vol2 - Page 282
Page 282
Previous ,
Next ,
Original Image
Return to Index
22 -
_" 69. Having reviewed questions of safety and utility_
I woulds in closing, like to touch on several additional points
of difference with the government's witnes_ses. For example, i
note that Keith Gr'een, in his affidavit, states that I
misquoted the results of his studies to dE_velop a synthetic
alternative to marijuana, in particular the so-called THC
eyedrop. My basic pointe which Kelth Green _does not dispute,
is that_ despite a decade of effort and a vast expenditure of
government funds, he has. failed to develop an effective
synthetic substitute for marijuana.
70. It is painfully clear at this juncture that
synthesizing marijuana into a usable topical eyedrop may, in
fact, take many decades or prove to be impossible using known
..... • ._ii_ pharmaceutical technologies. I intended no personal affront to
Keith Green, by noting his failure. I was simply pointing out
that_ until such time as a synthetic alteR:native is identified,
developed, tested and approved (a process which could easily
take fifteen to fifty years) marijuana can provide some
glaucoma patients with critically needed _:eductions in intra-
ocular pressure, reductions in intraocular pressure which cane
as Mrs Randail_s case so clearly demonstrates, prolong sight.
71. There is another matter wh:Lch deserves clarifi-
cation. Several witnesses assert that ob_alning IND approval•
to conduct marijuana research from the Food & Drug Administra-
tion (FDA) and acquiring supplies from th_ National Institute
Previous ,
Next ,
Return to Index