vol1 - Page 342

 emesisW. _-_/ In additions contrary to _e assertions made by DEAn
 an FDA official stated in 1980 that the _[New Mexico Program was]
 a careful comparison between marijuana cigarettes and the THC
 capsules#. _-_/
 In fact, many patients in the New Mexico study were
 randomized. _-_/ New Mexico officials_ however, eventually
 discovered that some patients refused to take the capsules while
 others refused to smoke. _L_/_ To eliminate this problem the New
 Mexico protocol was amended -_ with FDA approval -= to allow
 patients to select their form of therapyo ._-_-/ The National
 Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Drug Abuse
 reviewed the New Mexico protocol and made no objections to these
 adjustments. _-_/ Significantly, a later analysis of the results
 9_/ It is interesting to note that, despite these attacks on
 the study and thus the validity of the data obtained there from_
 the Agency relies on its findings when it favors its position°
 DEA Brief at 33o
 9_/ ACT Official State Reports, Vol. If, Exhibit I0 New Jersey
 Cancer Protocol at 13 (quoting from hearings Before the Select
 Committee on Narcotic Abuse & Controls Therapeutic Uses of
 Marijuana and Schedule I Drugs, U.S. House of Representatives
 96th Congress, 2d Sess., May 20, 1980_ at 77, opinion of Dr.
 Richard Croutt Director of the Bureau of Drugs, Federal Food and
 Drug Administration.)
 __6/ Affidavit of Dro Daniel Dansak, at _ 39; Cross_examination
 of Dr. Daniel Dansak, Tr. II_32 (nearly 70 patients were
 randomized).
 ....... 9// Cross-examination of Dr. Daniel Dansak, Tr. ii-32.
 98/ Affidavit of Dro Daniel Dansak, _ 39; Cross-examination of
 Dr. Daniel Dansak, Tr. 11-96o
 _/ Cross-examination of Dr. Daniel Dansak_ Tro 11-97 & Ii-98_
 ..... 36 -