From Lawrence E. Hirsch, lead counsel

Judge Katz notified us that our case will proceed to trial in late June 1999. The plaintiffs and all counsel are pleased with the prompt trial listing.

We are expecting that each of the plaintiffs will take the witness stand to explain to Judge Katz their medical history, and the therapeutic relief derived from either smoked or otherwise ingested cannabis.

We will have a team of medical experts that is national in scope. We expect to call as expert witnesses all of the surviving recipients of legal medical marijuana to demonstrate medical necessity.

Of course, documentary evidence which we will receive from the government is critical.

It is our contention that the binding agreement between the first legal recipient Robert Randall and the government of the United States created a law and a policy that bound the United States government to supply medical marijuana to all citizens who have a medical need to use cannabis.

The smoking gun is the Randall settlement agreement, which was signed by authorized representatives of the US government.

Like the Compassionate Access Program, the government has secreted and covered up its Medical Marijuana Exception to total marijuana Prohibition.

With respect to the IOM report, we acknowledge the exposure of partial truths and helpful truths.

The report certainly contributes to the advancement of all medical marijuana advocacy.

This report, however, lacks any substantial foundation. The very first question that should have been addressed by the IOM was the establishment of the Compassionate Access Program, which was started in 1978. The report apparently ignores this essential factor. One can only hope that this glaring omission is mere or sheer incompetence, and not a part of the massive government cover-up of its policy to supply medical marijuana to now just eight Americans.

I was particularly disturbed at the report’s suggestion that medical marijuana is not a good medical treatment for glaucoma.

Robert Randall received therapeutic cannabis for glaucoma, as a medical necessity. Elvy Musika, the third legal recipient, had her eyesight saved by therapeutic cannabis supplied by the government. Corrine Millet of Nebraska also is a legal recipient for glaucoma. The government intentionally failed to perform any research or analysis of any of the legal recipients because it never wanted the research to be on the books and subject to disclosure to the public.

Additionally, I am once again disappointed and agitated by the medical Establishment relegating historical medical marijuana users to anecdotal status.

As I have said before, individuals are the best clinical observers of their own health conditions. The proposed stringent government sponsored "research" conducted by a non-responsive (nor responsible) bureaucracy is a complete waste of money and time - leading inevitably to more government control, and less freedoms for Americans.