ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
(GENERAL DIVISION)
(Southwest Region)

BETWEEN

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent

-and-

CHRISTOPHER CLAY
Applicant

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT RANDALL

I, ROBERT RANDALL, of the City of Sarasota, in the State of Florida, MAKE
OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOW:

1. I received my B.A. degree from the University of South Florida (Tampa)
in 1969. I obtained my M.A. degree in Rhetoric and the Oral Interpretation
of Literature in 1971. Currently, I am President of the Alliance for
Cannabis Therapeutics (ACT), an organization which seeks to make marijuana
legally available for legitimate medical uses. Attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" is a copy of my curriculum vitae.

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a copy of my testimony before the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration in 1987, which sets out my efforts, at both
the state and federal level, to have laws enacted which would make
marijuana legally available for legitimate medical uses.

3. I suffer from glaucoma. In 1976, I was successful in raising a defence
of "medical necessity" in a legal proceeding regarding my use of marijuana;
I secured licit access to marijuana for use in a supervised routine of
medical therapy for this condition. By producing reports from my physician
which indicated that marijuana had, and continues to have, a critically
important contribution to the treatment of my glaucoma (by prolonging my
sight), I was able to prove to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that
access to marijuana was a medical necessity.

4. In 1978, federal agencies terminated my access to marijuana. I sued
them. We settled the dispute out of court so that I again had licit access
to marijuana. I was the first person in the United States to secure such
legal access. As a result of having access to marijuana for therapeutic
purposes, I have gained prolonged sight without any apparent medical or
physiological injury.

5. In 1980, I co-founded ACT. This is a non-membership organization. We do,
however, have an advisory board of approximately 50 people comprised of
patients, physicians, medical researchers, FDA approved investigators and
elected representatives from a number of states. ACT does not support any
non-medical uses for marijuana.

6. In 1982, I received the Galen Award of Rho Pi Phi from the Philadelphia
College of Pharmacy "For Superior Achievement in Expanding the Capacity of
Health Care Professionals by Introducing New Therapeutic Methods".

7. Over the past 15 years I have given informal talks and formal addresses
on marijuana's medical uses before many legal, medical, political, and
professional organizations including the American Bar Association, the
National Conference of Drug Abuse and the First International Conference
for Cannabis Reform (Amsterdam, 1980).

8. I have been qualified as an expert witness on the legal classification
and medical utility of marijuana and synthetic THC in the courts of
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Alabama, West Virginia,
Virginia, Arkansas and Indiana.

9. I have testified regarding marijuana's medical uses before the U.S.
House of Representatives as well as many state committees.

10. I have edited six books, the first five of which are on the ACT
booklist which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C": Muscle Spasm, Pain &
Marijuana Therapy; Cancer Treatment & Marijuana Therapy Manjuana, Medicine
& the Law Vol. I and II, Marijuana & AIDS: Pot, Politics & PWAs in America
and Marijuana as Medicine: Initial Steps. The first four books are excerpts
from the hearings that took place between 1986 and 1988 before the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration regarding the medical uses of marijuana and
its proper legal classification.

11. Muscle Spasm, Pain and Marijuana Therapy provides a comprehensive
review of scientific studies, state laws, methods and the results of
marijuana use in the treatment of MS, paralysis and pain, spinal cord
injuries and arthritis for patients, physicians and other interested
parties. The text in the book is taken from testimony in two cases
concerning the issue of marijuana's therapeutic utility in the treatment of
muscle spasm and chronic pain.

12. Cancer Treatment & Marijuana Therapy contains testimony from several
witnesses as well as the results of a recently published survey conducted
by Harvard University which indicates that 70% of American oncologists
favor prescriptive access to marijuana for reducing nausea, muscle spasm
and chronic pain.

13. Marijuana, Medicine & the Law Vol. I and II reviews the testimony of
those who are both for and against marijuana's use in medical treatment.
Volume I The Direct Testimony includes detailed affidavits from more than
fifty-five witnesses, including many of the world's leading medical experts
on marijuana's therapeutic uses, patients, scientists, researchers,
attorneys and health administrators. Volume II: The Legal Argument includes
legal briefs from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the
petitioning parties as well as selected portions of the oral arguments. The
full text of the Chief DEA Administrative Law Judge's ruling, which
concluded that marijuana has significant therapeutic benefits, is also
included. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "D" is a true copy of the
decision of Chief DEA Administrative Law Judge Young.

14. Marijuana & AIDS: Pot, Politics & PWAs in America includes: personal
stories of four people with AIDS who fought for and won the right to
legally use marijuana as treatment for their respective diseases,
information on how to legally obtain marijuana from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), answers to frequently asked questions about the
medical use of marijuana, a discussion on marijuana's effect on the immune
system, and a comparison between marijuana and Marinol (synthesized
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana's psychoactive ingredient).

15. Marijuana as Medicine: Initial Steps includes a review of medical
conditions, including treatment for life-threatening or sense-threatening
ailments, for which marijuana is useful. It also makes recommendations for
a system of research and approval. Further, it discusses the political
undercurrents involved in the debate over the use of marijuana for medical
purposes in the U.S., including cases where the defence of medical
necessity was advanced.

16. With respect to the issue of whether synthetic THC can be employed for
medical treatment in lieu of relying upon the plant substance, the
substitution of Marinol for marijuana would be acceptable if it achieved
those goals which are the objectives of a synthetic medicine; namely, to
increase its bio-availability to the patient's system, to increase the
medicine's therapeutic value and to reduce the potential adverse effects
caused by the use of the medicine. Marinol does not meet any of these
objectives in the context of treating the nausea, vomiting and/or rapid
weight loss associated with cancer, chemotherapy and AIDS.

17. In terms of bio-availability to the system, when marijuana is inhaled
it effectively reduces nausea and vomiting within 5 to 10 minutes, with
many patients reporting instantaneous benefits. Within 45 minutes to an
hour of inhalation the desire to eat is stimulated. The oral ingestion of
Marinol, by comparison, has very erratic bio-availability properties. The
oil-soluble nature of the medicine makes it difficult for the digestive
system to access the THC, which means that patients must wait 1 to 4 hours
before the nausea and/or vomiting are affected. Consequently, patients may
end up regurgitating the synthetic drug before it has time to act as an
anti-emetic. Furthermore, it is also less effective in terms of increasing
the desire to eat. The same pattern of effectiveness is present where the
patient is being treated for spasticity.

18. In terms of the therapeutic utility of the synthetic medicine, numerous
studies, including the Chang/National Cancer Institute (1979) study and
several state studies from New Mexico, New York, Georgia and Michigan,
report a sharp difference between the therapeutic effect of Marinol and
marijuana. For example, the New Mexico Department of Health reported to the
FDA in 1980 that marijuana significantly reduced nausea in 90% of cancer
patients who had failed to respond to more conventional anti-emetic
substances. In contrast, Marinol proved to be far less effective, aiding
less than 60% of similar patients. In nearly all studies where a comparison
was made between Marinol and marijuana, marijuana proved to be far more
reliable, predictable and effective.

19. On a personal level, I was tested on marijuana and
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (now marketed and distributed as Marinol)
during a controlled medical experiment at UCLA's Jules Stein Eye Institute
in December 1975. 1n these experiments, I was given 20 to 30 milligram
doses of orally ingested delta-9-THC. These proved to have no therapeutic
effect in reducing my ocular pressure. Marijuana, however, relaxed my eye
pressure by 25% to 50%. As a result, the investigator, Dr. Robert S Hepler,
concluded that for me smoking marijuana was clearly superior to the oral
ingestion of delta-9-THC.

20. In terms of reducing the adverse effect of taking the medicine, the
vast majority of patients who smoke marijuana report that they do not feel
negative effects due to the marijuana. In fact, many patients seem to enjoy
the minor euphoric effect of smoking marijuana. Similarly, in state
sponsored studies of marijuana use, for medical purposes (to offset nausea
from cancer chemotherapy etc.), by over 1000 patients, no one ever required
hospitalization or other forms of medical treatment as a result of an
adverse effect from the marijuana. On the other hand, Marinol appears to
have a much greater propensity to produce adverse effects. Many patients
are unable or unwilling to withstand delta-9-THC's more pronounced
psychoactive effects. In the New Mexico study referred to earlier, patients
were allowed to switch from marijuana to Marinol, and vice versa, depending
entirely upon their own preference. Many more patients chose to switch to
marijuana than to Marinol.

21. In my personal experience, during the UCLA experiment, delta-9-THC
produced more powerful anxiety provoking effects than I had ever
experienced on marijuana. In the earliest study of marijuana use for
medical purposes, Dr. Norman Zinberg from Harvard University administered
delta-9-THC to reduce the effects of cancer induced nausea in his patients.
While he noted that delta-9-THC seemed to be effective, approximately 25%
of his patients left his study in order to use marijuana, which they found
to be more effective.

22. Based on the three criteria noted above, marijuana provides relief more
reliably, more rapidly and with fewer adverse effects than Marinol. In
fact, it should be noted that it is not unusual for a patient on Marinol to
return the dosage to the doctor who prescribed because it is either so
ineffective or so difficult to cope with its negative effects. As in my own
case, many patients find Marinol ineffective while marijuana is repeatedly
effective. It should be noted that delta-9-THC contains marijuana's most
psychoactive ingredient, but not necessarily its most therapeutic ingredient.

Sworn before me at the
City of Sarasota in the
State of Florida,
this 26 day of March,
1997

Robert Randall