vol2 - Page 282

 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