vol1 - Page 281

 In the Randall case_ the defendant met all three
 ..... tests -- medical expe_s_ including DrŽ Robert Hepler, testified
 Randall was afflicted with chronic open-angle glaucoma and had
 suffered a substantial loss of vision in both eyes;his con-
 dition, elevated intraocular pressures accompanied by
 progressive loss of visual functions could not be adequately
 treated through the use of available glaucoma control medica-
 l7 tions_ ande in smoking marijuana, Randall had violated legal
 prohibitions against marijuana_s medical use to avoid a far more
 serious harmr the permanent loss of his vision and eventual
 b!indness due to glaucoma° As the cou_ states in its decision:
 The evil he [Randall] sought to avert,
 blindness_ is greater than that he performed
 to accomplish it, growing marijuana at his
 residence in violation of the District of
 Columbia Coder While blindness was shown by
 competent medical testimony to be the
 otherwise inevitable result of defendant's
 diseases no adverse effects from the smoking
 of marijuana have been demonstrated ....
 [N]o direct harm will be visited upon
 innocent third parties_ any major ill effects
 from the inhalation of marijuana smoke will
 occur to the defendant alone .... Xn any
 event, //__is_llike!y_that_rijuanaesl
 slight _ _De_la °re dem&nstrable ha!_
 e c _ ed more ijT_h_ at_
 _gfenda_fsriqht to_h%o (Emphasis
 ...... ' added°)
 The court's decision continues:
 While blindness was shown by competent
 medical testimony to be the otherwise
 15 inevitable result of defendant's disease_ no
 adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana
 _2_/ Affidavit of Robert Randall, Exhibit 1 p.S. v° Randal!_
 D_Co Super. Ct., D.Co Crimo No. 65923-75_ #Criminal Law and
 i _ Procedure; Medical Necessity_ _ The D__i_ Washington Law
 _Dorter, Vol. I04_ No. 250_ Dece/Kber 28; 1976 p. 2253.