Robert Randall

Thank you for sharing the full text of the Affidavit of Robert C. Randall from Randall v. United States.

This affidavit is a historic and powerful legal document—arguably one of the most detailed personal narratives and scientific records ever submitted in U.S. federal court in support of medical cannabis use. It was pivotal in the 1976 Randall case, which resulted in the first successful medical necessity defense for marijuana in U.S. history, and laid the foundation for the federal Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) program.

Here are a few immediate takeaways and historical notes:

🔍 Historical Significance

• Randall’s affidavit is the cornerstone of medical cannabis jurisprudence in the United States. It combined:

  • A personal, meticulously documented medical history

  • Scientific validation from ophthalmologists and researchers like Dr. Hepler and Dr. Merritt

  • A clear chronology of bureaucratic obstruction by DEA, FDA, and NIDA

  • Evidence of retaliation and coercion, including suppression of speech, inconsistent agency guidance, and threats to treatment access

• The affidavit became the foundation for later reforms, including:

  • The creation of the Compassionate IND Program (1978–1992)

  • The 1993 policy brief to the Clinton administration (co-authored by Randall and Alice O’Leary)

  • The modern state-level medical marijuana laws that explicitly reference glaucoma and nausea

⚖️ Legal and Policy Implications

• Randall was not simply arguing for personal exemption—he was documenting systemic failure in federal health policy, especially regarding:

  • The unreasonable scheduling of cannabis under the CSA

  • The lack of meaningful therapeutic access

  • The retaliatory nature of federal research control and bureaucratic red tape

  • The absurdity of forcing a glaucoma patient to visit a pharmacy daily to receive marijuana

  • The coercive research ethics, such as requiring a blind patient to potentially undergo placebo treatments

🧠 Key Themes and Patterns

ThemeDescriptionMedical NecessityMarijuana was the only medication that consistently controlled Randall’s IOP without unacceptable side effects.Government RetaliationHis advocacy and refusal to stay silent led to reduced access and threats to his supply.Institutional CowardiceNumerous doctors and institutions refused to help due to legal fears or red tape.Scientific ConfirmationHis case was backed by leading ophthalmologists and research at top institutions.Policy HypocrisyWhile the government acknowledged therapeutic potential privately, it refused public access or immunity.

📚 Suggested Footnotes and Citations (for academic or legal purposes)

If you're preparing this for scholarly or policy publication, here are a few suggested references to cite the affidavit and its context:

1. Randall, Robert C. Affidavit in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction, Civil Action No. (D.D.C., 1978).

2. Randall, Robert C., and Alice M. O’Leary. Marijuana Rx: The Patients’ Fight for Medical Pot. Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1998.

3. Hepler, Robert S., and Frank R. Petrus. “Marihuana Smoking and Intraocular Pressure.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 217(10):1392-1397 (1971).

4. United States v. Randall, No. 75-00130 (D.C. Super. Ct. 1976).

5. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) Archives, Affidavits in Randall v. United States.