Jane Poe

Here is a summary and analysis of the Affidavit of Jane Poe, which forms part of the evidentiary record surrounding United States v. Randall and the broader struggle for legal access to medical cannabis in the 1970s.

🔍 Summary: Affidavit of Jane Poe

• Affiant: Jane Poe (fictitious name), 63 years old, Kansas resident

• Diagnosis: Glaucoma, diagnosed in 1971

• Conventional Treatment:

  • Pilocarpine 4%, 4x/day

  • Diamox 1250mg/day (a very high dose)

  • Glycerine, used regularly for over a year

• Monitoring: Husband trained to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) using a Schiotz tonometer

❗ Key Events:

• Winter 1977: IOP became critically elevated (often above 40 mmHg), posing a risk of permanent vision loss

• Early 1977: Attempted to gain legal access to marijuana after learning of its therapeutic potential:

  • Contacted DEA → told she must be a researcher

  • Contacted Dr. Greene (University of Georgia) → not conducting human research

  • Contacted Dr. Robert Peterson (NIDA) → initial support, but no follow-through

  • Contacted Congressman and Senators → no help

  • Contacted Dr. Peter Bourne (White House staff) → no assistance

📉 Cannabis Use & Effect:

• May 14, 1977: Received a small amount of cannabis anonymously

  • First-time user

  • Dramatic results:

    • Left eye: IOP dropped from 41 mm to 17 mm

    • Right eye: IOP dropped from 24 mm to 10 mm

  • Repeated use consistently reduced IOP by 15–20 mm within 60–90 minutes

⚠️ Legal Barriers and Consequences:

• May 20, 1977: Ran out of cannabis; unwilling to buy from the street

• IOP surged again, reaching dangerous levels

• May 31, 1977: Underwent emergency glaucoma surgery in both eyes

  • Surgery reduced IOP but led to complications and lasting vision loss

  • Affirms that delayed access to cannabis likely cost her significant eyesight

🧠 Analysis & Implications

This affidavit is one of the clearest and most personal illustrations of the human cost of federal inaction in the face of medical evidence.

🏛️ Legal and Policy Takeaways:

• Scientific Validity: Her documented IOP reductions are consistent with findings from peer-reviewed studies on cannabis and glaucoma.

• Bureaucratic Inertia: Despite involvement from NIDA, DEA, Congress, and even the White House, no legal pathway was opened, underscoring a systemic failure.

• Physician Support: Her doctor was supportive of cannabis therapy but was blocked by regulatory barriers.

• Loss of Vision: She attributes her permanent loss of eyesight directly to the federal government’s failure to provide a compassionate use exemption.

📚 Supporting Citation

This affidavit aligns with broader evidence documented in United States v. Randall and the associated physician affidavits (e.g., Drs. Merritt, Hepler, and others), which repeatedly verified the efficacy of cannabis in reducing IOP in glaucoma patients.