vol2 - Page 276

 16-
 significantly reduce intraocular pressure° There is no other
 p basis upon which this determination of effectiveness was
 reached. None°
 56. Keith Green and Dr. Spaeth, however, imply in
 their testimony that marijuana_s util_ty _s a glaucoma control
 drug should be measured against a wholely new, altogether
 unproved ands at least in their comments, poor°ly defined
 standara of "effectiveness'_ _n attempting to explain this
 radical departure from long-accepted stanc_ards of analysis,
 Dr. Spaeth recounts a curious, ethically questionable
 experiment conducted with the legally _ef:_ective" glaucoma
 control drug Timoptic. In this experiment the researcher
 treated a @laucoma patients with Timcptic in one eye and
 • _ provided no treatment to the patient's other disease4 eye. The
 researcher found that the eye treated witi_ Timoptic actually
 suffered progressive loss of visual field while the untreated
 eye retained field function. Dr. Spaeth goes on to state that
 this finding raises "doubts about traditional theories of
 lowering intraocular pressure to treat glaucoma. _
 ....... 57. X appreciate Dr. Spaeth's "doubts _ and, to a
 degrees sympathize with the generalized _int these affiants
 make. Xt would, however_ be profoundly reckl_ss to discard the
 long standing, well accepted link between reduced intraocular
 pressure and effective glaucoma t=eatment_ particularly when,
 in the absence of this linkages there i_ no other recognized,
 generally accepted or agreed means of det_rmining utility.
 °i/j
 j ............