this issue with regard to marijuana:
 I think it's L_portant that marijuana be
 effective, iŽeo_ that it lowers intraocuiar
 pressure, and I t_ that has been shown
 quite adequately. _I
 i> - Based on the testimony of all ophthalmic witnesses in
 thim proceedinqt marijuana is a highly effective intraocular
 antihypertensive druq_ Marijuana, therefore_ satisfies uni-
 _ versally accepted standards of therapeutic utility in the
 treatment of glauco_e.
 The Government asserts this court should not judge
 marijuana on the accepted standard of therapeutic value which has
 governed glaucoma therapy for decades_ Instead, they would have
 this Court hold marijuana to a novels untested_ poorly articu-
 iat@d standard of utility as advanced by several Government
 witnesses°
 What Government witnesses propose is a profoundly
 radical departure from these long accepted standards. In his
 direct tsstimony_ for example, DEA witness George Spaeth signals
 this departure from generally accepted _standards when he
 expresses, _[D]oubts about Kradition_ theories of lowering
 intraocular pressure to treat glaucoma. _'534/ (Emphasis added)
 Earlier in his testimony Dr. Spaeth states:
 Intraocular pressure is only one of the
 • factors relating to glaucoma_ At this points
 53_/ /_. at 7-89_
 534/ Affidavit of Dro George Spaeth, at 7. Spaeth articulates
 _. his dissatisfaction with the accepted standard after questioning
 the therapeutic value of timolol, an FDA-approved medication_