vol1 - Page 351

 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,
 62_
 i/i/ Cross-examination of Dr. Thomas Ungerleider; Tr. 4-134.
 - 45 -