John Jones

Thank you for sharing this powerful affidavit. The Affidavit of John Jones presents a compelling firsthand account of how bureaucratic barriers and the lack of compassionate access to medical cannabis forced a U.S. Marine Corps veteran into civil disobedience for the sake of preserving his vision and livelihood.

Here’s a summary and analysis suitable for policy, historical, or advocacy contexts, with suggested citations:

Affidavit Summary: John Jones (Fictitious Name)

Background:

• Age: 36

• Status: Divorced, father of one

• Location: Rural Missouri farm

• Veteran Status: Former U.S. Marine, medically discharged in 1964 with 50% disability due to glaucoma following a skull fracture sustained in service.

Medical Journey:

• Diagnosed with glaucoma as a service-connected condition.

• Under VA care since discharge.

• Conventional treatment with epinephrine caused intense headaches.

• Began self-administering cannabis in 1972–1973, discovering it reduced intraocular pressure (IOP) and mitigated epinephrine’s side effects.

• Successfully reduced epinephrine dosage from 2% to 1% when using cannabis.

Attempted Legal Access:

• Contacted the FDA and received guidance that marijuana could be obtained through a licensed researcher.

• Inquired with VA staff in St. Louis—none had DEA registration to conduct marijuana research.

• Referred to Dr. Keith Green (University of Georgia), but program was limited to animals.

• Contacted Dr. Robert Hepler (UCLA), only to find his human research program had ended.

• Sought help from U.S. Senators; efforts were unsuccessful.

Current Status:

• Has used marijuana continuously since 1973 (5–7 cigarettes/day).

• Grows cannabis when possible; otherwise, purchases from the illicit market despite personal objections to breaking the law.

• Sees no viable alternative for preserving his sight.

• Expresses moral conflict between obeying the law and preserving health, stating:

  “If forced to choose between my sight and the law, I am left no real choice.”

Key Themes and Implications

1. Medical Necessity vs. Criminalization
   The affidavit underscores the conflict faced by patients who must choose between health and legality. Mr. Jones’ experience reflects the central theme in United States v. Randall (1976): that patients with legitimate medical needs may be forced into criminal behavior when denied access to effective medication.

2. Institutional Barriers
   Despite being under VA care, Mr. Jones could not access legal cannabis due to structural limitations within federal institutions. This aligns with patterns seen across patient affidavits from the era—documented attempts to access cannabis through formal channels met bureaucratic dead ends.

3. Policy Gaps and Human Cost
   The case illustrates how the absence of a compassionate use mechanism or federal research infrastructure created unnecessary suffering and legal jeopardy for veterans. The federal government's failure to reconcile known medical efficacy with policy restrictions forced citizens into untenable positions.

Suggested Footnotes & Citations

1. Robert C. Randall & Alice O’Leary, Marijuana As Medicine: A Plea for Compassionate Access, 1993 Policy Brief.

2. Randall v. United States, Civil Action No. ___, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1976. Affidavit of John Jones, included among supporting documents for the motion for injunction.

3. Hepler, R.S., & Frank, I.M. (1971). Marijuana Smoking and Intraocular Pressure. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 217(10), 1392–1397.