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_
Q
Discussion
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