DATA DUMP #3
This is a dense, fascinating, and historic blend of federal health warnings, judicial action, regulatory policy, and interagency debate over cannabis in the late 1970s. Here's a clear, section-by-section breakdown:
🚨 EXHIBIT N: HEW Warning on Paraquat (March 12, 1978)
Context:
HEW Secretary Joseph Califano Jr. issued a public health warning about marijuana contaminated with Paraquat, a toxic herbicide.
Paraquat was being used by the Mexican government (with U.S. funding/support) to destroy marijuana crops.
Key Takeaways:
Smoking Paraquat-contaminated marijuana could cause irreversible lung damage, especially for regular or heavy users.
13 out of 63 DEA-tested samples (21%) from the Southwest U.S. were contaminated.
The U.S. allowed Paraquat use on food crops at only 0.05 ppm, yet marijuana samples averaged 450 ppm.
The U.S. government knew Paraquat weed was making it into the domestic market.
Agencies were asked to explore alternative herbicides, but the contamination continued for years.
📌 Big Picture: The U.S. was simultaneously cracking down on marijuana and knowingly poisoning the illegal supply chain. This fueled the perception that the War on Drugs was willing to risk lives for deterrence.
🩺 EXHIBIT O: Court-Sanctioned Medical Use (Jan 1978)
Key Facts:
A California Superior Court Judge (Don R. Work) authorized a cancer patient, Craig Reichert, to possess and use marijuana for therapeutic purposes under medical supervision.
The marijuana was to be drawn from seized supplies slated for destruction, and rolled into cigarettes for patient use.
📌 Big Picture:
This shows that before federal acceptance, state-level judicial compassion allowed some patients to access marijuana—in defiance of Schedule I status. It’s among the earliest examples of judicially endorsed "medical marijuana."
🧾 EXHIBIT P: Federal Drug Treatment Investigation Protocol (proposed legislation?)
Purpose:
Outlines the requirements and safeguards for using investigational drugs (like cannabis) for treatment, not just clinical trials.
Highlights:
Allows registration for use when no adequate alternatives exist.
Describes how registration can be denied, suspended, or revoked, including:
Poor record-keeping
Risk of harm
Noncompliance with protocols
Patients must be under doctor supervision, and sponsors must report safety/effectiveness data to the Secretary.
Commercialization or promotion of the investigational drug is strictly forbidden.
📌 Big Picture:
This framework is the legal backbone for programs like the Compassionate IND Program. It formalizes how cannabis could be used legally for treatment without FDA approval—but through heavily regulated, tightly controlled exemptions.
🧠 EXHIBIT Q: March 16, 1978 – DARAC/Controlled Substances Joint Session Transcript
Setting:
A joint meeting between the Controlled Substances Advisory Committee and the Drug Abuse Research Advisory Committee (DARAC).
Present: Top researchers, MDs, pharmacologists, FDA officials, and Robert Randall himself.
Key Themes:
Why Schedule I Makes Research So Hard:
Schedule I = maximum red tape, discourages most non-psychopharm researchers (e.g., ophthalmologists).
Dr. Schuster: Moving cannabis to Schedule II would reduce stigma and paperwork—vital for recruiting legit researchers.
Paraquat and Research Delays:
Dr. Willette & Dr. Pollin confirm that NIDA's scheduling system slows research, especially due to DEA's treatment of NIDA as a “manufacturer.”
Pharmaceutical Interest:
YES, drug companies had submitted INDs (Investigational New Drug applications) for THC derivatives.
NIDA itself was functioning as a “drug company” producing cannabis for trials.
Research Landscape (per Dr. Scigliano):
Multiple studies were planned, but most were incomplete, inactive, or delayed.
Only a handful of studies (e.g., Merritt on glaucoma, Sallan on nausea) showed results.
Conditions studied included nausea, glaucoma, spasticity, MS, alcoholism, asthma, anorexia, addiction, schizophrenia, and sleep.
Final Straw Vote on Rescheduling:
Motion to reschedule cannabis (or cannabinoids) was debated—some in favor, others demanded more discussion/data.
Dr. Schuster’s point: Schedule I is scaring off scientists who could be doing legitimate research.
📌 Big Picture:
This is a rare, behind-the-scenes view of government and academic minds debating whether cannabis should stay in Schedule I.
They acknowledged that scheduling hinders research and that many studies were stalled or poorly supported.
Robert Randall's presence at the table shows how far the advocacy had penetrated by 1978—he helped forcethis conversation.
🧩 THE OVERALL STORY YOU’RE DOCUMENTING:
These exhibits collectively tell the story of a federal system at war with itself:
Poisoning the cannabis supply while quietly studying its medical value.
Permitting judges and doctors to authorize use, even as regulators label it “no medical use.”
Creating so much red tape for researchers that entire studies stalled or disappeared.
You’re showing that:
The government KNEW. And the government stalled.
And you’re providing the primary source documentation proving it.
