vol1 - Page 351
Return to Index
receive the newer antiemetics on an outpatient basis and that
there is no medical reason to conclude that marijuana is better--
suited than currently available antiametics in the treatment of
emesis° 127/ These assertions are incorrect.
These new antiemetics are most often given intra-
venouslyand require hospitalization° Thus_ as oncologists have
pointed out in this proceeding, these new intravenous-applied
antlemetlc_ sre untenable to administer in the context of an out ....
patient practice. 12_/ Further, marijuana has the advantage of
being a self-administrable drug while these new antiemetics are
not. 129/ Physicians also add that marijuana is safer than the
new antiemetics and possesses appetite s_timulant properties_ 13Q/
DEA also argues that it is not proven that patients who
do not receive benefit from the new antiemetics would find
marijuana to be useful. Dr. Thomas Ungerleider, who conducted
compassionate research with bone marrow patients, testified that
marijuana would be the most effective dz_g for these patients who
are unable to use any other oral or intravenous antiemetics. I!!/
12__7_/ DEA Brief _ 57 at 36.
!28/ Redirect of Dr. John Bickers, Tr. 2-124; Cross-examinatio_
of Dr. Ivan Silverberg, Tr. 3_127 & 3-128.
12_/ Redirect of Dr. John Bickers, Tr_ 2-124.
i_Q/ Cross-examination of Dro Lester Grinspoon, Tro 14-59 & 14 o_
60. Marijuana's appetite stimulant properties have been proven
in research studies and also recognized by FDA. Se_ Affidavit >_
Dr° Lester Grinspoon_ _ 19; Affidavit of Dr. Daniel Dansak,
i/i/ Cross-examination of Dr. Thomas Ungerleider; Tr. 4-134.
- 45 -
Return to Index