vol1 - Page 328

Page 328 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 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