“This Ain’t It, Chief”

— Robert Randall Calls Out Synthetic THC

🗞️ Source: The Washington Post (Washington, DC)
🗓️ Date: Sunday, June 29, 1980
✍️ By: Robert Randall

In one of his boldest public-facing op-eds, Robert Randall took to the pages of The Washington Post to expose what he saw as a bait-and-switch tactic by federal agencies: pushing synthetic THC (Delta-9 THC) as a “medical substitute” for whole-plant marijuana.

💬 What Randall Said (and Why It Still Matters):

"In a land where marijuana is widely available and easily obtained, the federal government is prepared to supply so little of the legal commodity... that thousands of glaucoma and cancer patients are to be deprived of its use for medical purposes sanctioned by state laws."

Randall’s core argument? The government’s refusal to meet real medical demand was not about patient safety—it was about control.

Instead of expanding access to whole-plant cannabis (grown in Mississippi under federal license), agencies like NIDA and FDA leaned into supplying states with synthetic Delta-9 THC. Randall argues this was an intentional effort to undermine the state-by-state legalization wave and protect entrenched drug enforcement interests.

💊 Delta-9 vs. The Real Thing:

Randall called out Delta-9 THC for what it was:

• A synthetic chemical developed for animal testing, not human consumption.

• An inferior medical substitute, lacking the therapeutic profile and ease of use found in the natural plant.

• A political tool designed to placate the public while maintaining prohibition.

“The idea of a synthetic ‘pot pill’ like THC appeals to federal bureaucracies unwilling to admit that marijuana has medical value.”

He cited studies and quotes from leading physicians—like Dr. Stephen Sallan and Dr. Andrew Weil—who warned that Delta-9 lacked the efficacy and safety profile needed for actual patient use.

🧬 Key Takeaways from Randall’s Editorial:

• Medical Inaccessibility by Design: The feds were rationing real cannabis supplies while aggressively pushing synthetic alternatives to appear responsive without giving up control.

• Delta-9’s Clinical Limitations: Pills were inconsistent, slow to absorb, hard to dose, and often produced worse side effects than inhaled cannabis.

• Manipulating State Reforms: By denying states access to usable cannabis, the federal government undermined their own legislative advances.

• Press Impact: Randall’s editorial ran nationwide, educating Americans on the distinction between real cannabis therapy and federally sanctioned substitutes.

🔗 Additional Reading:
For a deeper dive into this moment and others like it, check out MjRx Monograph #3: Synthetic Solutions — a critical chronicle of how synthetic THC was weaponized against the cannabis reform movement.

This Washington Post op-ed is essentially Randall breaking the fourth wall of cannabis policy.
Up to that point, most media coverage cast him as a patient, an activist, or a thorn in the side of bureaucracy.
Here, he takes direct aim at the mechanics of federal control and explains—in plain language—how the game is rigged.

1. From Story Subject to Policy Analyst
Instead of being written about, Randall becomes the writer. That shift matters—he’s not filtered through a journalist’s lens, which means the urgency and anger are uncut. This is an activist using the national paper of record to explain exactly how the “compassion” narrative was being hollowed out.

2. The “Pot Pill” as Political Sleight of Hand
The core allegation is almost elegant in its simplicity:

• Whole-plant marijuana works, but the feds make it scarce.

• Synthetic THC pills don’t work as well, but the feds flood them into the market.

• The switch lets them look progressive while tightening control.
  It’s the equivalent of replacing a lifeboat with a postcard of a lifeboat—and insisting the picture is just as good.

3. Technical but Accessible Critique
Randall smartly explains Delta-9’s pharmacological flaws without losing the general reader:

• Slow absorption → no immediate relief.

• Variable dosing → unpredictable effects.

• Side effects → worse than the condition for some patients.
  This makes it harder for bureaucrats to hide behind “science” when the science itself undermines their position.

4. Naming Names, Building Legitimacy
By quoting Dr. Stephen Sallan and Dr. Andrew Weil—both credible, public-facing physicians—Randall aligns himself with the medical mainstream. It’s not just an activist opinion; it’s a documented, expert-supported claim.

5. Strategic Communication
This op-ed drops in 1980, just as state-level medical cannabis experiments were gaining traction. By pointing out that the federal government was kneecapping those reforms on purpose, Randall reframes the fight: this isn’t about whethercannabis works—it’s about who gets to decide patients’ access.

If the Tampa Times piece was the federal cold shoulder moment, and the Berkshire Eagle piece was the compassionate embrace, this Washington Post op-ed is Randall grabbing the mic back and saying, “Here’s the trick they’re playing on all of us.”