vol2 - Page 280

 _; statement, not a cogently considered ana_Lysis of medical or
 scientific issues°
 65. Nowhere in Dr_ Hepler's testimony does he
 mention my strong objections to the Committee's report°
 Indeed_ in his affidavits Dr_ Hepler asserts that he speaks for
 all 12_000 members of the Academy. Rubbish. Dr. Hepler speaks
 for himself and for some members of the Ad Hoc committee --
 presumably Drs_ Spaeth and Luxenbur s (th_ only members present,
 beside myself)_ Obviously, Dr. Hepler's comments do not
 reflect my own conclusions and i strongly suspect most members
 of the Academy are wholly unaware of this report and its
 conclusions. X believe many AAO members, if aware of this
 { report's contentsf might sharply disasree with its political
 ..... "---o tones its departure from the long accepted standards for
 determining efficacy of presently used glaucoma agents•and its
 fOndamental conclusions.
 '. ...... 66. It should be remembered that ophthalmologists
 are highly trained medical specialists. Final determinations
 of safety and effectiveness are not reached by committees
 _ .... composed of pre-selected individuals who do li%tle more than
 repeat insrained_ but scientiflcally questionable social
 prejudices° Instead_ such a determination can, in practice,
 only be rendered on a patlent-by-patient basis. X believe
 practicing ophthalmologists have enough training to permit them
 to properly and safely prescribe marijuana, measure its effects
 and supervise programs of patient care.
 I