"We Have the Receipts": A Report on Federal Medical Cannabis Suppression and the Testimonies They Tried to Bury
Executive Summary
This report documents a long-suppressed truth: that the U.S. federal government, through its own agencies and courts, has acknowledged the medical efficacy of cannabis since at least the 1970s—and yet has deliberately limited access to it for patients, including veterans, suffering from debilitating and life-threatening illnesses. This deliberate suppression is documented through official court records, physician affidavits, patient testimonies, and internal regulatory meeting transcripts. These receipts paint a picture not just of government inaction, but of institutional harm.
The following pages compile evidence from Randall v. United States (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1976), the landmark case that resulted in the first federally recognized medical marijuana patient, Robert C. Randall. Supporting affidavits from glaucoma patients, physicians, and researchers illustrate a broader national pattern of bureaucratic obstruction and patient suffering. This report does not ask readers to take our word for it; the documentation exists, the stories are real, and the receipts are in hand.
I. Background: Robert C. Randall and the Legal Precedent
In 1976, Robert C. Randall, a glaucoma patient, became the first person in the United States to gain legal access to marijuana for medical purposes through the federal government's Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) program. The federal court ruled in his favor under the doctrine of medical necessity. Randall's case, Randall v. United States, relied on testimony from multiple expert witnesses and medical professionals who verified that cannabis reduced his intraocular pressure (IOP) when conventional medications failed.
Key Affidavit:
Dr. Robert S. Hepler, Professor of Ophthalmology at UCLA, concluded in sworn testimony that marijuana significantly lowered Randall's IOP and could prevent blindness where all other medications failed. He testified: "If marijuana could be legally prescribed, and if I were Robert Randall's personal physician, I would prescribe that drug for him as part of his regular glaucoma maintenance program."
II. The Testimonies They Ignored
This report preserves over a dozen sworn affidavits submitted as part of or in support of Randall v. United States, most from patients suffering from severe, treatment-resistant glaucoma.
John Roe, Wisconsin: Diagnosed at 8 years old with glaucoma, he began using cannabis in 1970. He smoked 6–10 marijuana cigarettes per day and experienced effective IOP control without serious side effects. His physician acknowledged the benefit but could not legally prescribe it.
John Foe, Ohio: A schoolteacher and father of three who participated in a brief Howard University study under Dr. John Merritt. Cannabis lowered his IOP significantly. Despite extensive efforts, he was denied access to legal cannabis.
John Toe, West Virginia: After multiple failed surgeries and painful side effects from conventional meds, he found relief through cannabis. Federal red tape blocked him from further pursuing legal access, and local doctors feared involvement.
Each affidavit follows a consistent pattern: failed conventional treatments, verified improvement through cannabis, moral and religious justification, and repeated denials by federal authorities.
III. The Physicians Who Spoke the Truth
Dr. John C. Merritt, Howard University: In clinical studies, Merritt observed that cannabis could lower IOP in glaucoma patients more effectively and with fewer side effects than existing medications.
Dr. Robert S. Hepler, UCLA: As noted above, Hepler not only researched cannabis's effects but personally oversaw Randall's treatment and affirmed the results in court.
Dr. Ben S. Fine and Dr. John Doe (Randall's subsequent treating physicians): Both affirmed that cannabis was a necessary part of Randall's care plan and should be legally prescribable.
IV. Internal Records: Bureaucracy over Compassion
Meeting transcripts from the 1977 Drug Abuse Research Advisory Committee (DARAC) expose how federal agencies like the FDA and DEA actively maintained Schedule I status for cannabis despite knowing its medical utility.
Highlights:
FDA and DEA officials admitted that cannabis availability was subject to "regulatory complexity" and refused to simplify the process.
Researcher reports, such as those by Dr. S.E. Sallan and Dr. R.M. Gottlieb, confirmed the antiemetic value of THC in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Testimony before DARAC confirmed systemic reluctance to issue Schedule I research approvals, even when therapeutic benefits were observed.
V. Veterans and Federal Contradiction
One of the most critical revelations comes from a patient who received marijuana grown by the federal government in Mississippi and delivered through the Audie L. Murphy VA Hospital. This makes him the only known veteran to have received federally grown cannabis through the VA—a direct contradiction of ongoing federal policies labeling cannabis as without medical use.
This inconsistency not only reflects policy hypocrisy, but weaponizes diagnosis: labeling veterans as substance abusers rather than patients. It silences and punishes those seeking care outside VA-approved pharmaceutical pipelines.
Conclusion: We Have the Receipts
These records have sat in boxes, courtrooms, and forgotten archives for decades. They are not hearsay, not rumor, not theory. They are government-sanctioned medical testimony, clinical trial data, and first-hand accounts of suffering and survival.
This report is just the beginning of what must be a national reckoning. Veterans, patients, and physicians have spoken the truth for generations. It’s time we stop pretending we don’t know it.
We have the receipts.
Supporting Documentation On File:
Randall v. United States court filings (U.S. District Court, D.C., 1976)
Affidavits of John Roe, John Foe, John Toe, Jane Poe, Robert S. Hepler, M.D., John C. Merritt, M.D., and others
DARAC Meeting Transcripts (1977)
Internal FDA and DEA memoranda on investigational cannabis
Medical cannabis research summaries (1975–1978)
