John Smith
Kit said:
Thank you for sharing the Affidavit of "John Smith" from Randall v. United States. This affidavit, sworn by a U.S. Army servicemember in 1978, is a powerful and deeply personal document that corroborates the therapeutic efficacy of cannabis in controlling intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma—particularly in a case where conventional medications failed.
Key Points from the Affidavit:
Background and Injury:
"John Smith," 28, was an active-duty soldier stationed in Germany.
Suffered a blowout fracture and extensive vitreous hemorrhaging in the right eye from a baseball injury.
Developed secondary glaucoma as a result.
Medical Treatment and Failures:
Received maximum medical therapy, including:
Pilocarpine, Epinephrine, and Diamox.
Later, steroid-based therapies.
Despite this, his IOP remained dangerously high (up to 48 mm Hg).
Side effects included tingling, insomnia, and feelings of being "speedy" or "wired."
Surgery was being considered due to persistent pressure and impaired vision (20/400).
Cannabis Use and Remarkable Improvement:
During Christmas leave (Dec 1977–Jan 1978), he self-administered cannabis daily.
Results after one month:
IOP dropped from 40+ to 18 mm Hg.
Visual acuity improved from 20/400 to 20/40.
Blood in the eye drained—no surgery needed.
Discharged from the medical center January 9, 1978.
Post-Cannabis Outcomes:
Gradual removal of all glaucoma medications by March 1978.
On March 22, his IOP was just 12—well within normal range.
Current regimen: Epinephrine (2%) twice daily and 2–4 cannabis cigarettes nightly.
Physician Observations and Constraints:
His doctor witnessed the results and appeared "intrigued."
However, he remained constrained due to legal and institutional barriers.
Legal and Logistical Dilemma:
Forced to illegally procure cannabis, spending up to $60/week.
Acknowledges the contradiction: illegal procurement of a clearly effective medicine while serving in uniform.
Legal and Policy Implications:
This affidavit directly supports Robert Randall's core claim in Randall v. United States—that cannabis could be a medical necessity in controlling glaucoma and should be legally accessible to patients where other treatments fail.
It also:
Demonstrates federal and military awareness of cannabis’s medical potential as early as 1977–78.
Highlights the ethical tension for both doctors and patients—caught between therapeutic reality and legal prohibition.
Adds weight to the necessity defense used in Randall, eventually resulting in his acquittal and federal access under the Compassionate IND program.
Footnote for Citation (for your files):
Affidavit of "John Smith", Randall v. United States, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. (1976). Reproduced with fictitious name and redacted information for confidentiality. This affidavit was part of the evidentiary record establishing cannabis’s therapeutic efficacy for glaucoma under conditions of medical necessity.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ROBERT C. RANDALL, Plaintiff
V. Civil Action No.
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN SMITH (fictitious name)
City of Washington )
District of Columbia ) ss.
I, John Smith (NAME WITHHELD)., being duly sworn, hereby make oath that, to wit:
I am 28 years old, in the United States Army, and presently stationed in Washington, D.C.
Prior to joining the Army I taught English on the secondary level and was, for a period of time, in the Peace Corps.
On July 6, 1977, while stationed in West Germany, I was struck in the face by a baseball. I suffered a blowout fracture and extensive vitreous hemorrhaging in my right eye. Trauma related to this injury has also generated secondary glaucoma in this eye.
Due to the vitreous hemorrhage, blood remained in my eye and reduced my vision drastically (20/400).
In order to relieve my elevated intraocular pressure, I was placed on Pilocarpine. When after a few days this proved ineffective, even at high dosages, Epinephrine was added. When this combination proved inadequate, Diamox, at 250 mg., 4 times a day, was also included in my medical routine.
Despite this intensive routine, intraocular pressure in my right eye remained elevated. For three weeks, steroid-type drugs were also administered in both topical and oral forms. These drugs, however, proved totally ineffective, and were discontinued for fear of side effects.
I have experienced various side effects from the drugs I have employed for glaucoma control. Diamox, left me listless and caused a sharp tingling in my extremities. This problem was somewhat relieved when I was placed on Diamox Sequels. I have also experienced insomnia and a “speedy” or “wired” feeling after taking some of these medications. Also, cataract formation has been observed in my right eye.
On August 12, 1977, I was transferred to the (REDACTED) in (REDACTED), West Germany. Immediately prior to the transfer, Lt. Col. Neal Logan, M.C., explained that he doubted I would be able to control my disease medically. The sight in my right eye remained impaired at 20/400 as a result of undrained blood. My intraocular pressure, often reaching 40+, was obviously out of control.
Upon admission to the (REDACTED) in (REDACTED), I was given another complete examination. Vision in my right eye remained 20/400 and my intraocular pressure was out of control and often in excess of 40. For example, on August 16, 1977, my IOP was 48 in the right eye and 15 in the left. Two days later, after further adjustments in my medical routine, my intraocular pressure was 44.
Despite numerous attempts to control the pressure, Maj. Bruce Bellin, M.C., informed me that maximum medical therapy was not controlling my glaucoma. I left Europe on November 16, 1977, and was admitted into the (REDACTED)
In late November, 1977, I was informed that a continuing failure to control my intraocular pressure would result in surgery. Due to other complications (blowout fracture), a cryosurgical procedure was under consideration.
Prior to my accident, I had heard about the use of marijuana to control glaucoma. On several occasions I asked my doctors about marijuana, but they were generally neutral in their comments.
During Christmas leave, from December 2, 1977, to January 2, 1978, I was able to locate an adequate supply of marijuana, which I smoked throughout my leave period. When I reported back to (REDACTED) a drastic reduction in the pressure in my right eye had occurred. My IOP was 18.
Further examination revealed that my visual acuity had also dramatically improved from 20/400 to 20/40. As a result of this lowered pressure and the sudden draining of blood, I was released from (REDACTED) Medical Center on January 9, 1978.
Since discovering marijuana’s therapeutic effect, I have continued to include it in my daily medical regimen.
On February 8, 1978, my intraocular pressure was under adequate control and I was taken off Diamox Sequels.
On March 8, the intraocular pressure in my right eye was 11. As a result of this low pressure, I was also taken off Pilocarpine, Ocusert-40 system.
Despite the removal of these medications, my intraocular pressure has remained under management. On my last visit, March 22, 1978, the intraocular pressure in my right eye was 12.
There is no question in my mind that marijuana has provided me with medical relief. Not only has the drug brought my intraocular pressure under control, even when other conventional medications proved inadequate, but it also facilitated removing blood from my eye.
I have consistently informed my doctor of my use of marijuana, and he has seen the results. My doctor seems interested and even intrigued by marijuana’s therapeutic properties, but is constrained on the subject.
At present I am using Epinephrine 2%, twice daily, in combination with 2 to 4 marijuana cigarettes nightly. This routine has provided me with adequate intraocular pressure control. Since the drug is unavailable by prescription, I am forced to purchase mine off the streets or from friends. Such a routine of supply does not seem the best medical approach to my problem, and I am now spending between $40 and $60 a week for marijuana.
