vol1 - Page 341

 results. All studies consistently showed that marijuana was an
 effective antiemetic, ands in most cases more effective than
 other antiemetics. DEA attempts to discredit the valuable
 information produced by the state programs by making a number of
 incorrect, insignificant or trivial observations regarding the
 implementation of the studies and their results.
 Throughout its briefs DEA attempts to discredit the
 • o
 results of the studies offered by the Alliance that it finds are
 not supportive of its position -- marijuana is not medically
 useful -- but, _ at the same times accepts the conclusions of these
 studies that it deems supportive of its case. This disingenuous
 strategy is most evident in the AgencySs argument that the state _
 authorized studies are #loosely controlled. _ Indeed, FDA and DEA
 approved each of the studies discussed below as research
 programs, but now DEA attempts to discredit the results of those
 studies because it does not find them consistent with its
 position in this proceeding_
 (I) New Mexico
 DEA attributes little value to the New Mexico study
 because, according to DEA, patients were not randomized but were
 free to switch from one drug to the other® DEA also claims the_
 were no objective measures of success or failure. For examples
 DEA asserts that marijuana is not a _very effective [antiemetic 3
 . . ® when used with chemotherapeutic agents which produce severe
 ¢
 35 -