vol2 - Page 224

Page 224 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 i01. When it became clear that. my former "research
 subject _ was becoming desperate, I agreed to try to help him_
 102_ In February, 1987, ! submitted an IND proposal to
 prOVide marijuana to this patient under the nCompassionate IND _
 programs fashioned after the 1978 legal settlement of Mr.
 Randall's sult against the FDA.
 i03_ By law, the FDA is supposed to respond to an IND
 request within thirty days_ I did not receive a response and
 eventually contacted the FDA to find out what was going on.
 104. Despite the fact that I have held a number of
 previous INDUs in the specific aFea of marijuana's use in
 glaucoma therapy, and functioned as an FDA_approved scientific
 investigator for nearly a decade, FDA is treating my IND
 application as if It were for some hove! program involving a
 never before investigated product.
 105. While FDA delays, the patient suffers_
 106_ The law says marijuana has no accepted medical use i_
 the United States° In reality marijuana is a highly effective
 IOP-lowering drug which may be of critical value to some
 glaucoma patients who, without marijuanas would progressively
 go blind.
 107o Marljuana's present classification is in error° _b<
 j Drug Enforcement Administration, in reviewing this matter, must
 , come to grips with the data and realize that our understanding
 of marijuana had advanced beyond the confines of Schedule _°
 108. In. my professional judgment, based on my direct
 experience in research, and as a physiclan_ and on my reading
 ! ...........

Previous , Next , Return to Index