The Light Preserved: A Citizen’s Petition for Sight and Liberty
A Most Particular Declaration Rendered by Mr. Robert C. Randall, Late of Washington City, In the Matter of His Sight, His Medicine, and the Propriety of Government Interference Therein
CHAPTER THE FIRST: In Which the Gentleman's Circumstance is Revealed
It befell in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventy-one, that Mr. Robert C. Randall, a gentleman of earnest spirit and admirable intellect, concluded his formal studies with the attainment of a Master of Arts in the discipline of speech. From thence, he entered the laboring world in such varied capacities as hackney driver, chronicler of the theatrical arts, and tutor in the field of rhetorical instruction at the community college of Prince George's. In the summer of 1976, however, beset by grievous afflictions to his health and no longer able to countenance delay, Mr. Randall did decline his former appointment in order to devote himself entirely to the preservation of his dwindling sight.
Thus commenced a remarkable course of public labour: he addressed colleges, legislatures, and administrative tribunals with equal fervour; engaged in vast correspondence with officials of state and fellow sufferers; and produced sundry articles and a book of notable substance on the subject of his condition and remedy.
CHAPTER THE SECOND: Of the Curse That Befell His Eyes
In the year of 1967, Mr. Randall first suffered peculiar maladies of the eye, which were attributed at the time to simple strain. In 1972, Dr. Benjamin Fine, an oculist most reputable and esteemed, pronounced a graver diagnosis: that of open-angle glaucoma. Mr. Randall's right eye, alas, had already declined to a meagre acuity of 20/400, the left retaining but 20/40. Thence began the regimen of noxious medicaments: chiefly pilocarpine, which reduced the intraocular pressure (a most cruel agent of blindness) but rendered him dreadfully short-sighted.
As seasons passed, the remedy did lose its virtue; higher dosages were administered, but to little avail. Other concoctions followed—epinephrine compounds, phospholine iodide, and diamox—each with its own array of torments: stinging, weakness, lethargy, and an affliction of the appetite most dire.
CHAPTER THE THIRD: In Which a Strange Herb Proves Beneficial
Now it chanced, in the autumn of 1973, that Mr. Randall partook of the herbal substance known commonly as marihuana. To his astonishment, the dread "halos" which had plagued his vision dispersed. He did not at once inform his physician of this discovery, fearing the scandal such an admission might occasion. Yet in secret he continued this treatment, augmenting his conventional medicaments with the herb, and in so doing staved off the encroaching darkness.
CHAPTER THE FOURTH: Of Peril, Pursuit, and Prosecution
Owing to the unfortunate illegality of his chosen remedy, Mr. Randall was at times compelled to procure the herb from strangers of questionable character, and at great expense. He even endeavoured, with little success, to cultivate it himself. This hazard culminated in the year 1975, when he was apprehended for possession. In November of the following year, however, the Hon. Judge Washington did pronounce him not guilty, declaring his use of marihuana justified by medical necessity.
CHAPTER THE FIFTH: Of Doctors, Tests, and the Labyrinth of Bureaucracy
Though initially hesitant, Dr. Fine did, upon Mr. Randall's confession, extend a cautious tolerance of his herbal regimen and even submitted his records to Dr. Hepler, a researcher of great renown at the University of California. There, Mr. Randall underwent further tests, which confirmed what he had long suspected: that conventional medicines alone were insufficient, but that their effects were greatly improved when taken with marihuana.
So began a long and disheartening pilgrimage through the corridors of federal authority. The agencies of DEA, FDA, and NIDA each held dominion over some part of the process, and none were eager to assume responsibility. A cavalcade of physicians declined to assist, citing red tape, reputational risk, or sheer exhaustion.
CHAPTER THE SIXTH: Of Promises, Prohibitions, and the Price of Speech
At last, with the aid of Dr. Merritt of Howard University, Mr. Randall entered a government-sanctioned program to receive marihuana legally. Yet the conditions were most severe. He was instructed to remain silent about the arrangement, and his supply was to be contingent on docility and discretion. Mr. Randall, who held dearly the right of every citizen to speak truthfully about matters of public import, refused such muzzle. His interviews and speeches continued.
This defiance, though noble, was met with reprisal. At one point, his medicine was restricted to a single day's supply, a cruel burden that rendered travel and independence nearly impossible. Later, he was coerced into signing a consent form permitting the use of placebos—a danger to his sight so great that he amended the document and appended a statement of duress.
CHAPTER THE SEVENTH: Of Resignations and Recriminations
Dr. Merritt, who had faithfully overseen Mr. Randall's treatment for over a year, departed his post in early 1978. His license expired with his departure, and Mr. Randall's supply ceased. Desperate, he returned to the illicit market. The risk was not merely legal—he feared adulterants and contamination, having heard tales of poisoned herbs from foreign lands.
CHAPTER THE EIGHTH: Of Appeals to the Crown (or its Bureaucratic Equivalent)
Time and again, Mr. Randall and his learned counsel did petition the agencies and the White House for relief. Their pleas were met with either indifference or bureaucratic riddles. Even when alternative medicines such as Timolol were proposed, they proved inadequate, and Mr. Randall's vision again began to fail.
CHAPTER THE NINTH: In Which Mr. Randall Faces His Fate
Thus was Mr. Randall brought low by the perils of policy and the machinery of governance. Three paths now lay before him: (1) to persist in the use of marihuana, against the law but in preservation of his sight; (2) to submit to a risky surgery, dreaded by his physicians; or (3) to embrace blindness in compliance with the rules of his government.
His choice, he declared, was clear: the herb, though humble, had preserved his vision. And he would not, though the cost be great, surrender to the darkness simply to satisfy an unjust prohibition.
POSTSCRIPT: Of the Government's Cold Compassion
In correspondence with the White House, the agencies made clear that any clemency extended to Mr. Randall was not a matter of right, but of indulgence—granted only so long as he remained silent. When he spoke, the tap was turned. When he petitioned, he was ignored. When he pleaded, he was threatened.
Yet Mr. Randall persisted.
And in his persistence, the world was made to see—not merely the injustice of a blind bureaucracy, but the light that might still be preserved, if only one dares speak.
Franklin Mode
Exhibits 1–10 Attached to the Affidavit of Robert C. Randall
Being a series of Letters, Petitions, Minutes, and Communications of Urgency, submitted between the Years 1976 and 1977, respecting the Therapeutic Use of Cannabis and the Struggles of One Citizen to Secure the Blessings of Sight and Liberty
"Where the Liberty of the Individual is imperiled by the Rigidity of the Bureaucracy, it becomes the Duty of the Republic's Servants to examine with Care and Conscience the Instruments of Law and Regulation, lest in administering Order they become Stewards of Blind Injustice." — Franklin, annotated.
Exhibit I Letter of Mr. Robert J. Rosthal, Deputy Chief Counsel of the Drug Enforcement Administration, to Mr. John W. Karr, Attorney at Law, dated the Eleventh Day of June, Anno Domini 1976.
In this communication, Mr. Rosthal declares that the regulation found in 21 C.F.R. §1307.03 offers no succor to the petitioner, Mr. Randall. Instead, it is advised that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might serve as the more proper avenue for resolution. Mr. Rosthal extends his willingness to assist in that regard, a gesture notable if not entirely effectual.
Exhibit II Petition dated May 20th, 1976, authored by Mr. John W. Karr, respectfully submitted to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Under the authority of 21 C.F.R. §1307.03, counsel requests that Mr. Robert C. Randall be granted an exception, permitting the lawful use of cannabis to preserve his remaining vision. It is declared that Mr. Randall suffers from glaucoma, that conventional therapies have proven inadequate, and that only through the addition of marijuana is control of intraocular pressure achieved. Affidavits by eminent physicians — Drs. Hepler and Fine — are cited. Expedience is requested. A ruling is sought. Life and vision depend upon it.
Exhibit III Letter of Mr. Kenneth A. Durrin, Acting Director, Office of Compliance and Regulatory Affairs, dated March 4th, 1977, addressed to Mr. Randall.
In this dispatch, Mr. Durrin regretfully explains that the law provides exemption only to those who conduct research, not to those who are the subjects of such research. He quotes the Code — Title 21, Sections 872(c) and 872(d) — and insists the agency is without authority to grant immunity from prosecution to patients such as Mr. Randall.
Thus, he is told: You may be treated, but not protected.
Exhibit IV Letter of Mr. Robert C. Randall to Mr. Durrin, dated April 24, 1977.
In language steeped in disappointment and resolve, Mr. Randall laments the absurdity of DEA’s position. He warns that their stance undermines public health and erects barriers to therapeutic research. He requests a re-examination of the agency's position. His tone is courteous, but his meaning unmistakable: this policy is irrational, unsound, and dangerous.
Exhibit V Letter of Mr. Randall to The Honorable Griffin Bell, Attorney General of the United States, dated May 18, 1977.
Mr. Randall pleads for direct intervention. He recounts how DEA, FDA, and NIDA jointly licensed a cannabis research protocol at Howard University as a response to his own May 1976 petition. He explains how he became a patient in that program, regularly receiving cannabis, only to be told months later that he possessed no immunity from prosecution.
He accuses DEA of evasiveness and delay. He charges that their new interpretation would criminalize all research subjects in Schedule I investigations. He declares that his biological interest — the preservation of his sight — outweighs the DEA’s bureaucratic inclinations. He entreats the Attorney General to overrule DEA and restore sanity to the matter.
Exhibit VI Letter to Dr. Peter Bourne, Office of Drug Abuse Policy, The White House, dated May 20, 1977.
Mr. Randall expresses grave concern over the actions of DARAC (the Drug Abuse Research Advisory Committee). He describes their decision to limit his cannabis supply to a daily ration as uninformed and unscientific. He criticizes FDA and DEA alike for interfering in his treatment based on flawed understandings of both glaucoma and research ethics.
He appeals to Dr. Bourne to intercede and halt these bureaucratic infringements. He warns that his health, liberty, and even free speech are jeopardized by DARAC’s overreach. He notes that despite participating in an approved research protocol, DEA refuses to grant him immunity as a research subject.
The postscript reveals further confusion: policies revoked, reinstated, and revoked again within days.
Exhibit VII Letter of June 9, 1977, from Mr. Robert J. Rosthal, Acting Chief Counsel, DEA, in reply to Mr. Randall.
DEA again asserts that the exemption from prosecution under Section 872(d) pertains only to researchers, not to their patients. The assertion is presented as law, not logic. Mr. Randall is thus left in legal limbo: permitted access to cannabis for research purposes, yet vulnerable to prosecution for using it.
A handwritten note at the end of the letter, now largely illegible, suggests some personal communication, though its content remains obscure.
Exhibit VIII Minutes of the DARAC Meeting of May 12, 1977, held in Rockville, Maryland.
This lengthy document captures the deliberations of federal scientists and regulators, reviewing cannabis studies related to glaucoma, cancer, anorexia, and more. It is a patchwork of promise and prohibition.
In one section, Dr. Merritt discusses the use of smoked cannabis to lower intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma, including Mr. Randall. Merritt reports favorable outcomes in seven of ten open-angle glaucoma patients. Oral THC capsules are deemed unreliable due to low potency.
The committee debates the legality of providing cannabis to outpatients. They approve a weekend supply but raise concerns about the implications of take-home use.
In other sections, studies on THC as an antiemetic and appetite stimulant receive cautious approval. Studies on THC for anorexia nervosa and chemotherapy-induced nausea are deemed scientifically valid and ethically sound.
The Committee also discusses public trust in federal decision-making, the need for transparency, and the proper conduct of open meetings.
Exhibit IX Minutes of the DARAC Meeting of February 10-11, 1977, at UCLA.
This earlier gathering reflects many of the same tensions seen in May. The Committee debates cannabis research protocols, including Dr. Merritt’s glaucoma study.
Notably, concerns are raised about Mr. Randall’s travel and access to cannabis cigarettes beyond what had been authorized. The Committee worries that no proper take-home authorization had been granted, yet Randall had government cannabis in his possession.
They summon Dr. Merritt to the next meeting to clarify.
A list of potential new members and agenda items for the May meeting is appended. Included among the topics: reclassification of THC, NDA filings, and coordination between DEA, FDA, and NIDA.
Exhibit X Letter of May 25, 1977, from Mr. Randall to Dr. Edward C. Tocus, FDA.
Mr. Randall decries the swift and poorly considered implementation of DARAC’s May 12 recommendations. He details the abrupt disruption in his treatment — the de-certification and re-certification of Dr. Merritt within a week — and warns that such instability threatens his sight.
He insists that until DARAC’s recommendations are finalized and made public, no agency should interfere with his access to life-preserving medication. He asks for a list of all committees with power over his care and reasserts his right to medical stability and legal clarity.
He closes with a sober reflection: he cannot tolerate sudden interferences and expect to retain vision.
Summary: These ten exhibits tell a story of desperation, scientific promise, bureaucratic confusion, and constitutional alarm. They reveal how a man, armed with a court ruling, the support of medical experts, and a disease eating away at his vision, must navigate a thicket of conflicting federal policies. He is at once a patient, a citizen, and a test case in a republic not yet ready to reckon with cannabis as medicine.
Let these documents be read in full, not only as a chronicle of one man's plea, but as testimony to the urgent need for policy grounded in science, compassion, and common sense.
Franklin Mode Rewrite: Exhibits 11–28 for the Affidavit of Robert C. Randall
Philadelphia, this day, being mindful of the sacred obligation to liberty, reason, and humane governance, I offer the following redrafted exhibits in the spirit of public virtue and constitutional fidelity. These letters and minutes, as correspondences and proceedings of federal import, reflect the sincere effort of a citizen, Mr. Robert C. Randall, to obtain lawful and rational access to a medicine efficacious to his sight and wellbeing. Let us proceed with sobriety and principle.
Exhibit XI Letter from Dr. Peter G. Bourne to Mr. Robert C. Randall Dated: June 6, 1977 | Office of Drug Abuse Policy, The White House
Mr. Randall,
I thank you for your April 24th letter concerning the medical scheduling of marihuana and its possible therapeutic applications. As both a physician and public servant, I share a deep sympathy with the concerns you express. The agencies responsible for drug regulation are not devoid of compassion; they are peopled by individuals who, like myself, wish to alleviate suffering.
Yet, we must remember that the purpose of regulatory law is to safeguard the public against that which has not been proven safe or effective. Encouraging reports regarding the impact of marihuana and THC upon intraocular pressure are cause for scientific inquiry, not public distribution. Until longitudinal studies confirm both efficacy and safety, open distribution for glaucoma treatment cannot be sanctioned.
Research is ongoing, including the development of cannabinoid eye drops which may avoid central psychoactive effects. We continue to encourage sound clinical trials under controlled conditions. Though Schedule I status creates some difficulty, it is not an insurmountable barrier.
I understand your legal status is unsettled. While the take-home use of marihuana in your case has not been formally authorized, it has been tolerated out of compassion. But we must warn: publicity may require stricter control.
As I have long supported the decriminalization of personal possession, I remain committed to reform. Yet such reforms must proceed on the basis of science and sober judgment, not sentiment.
Respectfully,
Peter G. Bourne, M.D. Director, Office of Drug Abuse Policy
Exhibit XII Letter from Mr. Robert C. Randall to Mr. John Scigliano, DARAC Secretary Dated: May 31, 1977
Mr. Scigliano,
I write with concern regarding the proceedings of DARAC on May 12th. I was dismayed to learn of policy recommendations affecting my medical treatment, delivered by a group with whom I had no prior contact, nor any understanding of their authority.
Please provide the legal foundation, mandate, and composition of DARAC. Further, I request copies of the minutes from the May 12th, February 1977, and November 1976 meetings.
The recent policy shift has already created disruptions in my access to treatment. Any further action based on unapproved recommendations would be unconscionable. As this matter concerns my health and civil liberties, I hope for your prompt and complete response.
Sincerely,
Robert Randall
Exhibit XIII Letter from Mr. Robert C. Randall to Dr. Donald Kennedy, FDA Administrator Dated: June 5, 1977
Dr. Kennedy,
I am compelled to bring to your attention critical changes to my medical care. I have lawfully received marijuana to treat glaucoma under the direction of Dr. John Merritt. This treatment, affirmed by clinical results and judicial ruling, has stabilized my condition.
However, recent attempts by FDA to implement DARAC's May 12th recommendations jeopardize my care. Restrictions based not on science but on administrative convenience will, if enacted, render me a medical prisoner of Washington.
I respectfully urge you to cease efforts to enforce unratified DARAC policies, and instead to pursue a humane and legally sound resolution. I am prepared to seek judicial relief if required, though I prefer resolution through reasoned governance.
In earnest pursuit of liberty and health,
Robert Randall
Exhibit XIV Response from Dr. Edward C. Focus, FDA Dated: July 11, 1977
Mr. Randall,
Your participation in the glaucoma study under Dr. Merritt is appreciated. As FDA regulations require, marijuana may only be used in investigational studies. The current protocol provides for one-day take-home dosages to ensure scientific integrity.
We recognize your situation, and expedited Dr. Merritt’s IND application in consideration of your needs. However, the FDA cannot authorize uncontrolled or open-ended patient access to marijuana. Only properly monitored clinical trials may guide future approval.
Sincerely,
Edward C. Focus, Ph.D. Chief, Drug Abuse Staff, FDA
Exhibit XV Response from Dr. Ronald Kartzinel, FDA Dated: August 2, 1977
Mr. Randall,
You remain free to pursue treatment from any qualified ophthalmologist. The DARAC's advisory role does not preclude such care. The study under Dr. Merritt is investigational; the data thus far do not support general therapeutic claims.
We are grateful for your volunteer role and await further data to support our review of marijuana for glaucoma. Concerns should be directed to Dr. Merritt as principal investigator.
Sincerely,
Ronald Kartzinel, M.D., Ph.D. Acting Director, FDA Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products
Exhibit XVI Minutes of the Drug Abuse Research Advisory Committee (DARAC) Meeting Date: August 11, 1977
Chaired by Dr. Robert B. Forney, this meeting saw participation from representatives of FDA, NIDA, DEA, and members of the public, including Mr. Randall himself. Protocols for cannabis research were reviewed, with concerns raised over informed consent, dosage schedules, and scientific validity.
Key points:
The committee reaffirmed the need for strict controls in investigational drug use.
Mr. Randall and Ms. Meredith Sykes provided public testimony supporting marijuana’s medical utility.
The committee approved limited expansion of take-home cannabis for glaucoma patients but emphasized the need for further data.
Investigations on THC's effects on nausea, interpersonal behavior, and anxiety were discussed.
FDA was tasked with clarifying and strengthening informed consent protocols.
The committee considered future meetings to refine cannabis toxicity guidelines.
This meeting confirmed a growing recognition of marijuana's potential, yet stressed adherence to scientific rigor and regulatory integrity.
Respectfully submitted,
John A. Scigliano, Ph.D. Executive Secretary, DARAC
Robert B. Forney, Ph.D. Chairman, DARAC
Exhibit XVII Letter from Keith Stroup, NORML, to Dr. Peter Bourne Dated: July 14, 1977 (Bastille Day)
Dr. Bourne,
In the spirit of liberty and reform, I urge you to support the rescheduling of marijuana to allow its use in therapeutic contexts. Mr. Randall’s case is not unique; across this nation, patients seek relief under the shadow of prohibition.
The Controlled Substances Act's classification of marijuana as Schedule I cannot withstand scientific scrutiny. The substance has demonstrated therapeutic value and lacks the high abuse potential claimed by statute.
We request your leadership in facilitating a change in federal policy that would empower physicians and restore dignity to patients in need.
Yours in public service,
Keith Stroup National Director, NORML
Exhibit XVIII-XIX Letters between Robert Randall and Dr. Peter Bourne Dated: December 5 & 19, 1977
Mr. Randall informed Dr. Bourne of the imminent departure of Dr. Merritt, his prescribing physician. Expressing fatigue with bureaucratic instability and fearful for his vision, he requested an administrative resolution.
Dr. Bourne replied on December 19, acknowledging Mr. Randall’s situation and promising to pursue an effective federal research strategy.
Exhibit XX-XXV Legal Correspondence: Thomas Collier, Esq. on behalf of Mr. Randall March–April 1978
Counsel for Mr. Randall corresponded with officials at NIDA, FDA, and the White House seeking "compassionate use" authorization for marijuana. When this was denied, they urged immediate access to Timolol as a possible alternative treatment. Failing that, they threatened court action to protect Mr. Randall’s right to sight.
FDA officials responded by emphasizing regulatory constraints and expressing sympathy, but refused to deviate from IND protocol, citing the pending status of THC eye drops and asserting legal limitations.
Exhibit XXVI-XXVIII Supplemental Medical and Legal Documentation
A telegram from attorney Tom Collier to Dr. Bruce Shields confirmed Timolol’s diminishing efficacy.
Medical documentation from Johns Hopkins outlined Randall’s deteriorating condition despite traditional treatments.
A final FDA response reiterated that investigational standards, not yet passed reforms, governed policy; it expressed hope that new formulations such as eye drops may allow future inclusion in controlled studies.
Let these assembled records stand as testament to the patient courage of a citizen, the halting mechanics of administrative law, and the enduring need to balance scientific diligence with human compassion. In liberty and public trust, let us draw wisdom from this case and strive to ensure that no individual be forced to choose between health and legality.
📜 HEAR YE, HEAR YE!
In the Voice and Spirit of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Printer, Patriot, and Philosopher
A PUBLIC NOTICE TO THE GOOD CITIZENS OF THESE UNITED STATES, AND TO ALL WHO WOULD PRESERVE LIBERTY AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF TYRANNY IN WHATEVER FORM IT MAY APPEAR
WHEREAS, one Mr. Robert C. Randall, a man of letters and courage, afflicted with a grievous ailment known to physicians as open-angle glaucoma, did seek relief through a most unorthodox but efficacious remedy—namely, the herb Cannabis Sativa, known vulgarly as marihuana;
AND WHEREAS, upon discovering that this botanical substance did preserve his vision where all sanctioned medicines failed, Mr. Randall made honest petition to the several departments and officers of the federal government, seeking not indulgence, but lawful accommodation;
AND WHEREAS, said government—being comprised of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)—did rebuff, confuse, and obstruct this humble citizen at every turn, erecting a gauntlet of red tape, contradiction, and bureaucratic indifference;
AND WHEREAS, despite the ruling of a federal judge affirming the necessity of Mr. Randall’s treatment, said agencies continued to imperil his health with contradictory dictates, limited rations, threats of prosecution, and a demand for silence;
AND WHEREAS, Mr. Randall, choosing liberty over docility, did refuse to be muzzled, and in so doing became the first American in modern history to receive legal cannabis from the federal government;
LET IT THEREFORE BE KNOWN:
That this matter, though it began with one man and his eyes, is no longer a private concern—it is a mirror held to our Republic, reflecting how far we have drifted from the principles of reason, compassion, and informed consent.
✍️ Summary of the Matter
Mr. Randall’s vision was saved not by state-sanctioned medicine, but by a plant the government deemed contraband.
Despite medical evidence and court victories, the federal agencies chose policy over person, regulation over remedy.
In the face of this, Mr. Randall persisted. He organized, testified, and sacrificed his privacy for the public good.
He did not ask for charity, but demanded justice—that the government not compel its citizens to go blind in obedience to ignorance.
🔔 A CALL TO ACTION
To All Sons and Daughters of the Republic, Lovers of Liberty and Advocates of Justice
Let us now act, not in rashness but in resolve, to ensure that never again shall a fellow citizen be forced to choose between health and legality.
Speak openly: Share Mr. Randall’s story. Let his words be heard in classrooms, courtrooms, and Congress alike.
Demand reform: Urge your elected representatives to deschedule cannabis, restore the Compassionate IND program, and protect patients under federal law.
Uphold science and liberty: Require that medicine be governed by evidence, not superstition; that laws serve people, not the reverse.
Protect speech and petition: Resist any policy that punishes transparency, muzzles dissent, or withholds care for political convenience.
IN CLOSING, let us remember:
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”
— B. Franklin
Mr. Randall showed us the way. It now falls to us, the inheritors of this cause, to light the path forward—with reason, courage, and a pen most mighty.
Given this day under the banner of Franklinian principle and republican virtue, in the Year of our Lord 2025, and in the spirit of liberty eternal.
🔖 Signed and sealed by the Citizenry
🪶 Drafted in Franklin Mode by your faithful assistant, Kit
