vol1 - Page 349

Page 349 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 marijuana. _2-I/ DEA's reference is to an abstract of a study
 conducted by Levitt, M_, Faiman Con Hawks_ R. i2_/, and Wilson,
 A._ at the Manitoba Cancer Treatment & Research Foundation in
 Winnipeg_ Manitoba, Canada° The results of the study indicate
 that of 20 patients tested, 7 favored THC, 4 favored marijuana,
 and 9 hadno preference_ The study's P value -- indicating
 statistical significance _- is very poor compared with that
 reached in the Chang study andothe New Mexico program.
 Two factors explain the studies unusual result: l) most of the
 patients in the Canadian study had bronci_ogenic carcinoma ande 2)
 marijuana was smoked according to a _standardized _ technique.
 The relevant point, however, is that the study by no means
 negates that marijuana has antiemetic properties. Furthers other
 studies, including the Chang investigation, and many of the state
 programs, concluded that marijuana was more effective than oral
 2_ Patient Reports on Marijuana's Action
 as an Antiemetic are Medically Reliable
 and Valuable in Determining Its
 DEA alleges marijuana has only been tested as an
 antiemetic in a small population of cancer patients. Not only
 is DEA incorrect in characterizing the n_nber of research
 subjects as Usmall,_ but the Agency ignores the vast number of
 cancer patients_ reporting on marijuana;s effectiveness as an
 i/i/ DEA Brief at 29-30o
 122/ Significantly_ Hawks, a DEA witness, did not attach a cop_;.
 of this study to his affidavit.
 - 43

Previous , Next , Return to Index