vol2 - Page 44

Page 44 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 Ll_ -_Tli_r,e_,_r_:._ _lts_ _owing that smoking marijuana h__ced
 _the I_ _m some gla_mi_ patti _sL ;There i s conti n_ng rmsear_h Lm_rway in the
 United States,-;as. to the _herape_tic effect of.marijuana on _gla_coma_
 1_eti_oners _ briefs fail to show that the preponderance of the evidence i_
 the record with respect to marijuana and glaucoma establishes that a respectable
 minority of physicians accepts marijuana as being useful i_ the treatment of
 _ glaucoma i_ the United States.
 This conclusion ls not to be taken in any way as criticism of the opinions
 of the ophthalmologists who testified that they accept marijuana for this pur:
 pose, The failure lies with petitio_erso _n their briefs they do not point out
 hard., specific evidence in this record sufficient to establish that a respectable
 minority of physiciaas has accepted their posii:iono
 There is a great volume of evidence here, and much discussion in the briefs_
 about the protracted case of Robert Randall, But when all i_ said and done_ his
 experience presents but one case_ The record contains sworn testimony of three
 ophthalmologists who have treai_ed Mrs Randall_ One of them tells us of a
 relatively small number ofother glaucoma patients whom he has treated with
 marijuana and _hom he knows to have responded favorably, Another of these three
 doctors has successfully treated only Randall with marijuana. The third testis
 lies, despite his successful experience in treating Randall: thai: marijuana
 (foes not have an accepted _se in such treatments
 Zn addition to Robert Ramdall _ Petitioners paint to the testimony of three
 other glaucoma patients_ Their case histories are impressive, but they contribute

Previous , Next , Return to Index