vol1 - Page 349

 4
 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
 :x.
 programs, concluded that marijuana was more effective than oral
 THC.
 2_ Patient Reports on Marijuana's Action
 as an Antiemetic are Medically Reliable
 and Valuable in Determining Its
 Accepte_Use
 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