vol2 - Page 45

 little to the carrying of Petitioner's burden of sohowlng that marijuana is accepted
 for medical treatment of glaucoma by a respectable minority of physicians_ See
 pages 26-29, above°
 Petitloners have placed in evidence copies of a number of newspaper clippiing_
 reporting s_atements by persons claiming that marijuana has helped their glaucoma°
 The administratlve law judge is unable to give significant weight to this evidenc_
 Had these persons tesified so as to have been subject to cross=examination, a
 different situation would be presented. But these newspaper reports of
 extra-judicial state.rite, _either tested by informed inquiry nor supported by a
 doctor's opinion, are not entitled to much weight. They are of little, if any,
 materi al ity.
 Beyond the evidence referred to above there is little other "hard_"
 evldence, pointed out by petltloners, ofphysicans .accepting _arijuana for treat- _
 .
 _ent of glaucoma. Such avoidance as that concerning a survey _of a group of San
 Francisco, ophthalmologists is ambiguous, at best. The relevant document establis)_
 ,,ii merely that most of the doctors on the grand rounds, who responded to an inquiry,
 believed that the THC capsules o_ _rijuana ought t._ be available.
 In sum, the evidence here tending to show that marijuana _s accepted for
 treatment of glaucoma falls far, far short of the quantum of evidence tending to
 J
 show tha!_•_rljuana is accepte




 Previous  , 
 Next  , 
 Return to Index