vol1 - Page 344

Page 344 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 (3) Michigan Study
 DEA makes no objection to the design of the Michigan
 study. It notes, however_ that 34 patients discontinued the
 program because they did not like smoking marijuana. DEA
 likewise enumerates a series of trivial Isąde effects experienced
 by somepat_ents in the program includinq sore throat, dry mouth
 and drowsiness. These observations made by DEA in no way
 overshadow_the fact that marijuana was found to have a very high
 success rate. The issue is not that marijuana is the perfect
 antiemetic drug, but that it is proven to have an accepted
 medical use in treatment as an antiemetic.
 (4) New York
 DEAfails to note that the NewYork study incorporated
 several levels of historical controls. Zn fact, patients
 entering the New York program had already failed to respond to at
 .... least two types of conventional antiemetic therapyl-q_/ and many
 failed to respond to synthetic THe pills. _-q_/
 The first results indicated that of 18 patients
 evaluated_ !5 received substantial benefit from marijuana. All
 iQ3/ ACT Official State Reports, Vo!. If, Exhibit 15,
 #Evaluation of the Antiemetic Properties Of Inhalation of
 Marijuana in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatments R
 New York Department of Health, Office of Public Health, Chapter
 810_ Laws of 1980, Article 33_A, Public law Healths September,
 1981, at 4.
 /_Q4/ ACT Official State Reports, Vol. If, Exhibit 16, #Annual
 Report to the Governor and Legislature on the Antonio G. Olivier_
 Controlled Substances Therapeutic Research Program," New York
 State Department of Health, September I, !982, at 4.
 - 38 -

Previous , Next , Return to Index