vol2 - Page 197

 ...... 64. The fact that no patient _nomy care would accept THC
 as a viable substitute for marijuana strongly indicated to me
 that T_C was not worth the trouble.
 65. Patients felt betrayed by T_C. I had several
 patients who accused me of trying to "poison them" with an
 inferior product. One woman actually threw her bottle of T_C
 back in my face.
 66. As a physician I was outraged that the state had
 decided to go with THC, despite such a clear patient preference
 for marijuanas Subsequent to these experiences, ! discontinued
 all further assocla!ion with the California State Program. I
 found the program to be useless, and, in some cases_ actually
 destructiveŽ
 67. The California State _rogram certainly did not
 provide what the law intended _- compassionate, patient-
 oriented programs of marijuana treatment.
 68. I went back to doing what I had done prior to the
 state law's being approved. ! would counsel patients. _f they
 indicated an interest in ma=ijuana, _ would provide them with
 basic information and leave it at that.
 69° From the perspective of 1987, these events, which
 occurred approximately seven years ago, seem quite distant.
 Marijuana is no longer a trendy_ cutting edge issue in the
 world of Ontology. The vast majority of physicians X know have
 discontinued any association with the California State
 Program. The use of T_C is marginal in most practices.
 Marijuana, however, remains a very viable tool, albeit illega!_