vol1 - Page 276

 For fourtQen months Randali received marijuana for his
 medical.use from Dr. John Merritt, an ophthalmologist at Howard
 University_ Washington, DeC. In January_ 1978, Dr. Merritt left
 the Washington area and federal agencies terminated Randall's
 access to marijuana. In May_ 1978, Randall responded by filing
 suit i_ U.S. District Court for the Disi=riot of Columbia with the
 assistance and support of a large Washington, D.C. law firm'. The
 suit was supported by medical affidavits or statements from Drs_
 J
 Fine of Washington_ D.C., Hepler (UCLA/Stein)_ Diamond (Wilmer
 Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Universitye Baltimore), Merritt
 (Howard University, Washington, D.C.) and North of Washington,
 D.C. as cited above. 619/ These ophthalmologists agreed Randalles
 intraooular pressures could not be controlled through the use of
 conventional drugs. All. agreed Randall's prognosis was bleak:
 '_.... progressive loss of visual function eventually resulting in
 blindness°
 Significantly, both Drs. Hepler and Merrittt the only
 • ,:_._ ophthalmologists then authorized to evaluate marijuanats IOP-
 lowering properties, concluded marijuana was highly effective in
 reducing Randall_s _OP. Both stated tha_=_ if marijuana were
 .._. legally available, they would prescribe the drug to Randall for
 his use as an intraoc_/lar antihypertensive in the treatment of
 glaucoma. _I-Q/
 [_l_./ Affidavit of Robert Randall, _ 57 (Hepler); /__. at _ 62
 (Fine); Affidavit of Richard No_th_ _ 20-24; Rebuttal Affidavit
 of Robert Randall at _ 96.
 620./ Affidavit of Robert Randall_ Exhibit 2; Randall v. U.S.
 _._ 1978_ Affidavit of Robert Hepler, Exhibit B at I 29 (h)_ _If
 (continued...)
 - 203 -
 Ce