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