vol1 - Page 328
Page 328
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
S AFET/
Nowhere is the superficiality of the Government's case
more self=evident than in the Agencyes surreal discussion of
marijuana°s _safety # for use under medical supervision.
_ _The DEA presents a chaotic catalogue of allegations and
claimsof potential, speculative, often _rivial_ or merely
theoretical harms which might (or might not) be caused by the
inhalation of marijuana smoke. The sheer randomness with which
the Agency regurgitates and inflates these claims causes its
......
discussion to verge on the incoherent. -_/
DEA has_ in effect, returned to the absolutist position
first articulated by Keith Green, Ph.D_ that_ in order to reach a
judgment regarding marijuana_s #safetyn we must ndescribe [the
plant's] effects completely and in unequivocal terms, n 5_/
DEA tells us its analysis of marijuanaSs nsafety# is
predicated on a risk/benefit assessment. _/ Later, however_ the
__2/ DEA Brief _ 99=i17 at 66_76 & !!7.
....... 5__/ Affidavit of Keith Green_ Ph.D., _ 13. _e_ _l._q, Affidavit
of Dr. Andrew Weil, _ 80-83_ In commeni:ing on GreenSs
testimony, Dr. Andrew Weil states:
This is a standard of perfect _nowledge no
drug now used in medical treatment would be
able to meet° Approximately 90% of all of
the [drugs] used in medicine today [were]
introduced . . . in the last thirty (30)
years. We have almost no knowledge of the
long-term consequences of these drugs on
human biology. By contrast, we have 5_000
years of information on marijuana.
5A/ DEA Brief _ 99 at 66. _)_. ,;_U0__ -
- 22
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index