vol2 - Page 194

 Ca!ifornia_s approach to marijuana's medical use, our legisla_
 ture had made a rational decision, indeed the only decision
 which the facts and the very real needs of patients would
 allow.
 47° Unfortunately, once this compassionately conceived
 state law was placed in the hands of bureaucrats, both state
 and federal, significant changes were mac_e.
 48. I remember attending a meeting at the State Office
 Building in San Francisco which included a series of iectures
 and other discussions by bureaucrats regarding how the state
 would operate its program.
 49. lwas shocked when I learned marijuana would only be
 provided to patients receiving three types of seldomly used
 chemotherapeutic agents_ I had only used one of these drugs in
 the course of my decade_long practice. The other two drugs
 were so rarely used that the marijuana portion of the
 California program was essentially a deadend_
 50. All other chemotheraphy patients in the California
 state program were forced to take synthetic THC instead of
 marijuana.
 51. As a physiclan_ I was _hocked by this lack of treat _,_
 ment flexibility and deeply concerned that the state was, in
 effects telling me how to practice medicine.
 52. _ also did not understand why synthetic THC had bee_
 selected as, for all Intent and purposes_ the Uthe drug of
 choice _ for the Callfornia state program.
 ...........
 i ....