DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S 

REGULATION OF MEDICINE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 12, 2007 

Serial No. 110–111 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S REGULATION OF MEDICINE 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–607 PDF 2007

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S 

REGULATION OF MEDICINE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 12, 2007 

Serial No. 110–111 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 12, 2007 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Mr. David Murray, Director of Counter-Drug Technology, ONDCP, The White 

House, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Mr. Edward J. Heiden, Ph.D., Heiden Associates, Inc., Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Ms. Valerie Corral, founder of WAMM, Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, Davenport, CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

Ms. Siobhan Reynolds, President, Pain Relief Network, Santa Fe, NM 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 34 

Mr. John Flannery, Attorney, Campbell, Miller, Zimmerman, PC, and Author 

of ‘‘Pain in America—and How the Govenment Makes It Worse!’’, Leesburg, 

VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 77 

(1) 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION’S 

REGULATION OF MEDICINE 

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Nadler, Forbes, Gohmert, and 

Coble. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Rachel King, Majority Counsel; Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 

Member; Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will now come to order, and I am 

pleased to welcome you today to the hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on the 

Drug Enforcement Administration’s regulation of medicine. 

The Subcommittee has received numerous complaints about the 

Drug Enforcement Administration’s regulatory hearings and at this 

hearing we will focus on three areas: OxyContin action plan, Operation Meth Merchant and prosecuting medical marijuana patients. 

When it was first introduced, OxyContin abuse became rampant 

in such areas as Appalachia and rural New England. DEA responded by adopting the OxyContin action plan, which involved 

prosecuting medical doctors who prescribed high doses of painkillers. 

The DEA claims that this policy was not intended to impact the 

availability of legitimate drugs necessary to treat patients, however, the evidence suggests that the DEA’s decision to prosecute 

doctors has created a chilling effect within the medical community, 

so that some doctors are unwilling to prescribe pain medication in 

sufficiently high doses to treat their patients. The result is that 

many Americans live with chronic untreated pain. 

The second issue is the DEA’s Operation Meth Merchant, a campaign whose goal is to foreclose the sale of ephedrine in convenience stores and other small businesses, which the DEA refers to 

as gray markets. The DEA bases its policy on the belief that these 

businesses are the sources of material that is used to manufacture 

methamphetamines. 

2 

However, there is evidence that DEA’s policy is based on faulty 

science and that the DEA may be engaging in racial targeting. For 

example, in 2003, the DEA charged 49 store clerks and owners 

with selling materials used to make methamphetamines. Surprisingly, 44 of the 49 defendants were Indian immigrants who spoke 

broken English. 

The immigrants claimed no knowledge of the illicit drugs, including the methamphetamines. 

Now, finally, the third issue is the DEA’s policy of prosecuting 

medical marijuana users based on the scientific conclusion that 

marijuana has no known medical benefit. The Federal Government 

has a monopoly on growing marijuana for research purposes and 

this practice has discouraged research into the efficacy of medical 

marijuana, so that little progress has been made toward determining if medical marijuana could meet the FDA’s approval standards. 

Recently, a DEA administrative law judge ruled that it was in 

the public interest for researchers to be permitted to grow marijuana, and she recommended that the DEA grant a permit to a 

University of Massachusetts professor. The DEA has yet to decide 

whether it will follow the advice of the judge, which could open the 

area for beneficial medical research. 

Lastly, the FDA has continued to federally prosecute people who 

use medical marijuana legally in their States, according to State 

law. A well-known case is that of Valerie Corral, who will be testifying before us today. 

She and other patients at her hospice were arrested by armed 

DEA agents. Even if the law technically gives DEA the authority 

to investigate medical marijuana users, it is worth questioning 

whether targeting gravely ill people is the best use of Federal resources. 

There has been little or no oversight in the DEA during the last 

12 years. In 1999, the GAO issued a report that was highly critical 

of the DEA. The report said that the agency had no measurable 

proof that it had reduced illegal drug supply in the country. 

The DEA’s use of heavy-handed tactics and its decisions to investigate and prosecute people for illegal but minor conduct is perhaps 

a response to that report. 

Regardless, it is important that the agency have the opportunity 

to explain its decision-making process and we hope that this hearing will be the beginning of that dialogue. 

And, with that said, it is my pleasure to recognize my colleague 

from Virginia, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, who represents Virginia’s fourth congressional district. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your 

holding this oversight hearing on the Drug Enforcement Administration. Today’s hearing will focus on implementation and enforcement of the combat methamphetamine act, which was passed as 

part of the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization and Improvement Act; 

medicinal marijuana; and pain-relief medication. 

I understand that additional oversight hearings will be held so 

that we can focus on important issues, such as enforcement of the 

narcoterrorism and criminal prohibition, which was passed as part 

3 

of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization; illegal drug-trafficking activities along the Southwest border; and DEA enforcement against 

major drug-trafficking organizations and violent international and 

domestic gangs. 

The combat meth act was a bipartisan measure to stem the 

growth and spread of meth across our country. From all accounts, 

the act has been successful in reducing the number of home-grown 

methamphetamine labs in our country. 

However, as we have reduced domestic production of meth, Mexican super-labs have increased and illegal smuggling of meth has 

grown. This highlights two important points. Border security is 

needed, not only to reduce illegal immigration, but to protect our 

country from illegal drug traffickers who systematically smuggle 

large quantities of meth in our country. And new tools and resources are needed to improve enforcement against Mexican superlabs. 

That is not the focus of today’s hearings. While domestic enforcement against the precursor industries is important, I still think we 

need to address border security and drug-enforcement priorities. 

On the two other topics of medicinal marijuana and pain-relief 

treatment, again, they are important topics, but they pale in comparison to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman yields back his time, and I would respond by saying that I think just all of the hearings that you have 

suggested are on the agenda to be planned. One, you mentioned 

gangs. We will be having a Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act oversight hearing with the Education and Labor Subcommittee this afternoon. 

Having two Committees on the same day is what we are having 

to do to try to get in all the issues. 

[Audio difficulties.] 

Mr. SCOTT. They are working on it now. They are working on it 

from the seat of the Chair. We are working on that now. 

I will introduce the witnesses. 

Without objection, the other opening statements will be included 

for the record. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us today, and 

I want to apologize because I have another meeting that came up 

and I will be leaving and I will be coming back, and I did read 

everybody’s testimony last night. So when I come back, I will know 

what you have said. 

The first witness is Joseph T. Rannazzisi. He holds a B.S. degree 

in pharmacy from Butler University and J.D. degree from the Detroit College of Law in Michigan State University, is a registered 

pharmacist in the state of Indiana, a member of the Michigan State 

Bar Association. He began his career with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in 1986. 

In 2006, he was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Diversion and Control, where he is 

responsible for overseeing and coordinating major diversion investigations, among other duties. 

The second witness is Dr. David Murray, who received an M.A. 

and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, subsequently taught at 

Connecticut College, Brown University and Brandeis University beVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
4 

fore coming to Washington, where he has served as an adjunct professor in the Graduate School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. 

He co-authored most recently the book, ‘‘It Ain’t Necessarily So,’’ 

how media remakes the scientific picture of reality. He has served 

as special assistant to the director of the ONDCP, the drug office 

in the White House, and currently is the director of Counterdrug 

Technology Assessment Center. 

Next witness is Edward Heiden. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Washington University in St. Louis, specializing in industrial organization. He is also a Woodrow Wilson scholar at Harvard University. He is president of Heiden Associates, the Washington, DC, economic and product safety consulting firm, and he 

has directed studies on health, safety and environmental regulation 

and economic issues for numerous private and government clients. 

He testified as an expert witness before a number of courts and administrative and regulatory agencies. 

Prior to becoming a consultant, he held a number of senior positions in Federal Government, including chief planning economist at 

the Federal Trade Commission and the White House Office of Consumer Affairs. 

Next to testify will be Valerie Corral, founder of WAMM, the Wo/ 

Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana. For 14 years, WAMM has 

provided seriously and terminally ill patients with medical marijuana at no cost. It is the longest-running medical marijuana provider in the Nation and for a time had the only legal garden in the 

Nation. 

It was instrumental in the passage of Proposition 215 and most 

recently was involved in the Federal lawsuit Santa Cruz versus 

Gonzales. She is appointed by the California State Attorney General to the medical marijuana task force and served on the commission for 3 years. 

Next will be Siobhan Reynolds, who graduated with a B.A. in political science from Pitzer College and received her M.A. in liberal 

education from St. John’s College in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She 

has a master’s degree in fine arts from Actor’s Studio Program in 

New York City. 

In the mid-1990’s, Ms. Reynolds became aware of the lack of 

available pain care in the United States, and after marrying Sean 

Greenwood, a man with an undiagnosed congenital connective tissue disorder. She discovered that it was impossible to secure treatment for her husband. 

Following the eventual death of her husband in August of 2006, 

she organized the Pain Relief Network to redouble its efforts to 

help people suffering from chronic pain. 

Lastly, John P. Flannery, who holds a bachelor’s degree in physics from Fordham and a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering 

from Columbia and a law degree from Columbia and master’s degree in information science from George Washington graduate business school. 

He is a former Federal prosecutor from New York, has held a 

number of positions on Capitol Hill. His most recent position was 

chief of staff for Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a Member of this 

Committee. 

5 

After leaving Congress, he returned to practice law with Campbell Miller Zimmerman, where he has represented several doctors 

in cases involving prescription of pain medication. He is the author 

of the book, ‘‘Pain in America—And How Our Government Makes 

It Worse!’’ 

Each of our witnesses’ written statements will be made part of 

the record in its entirety. I would ask that each witness summarize 

his or her testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

And to help the witnesses stay within the time, there is a timing 

device just in front of us. The light will go from green to yellow 

with 1 minute left and, finally, to red when 5 minutes are up. 

Administrator Rannazzisi? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF DIVERSION CONTROL, U.S. 

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Scott, 

Ranking Member Forbes and distinguished Members of the House 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. 

On behalf of Administrator Karen P. Tandy and the men and the 

women of the Drug Enforcement Administration, I want to thank 

you for the opportunity it discuss and hopefully resolve some misconceptions about DEA’s enforcement of its statutory obligations. 

I would like to comment at the outset, that the title of this hearing, ‘‘DEA’s Regulation of Medicine,’’ is inaccurate. DEA does not 

regulate medicine or the practice of medicine. 

DEA does investigate violations of the Controlled Substances Act, 

regardless of the source of the violation, be it a Columbian cocaine 

dealer, a marijuana trafficker or a doctor who abuses the authority 

to dispense controlled substances. DEA’s mission statement is more 

than a cliche crafted to meet public relations need or strategy directive. It is the essence of the agency. 

The statement begins, ‘‘The mission of DEA is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States of 

America.’’ It is with that mission in mind that the agency conducts 

its work against methamphetamine manufacturers, illegal prescription drug suppliers, marijuana distributors and others who violate 

the Controlled Substances Act. 

In the 1990’s and early 21st century, America watched a homegrown epidemic in the form of methamphetamine spread across the 

Nation. Unlike most other illicit drugs, methamphetamine is easy 

to make from inexpensive, readily obtainable chemicals. 

Accessibility of precursor chemicals caused a boom in the number 

of small labs that fed a growing addict population. The need to control access to these chemicals resulted in the passage of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. This law complemented similar efforts by States and provided tools for Federal law enforcement 

and regulators to monitor precursor sales at the wholesale and retail levels. 

Through these legislative efforts, DEA has seen a 58 percent 

drop in laboratory sites seized in 2006 over those of 2005. Equally 

important to this dramatic reduction in lab sites is the fact that 

6 

agents and officers can now direct their law enforcement efforts 

elsewhere. 

Investigations involving methamphetamines labs and their subsequent clean-ups have traditionally consumed a significant number of man hours and have caused considerable drain on governmental resources. 

The increasing abuse of prescription drugs is one of the most significant challenges DEA is currently facing. As you know, one of 

the Administration’s goals is to reduce the abuse of prescription 

drugs by 15 percent between 2005 and 2008. 

This requires DEA to prevent to the diversion of pharmaceutical 

drugs, while ensuring an adequate supply for legitimate needs. We 

know that the diversion of pharmaceuticals occurs from a number 

of sources, including a small number of unscrupulous doctors. 

That said, doctors should not hesitate and should continue to 

provide their patients with whatever treatment they feel appropriate, as long as it is for a legitimate purpose and done in the 

usual course of medical practice. 

Generally speaking, in any given year, DEA arrests less than 

0.01 percent of the 750,000 doctors registered with DEA for a 

criminal violation. More often than not, those violations are egregious in nature and are acts clearly outside the usual course of accepted medical standards. 

Examples of these acts include such things as trading drugs for 

sex, self-abuse of drugs and trading prescription drugs for crack cocaine. Illegal Internet sales, fraudulent prescriptions and outright 

theft are other ways that drug dealers are able to illegally provide 

prescription drugs to addicts. 

No one should underestimate the potential damage that these 

substances can do when taken improperly. DEA has recently taken 

several steps to assist doctors in understanding the expectations of 

the law and aid them in meeting these requirements. 

While there are always those on the fringe who think the laws 

should not apply to them, the steps that DEA has taken have generally been met with expressions of approval and even appreciation. Most medical practitioners, particularly those who specialize 

in the treatment of pain, are tired of a few bad physicians giving 

their entire profession a bad name. 

DEA believes that the efforts it has made, including issuing a 

policy statement reiterating the requirements of the Controlled 

Substances Act and proposing a rule that would allow doctors to 

issue multiple schedule two prescriptions for up to a 90-day supply 

in a single office visit has significantly improved the medical community’s understanding of what are and are not the legitimate 

ways to prescribe controlled substances. 

We believe these efforts will assist the medical community to 

perform their responsibilities and understand the law. 

Similarly, understanding DEA’s activities regarding marijuana 

can also be traced back to our defined legal authorities. Like heroin 

and LSD, marijuana is listed by law as a schedule one controlled 

substance. 

Approval to conduct research using any schedule one substance, 

including cannabis, is a process in which both DEA and the Food 

and Drug Administration play a role. The FDA reviews the merits 

7 

of the protocol, qualifications and competency of the applicant, 

while DEA determines the adequacy of the necessary security arrangements. 

Once these reviews are completed, DEA can issue a registration. 

DEA cannot make a judgment as to the legitimacy of the research, 

and DEA has never denied registration to a researcher whose application has been approved by the FDA and who has had adequate 

security to prevent diversion of controlled substances—— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rannazzisi follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH T. RANNAZZISI


JTR-1.eps
9 


JTR-2.eps
10 


JTR-3.eps
11 


JTR-4.eps
12 


JTR-5.eps
13 


JTR-6.eps
14 

Mr. NADLER. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

I now recognize Dr. Murray for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID MURRAY, DIRECTOR OF COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY, ONDCP, THE WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, in absentia, 

Ranking Member Forbes and distinguished Members of the House 

Judiciary—— 

Mr. NADLER. You need to speak up and speak to the microphone. 

Mr. MURRAT1 [CONTINUING]. INDEED—AND JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY. 

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY

TO DISCUSS OUR NATIONAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE DRUG USE IN AMERICA AND TO DISCUSS FEDERAL DRUG POLICY REGARDING MEDICAL

MARIJUANA UNDER STATE LAW, OR SO-CALLED MEDICAL MARIJUANA. 

I do want to stress that their is good news out there. Let us not 

lose track of that, regarding the drug war. Youth use of all drugs 

is down by 23 percent over the last 5 years. Youth use of marijuana 

is down by 25 percent. 

Youth use of specific drugs such as methamphetamine is down 

by over 40 percent. Yet, against this backdrop, we face a stubborn 

debate that is ongoing for quite a while regarding the status of 

claims that marijuana is somehow an acceptable medicine. 

It is not the medical community, Mr. Chairman, who pushes this 

issue. It is not the medical community who identifies a need out 

there for a smoked weed to alleviate pain and suffering. Rather, 

this is an issue that is pushed overwhelmingly by legalization advocates for marijuana who fund initiatives and referenda in various 

States, trying to push through what we think is a troubling development. 

First of all, let us reiterate, there is no evidence by the bodies 

that are charged with making this determination that marijuana 

is effective as a medicine for any medical condition and no evidence 

of marijuana’s safety. That is why it remains in schedule one, as 

approved by the FDA and as judged by the DEA, as a substance 

without medical utility. 

Moreover, there are superior substances already available in the 

medical community for treating the diseases for which marijuana 

purportedly is efficacious. 

Secondly, the charge to medicine is first do no harm. There is increasing scientific evidence that marijuana actively is harmful to 

those for whom it was intended to be a healing device. 

In fact, the evidence of smoked marijuana, a contaminated product of raw weed with carcinogens in it and the active ingredients 

themselves produce effects—— 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Murray, do you think it is as harmful as nicotine? 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, if you are looking at the issue of an approved 

medicine that would be used—excuse me, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Chairman, can 

the witness make his statement and then we—— 

Mr. NADLER. I just wanted to ask him that one question, because 

he was saying how harmful it is. I think he is correct—— 

15 

Mr. FORBES. Can we not take away his time? 

Mr. NADLER. I am not going to take away his time. I just asked 

to answer that question, and we will give you the time. 

Mr. FORBES. Well, just I would like to request regular order, Mr. 

Chairman. That is highly irregular. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, sir. 

I believe they present different threats in different communities. 

There is no effort to say that nicotine should be treated as a medicine and dispensed for the cure of cancer. That is because, in its 

smoked form, it is quite virulent and quite troubling. 

Marijuana, however, likewise, is a smoked weed that that is offered as though it were therapeutic and efficacious, as though it 

had healing powers. The active ingredient in marijuana, increasingly, science has shown, is a risk-producing substance that is an 

intoxicant, that produces dependency and withdrawal. 

It is an addictive substance that has impact, particularly on the 

vulnerable. Those with psychotic predispositions, those with inclinations toward depression, toward schizophrenia, they are profoundly affected by this drug and it is risky to them actively. 

It should not be treated as though it were benign. It is a dangerous substance that produces active harm to those for whom it 

would be offered. 

Moreover, the presence of medical marijuana dispensaries in 

communities themselves turns out to be a harmful dimension. Increasingly, we are learning that these dispensaries are fronts for, 

increasingly, drug-dealing crime, that they are neighborhood 

nuisances, increasingly associated with high crime, with noise, with 

disruption, that communities increasingly are turning against and 

troubled by. 

We are seeing evidence, moreover, from time to time, that the 

medical marijuana movement has not been driven by medicine but 

has been driven by politics and by many instances taken over by 

criminal elements that are quite dangerous. 

We think that, basically, you are going to hear forms of argument that will anecdote. Tragic tales of suffering, no matter how 

genuinely believed in, no matter how emotionally laden they may 

be, that is not the way we make public policy decisions about what 

is an approved medicine—by tragic tales or by accounts of suffering. 

Rather, it is in a court of medicine and in a court of science that 

a drug is approved as being safe and effective and marijuana has 

never been able to successfully pass that test. 

What we are going to hear will be arguments that somehow we 

should get out of the way and let marijuana be offered as medicine. 

We think this is a fraud. We think this is a misrepresentation. 

The medical marijuana movement is at best a mistake, at worst, 

a deception, and it has another victim involved here, the integrity 

of the drug approval process in America, which is entrusted to the 

FDA, has kept America safe with regard to its medicines. 

We should not bypass that. We should not political theater—or 

political pressure groups try to approve medicines, which in fact 

damages the integrity of our drug approval process. If and when 

marijuana has substances in it that are shown to be efficacious, 

16 

therapeutic, it will be done in the scientific community, and it will 

not be offered in the form of a raw, crude, smoked weed. 

We know this from the scientific community. We know this from 

the medical community. And the people pushing for this are cynically manipulating tragic tales of suffering in such a way as to create—and not win in a court of medicine and science. 

I will be happy to answer your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:] 

17 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID MURRAY


DM-1.eps
18 


DM-2.eps
19 


DM-3.eps
20 


DM-4.eps
21 


DM-5.eps
22 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize Dr. Heiden for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD J. HEIDEN, PH.D., 

HEIDEN ASSOCIATES, INC., WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HEIDEN. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before this Subcommittee to present my views regarding various 

activities of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. 

My name is Edward J. Heiden. I am president of Heiden Associates, an economic consulting firm specializing in health and safety 

issues and located in Washington, D.C. 

Early this year, my firm and I were retained by the American 

Council on Regulatory Compliance, ACRC, an association that represents suppliers of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine-based products, such as over-the-counter cough and cold and asthma relief 

medications and whose members sell primarily to convenience 

stores and other non-mass merchandiser channels. 

Our assignment was to help them respond to a DEA draft report 

published for comment in the Federal Register that contained 

DEA’s 2007 national estimate of legitimate medical need and use 

for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and prescription drug and overthe-counter products. 

We were asked to examine two issues, the soundness of the data 

and methodology used by FDA to prepare the report and the estimate and whether the legitimate supply needs of ACRC member 

firms for ephedrine-based products to sell had been adequately 

taken into account by the DEA draft needs assessment. 

ACRC members were seriously concerned that their needs were 

not being adequately considered, if at all. A few of them indicated 

that they had not been consulted—many of them indicated they 

had not been consultant as the needs assessment was being prepared, and a few indicated, once they saw the assessment, that it 

was far less in total for the country as a whole than just their own 

sales to convenience stores and other non-mass merchandising 

channels. 

Let me briefly summarize our work. DEA’s assessment relied on 

a study by its contractor, IMS Health Government Solutions, to estimate medical needs for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, based on 

data the company routinely collects on sales to retail establishments, patients and insurers. 

The problem with this data is, and the report of DEA, that it was 

very sparse and provided very, very incomplete documentation as 

to its methodology, as to how the data was used. And, like much 

of the evidence that an interested and engaged analyst would need 

and expect to have to determine exactly how that methodology was 

applied, elementary materials such as key data files were not 

there, were missing. And, in one important instance, the agency refused to provide us and ACRC with access to a key set of spreadsheet data. 

Likewise, DEA’s treatment of how the needs of the convenience 

store market channel was treated in its national estimation process 

is vague and confusing. Even though convenience stores are mentioned by DEA as a channel that was included in the study, there 

is no way you can tell exactly how they were included. 

23 

In fact, as a starting point of data that we got, we obtained from 

DEA a copy of the product code listed by DEA’s contractor for the 

study, IMS. Reviewed by industry numbers, it showed that not one 

of the ACRC member products was included in the initial DEA 

product inventory used to develop sales estimates for the ephedrine 

and pseudoephedrine needs assessment. 

So none of the products was considered to be in scope for purposes of development of that needs assessment and not one of 

them, as I said, had been queried by DEA or its consultant as part 

of the needs assessment development process. 

So we conducted our own study of ACRC needs and sales by 

working with industry members to give us such sales on a confidential basis and then consulting with the board members to determine what this was. ACRC member firms told us when we aggregated the data that, collectively, the products they sold to convenience stores and other channels represented a tremendously 

large amount more, seven times more, than the amount DEA proposed as its preliminary 2007 annual needs assessment. 

How could something like this happen? How come the DEA study 

missed such a large part of the overall market for ephedrine-based 

products of convenience stores? 

I think there are several possible reasons why DEA might have 

missed so much ephedrine-based products sold through non-mass 

market merchandising channels. First, many of the companies involved in making it and marketing it—— 

Mr. NADLER. The witness’s time has expired. 

Could you wrap up, please? 

Mr. HEIDEN. Well, as I said, there are several reasons why this 

might have happened: technical, economic reasons. But, in conclusion, I would say that besides not documenting the procedures and 

denying access to data that could have indicated what was happening in this situation, it is quite obvious that this failure has 

caused DEA to propose an unrealistically low preliminary estimate 

for the amount of ephedrine required for legitimate needs. 

If this estimate stands as the basis for DEA decisionmaking, substantial hardships are likely to result, not only for numerous suppliers in the distribution chain and those who are employed by 

them, but also for the many asthmatics and others in legitimate 

medical need who rely on convenience stores and small retailers in 

locations where other retail outlets, like mass merchandisers, Targets, et cetera, are nonexistent or are only open during daytime or 

early evening hours. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heiden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. HEIDEN

Good morning. My name is Dr. Edward J. Heiden. I am president of Heiden Associates, Inc., an economic consulting firm specializing in health and safety issues and 

located in Washington DC. For the past 26 years, Heiden Associates has been assisting companies and trade associations in examining the economic impact of government regulation. A statement of our corporate capabilities and my resume is attached. 

Early this year my firm, Heiden Associates, and I were retained by the American 

Council on Regulatory Compliance (ACRC)—an association representing manufacturers, importers, and distributors of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine-based products such as over-the-counter cough and cold and asthma relief medications, whose 

members sell primarily to convenience stores and other non-mass-merchandiser 

24 

channels. Our assignment was to help them respond to a draft report, prepared by 

DEA and published for comment in the Federal Register, containing DEA’s 2007 national estimate of legitimate medical need and use for ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine in prescription drug and over-the-counter (OTC) products. 

We were asked to examine two issues: (1) the soundness of the data and methodology used by DEA to prepare its report and estimate; and (2) whether the legitimate supply needs of ACRC member firms for ephedrine-based products to sell had 

been adequately taken into account by the DEA draft needs assessment. ACRC 

members were seriously concerned that their needs had not been adequately considered, if at all. For instance, members indicated they had never been consulted as 

the needs assessment was being prepared. A few also indicated, after initially examining the DEA analysis, that the entire estimate of national need for ephedrine contained in the report was far lower than the supply need represented just by what 

they knew to be their own sales to convenience stores and other non-mass-merchandising channels. 

We briefly report below on the results of our work, and the conclusions and recommendations we have drawn from it. 

SUMMARY OF OUR WORK

Analysis of DEA Methodology and Treatment of Ephedrine Needs for Product Sellers 

to Convenience Stores and Related Market Channels. 

DEA’s assessment relied on a study by its contractor, IMS Health Government Solutions (IMS), to estimate medical needs for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine based 

on data that the company routinely collects and offers annually to customers. IMS 

used several types of data for its study—sales to retail establishments (including 

pharmacies), sales by retail establishments to patients, and medical insurance 

claims. However, the DEA report itself provided very sparse and incomplete documentation as to how this data was used, and lacked much of the evidence that an 

interested and engaged professional analyst would need and expect to have in order 

to determine exactly how the methodology was actually applied. Elementary supporting materials, especially the data files and calculations that would show the key 

procedures used, were missing, and in one important instance the agency refused 

to provide us with access when we made a request. 

Likewise, DEA’s treatment of exactly how the needs of the convenience store market channel was treated in the national estimation process is vague, confusing, and 

even contradictory in several important respects. For example, even though convenience stores are mentioned by DEA as a market channel included in the study, there 

is no way that an analyst can tell how the major data sources used by DEA actually 

treat the sales of such stores in their role as suppliers of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products for sale to the public. Without any documentation, explanation, 

or citation to source data, the report simply states that the convenience store channel had less than 0.1 million grams of legitimate OTC ephedrine-based product purchase needs. 

Development of Independent Estimates of Ephedrine Needs for Convenience Store 

and Related Market Channels. 

Because of this lack of documentation or explanation by DEA of its estimates, and 

the strong view by ACRC members that DEA’s estimate of less than 0.1 million 

grams to convenience stores and other non-mass-merchandiser channels lacked 

foundation, Heiden Associates conducted an independent examination of the need 

for ephedrine-based products in these market sectors. As a starting point, we obtained from DEA, through the ACRC, a copy of the product code listing used by 

DEA’s contractor for the study, IMS, to develop its estimates. Once we received this 

listing, we asked ACRC industry members to review it. Review by industry members showed that not one of the ACRC member products was included in 

the initial DEA product inventory used to develop sales estimates for the 

ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine needs assessment. This means that none 

of these products was considered to be ‘‘in scope’’ for purposes of development of the DEA needs assessment. Further, ACRC members indicated that 

not one of them had been interviewed or queried by DEA or its consultant 

as part of the needs assessment development process. 

Consequently, since it was clear that DEA and its consultant IMS were not adequately capturing the sales of legitimately marketed ephedrine-based products, we 

felt it was necessary to work directly with ACRC staff and member firms on a confidential reporting basis to develop preliminary estimates of ephedrine-based OTC 

products to convenience stores and related channels. Specifically, we asked individual participating manufacturers, importers, and distributors to provide 2005 estiVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
25 

mates of their total unit sales of ephedrine-based products for medical use and the 

channels through which they distributed these products. We also interviewed ACRC 

Board members to obtain their best assessments of the overall size of ephedrinebased product sales to convenience stores, the sector accounting for the largest portion of ACRC member industry sales. In addition, we consulted various extrinsic 

data sources to develop a profile of the economic importance of convenience stores 

and other non-mass-merchandising distribution channels that appeared not to have 

been adequately captured in the DEA consultant’s study. 

Eight ACRC member firms in all, of varying size and type (manufacturer, importer, and distributor) responded to our request for relevant sales data. In all, 

these eight firms sold more than 1.5 billion doses of 12.5 and 25 mg ephedrine-based 

products in 2005 to the public. About 80 percent of these sales were made through 

‘‘bricks and mortar’’ outlets such as convenience stores and small independent grocers, with the remainder reported through mail order and online channels. Collectively, these products contained approximately 27,880 kilograms of ephedrine, or 

more than seven times the amount DEA proposed as its preliminary 2007 annual 

needs estimate. 

In reviewing DEA’s own statistical data, it has become clear to me that these 

products are not the major source of diversion for the production of methamphetamine. According to DEA Administrator Tandy’s recent testimony before the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee: ‘‘. . . super labs, which are primarily controlled by 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations . . . are supplying the majority of the methamphetamine consumed in this country.’’ The vast bulk of the products found in 

small toxic methamphetamine laboratories are name brand pseudoephedrine cough 

and cold products, such as Sudafed, purchased in large chain pharmacies and mass 

merchandisers. The products distributed by the ACRC and other small distributors 

are off brand combination ephedrine asthma relief products, which are not found in 

these illicit laboratories as a precursor to make methamphetamine. 

How is it possible that the DEA/IMS study missed such a large portion of the 

overall market for ephedrine-based products in its estimates? It is not as if the convenience store and online/mail-order market sectors are inconspicuous: according to 

the most recent source data available, convenience stores and online/mail order 

firms sold an estimated $644 million of non-prescription medicines in 2002, with 

more than 38,000 convenience stores selling non-prescription medicines. 

There are several possible reasons why DEA might have missed so much ephedrine-based product sold through non-mass-merchandising channels. 

First, many of the companies involved in manufacturing and marketing ephedrine-based asthma products are also in the business of producing and distributing 

dietary and nutritional supplements, sales of which are tracked under a separate 

product code than under the code for non-prescription medicines. It is very possible 

that retail establishments might bundle products distributed by ACRC members 

and other similar firms under a product code such as vitamins, minerals, and other 

dietary supplements, or even general merchandise, that is not defined as within the 

scope of the IMS study. 

Second, many convenience stores and independent grocers, particularly smaller 

ones in center city and rural locations still do not have the ability to scan individual 

product purchases. Non-scanning convenience stores are not likely to have been included in the databases used for the DEA needs assessment, which rely heavily on 

scanned data. 

Third, the participants in the DEA needs assessment data base used to track OTC 

drug purchases (Homescan) may have under-represented poorer, lower health status 

households in urban and rural areas, as is sometimes the case with national consumer market panels that we have worked with in past studies. In this connection, 

it is important to note that it is convenience stores and small retailers in these less 

completely-tracked locations who are most likely to make products available to 

asthmatics where other retailers are non-existent or are open only during daytime 

and early evening hours. IMS does not have the ability to accurately capture convenience store data. 

CONCLUSION

The lack of access to data that serve as the foundation of the IMS study estimates 

and the sparse, non-transparent, confusing, and in some cases seemingly contradictory documentation of the procedures used to derive the annual needs assessment 

from these data make it difficult to determine whether the DEA has correctly characterized the volume of ephedrine requirements for prescription and non-prescription products sold in chain drug stores, large grocery chains, and mass merchandisers. However, it is obvious that the IMS study failed to incorporate any data on 

26 

ephedrine-based products lawfully marketed by a substantial and economically significant sector of manufacturers, importers, distributors, and retailers who market 

primarily through convenience stores and online/mail-order channels. This failure 

has caused the DEA to propose an unrealistically low preliminary estimate for the 

amount of ephedrine required for legitimate needs in 2007. Should this estimate 

stand as the basis for DEA decision-making, substantial hardships are likely to result not only for numerous suppliers in the distribution chain and those who are 

employed by them, but also for the many asthmatics and others in legitimate medical need who rely on convenience stores and small retailers in locations where other 

retail outlets (such as mass merchandisers) are non-existent or only open during 

daytime or early evening hours. 

We encourage the DEA to revisit this issue and make the data and analysis that 

underpin the IMS study estimates available for review under appropriate restrictions to ensure confidentiality and limit the use of the data. With access to these 

materials, we are confident that we would be able to work with DEA and/or IMS 

analysts to develop a fuller and more complete picture of the market needs for 

ephedrine-based products. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize Ms. Valerie Corral for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF VALERIE CORRAL, FOUNDER OF WAMM, 

WO/MEN’S ALLIANCE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA, DAVENPORT, CA 

Ms. CORRAL. Thanks to the Honorable Chair and distinguished— 

it is not on. Thank you. 

There we go, thanks. 

Honorable Chair and distinguished Committee Members, I thank 

you for this opportunity to speak before you today. I am Valerie 

Corral and I am the co-founder of the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, with my husband Mike Corral. 

We reside in Santa Cruz, California. We run a medical marijuana hospice facility and we have done so since 1993. Following 

an automobile accident in which I happened to be in with an airplane, my life changed dramatically. 

I became an epileptic and suffered as many as up to five grand 

mal seizures a day. In the early 1970’s, under the Nixon administration, some research on medical marijuana was being done. However, President Nixon’s administration blocked that research. 

But, prior to that, my husband had read in a medical journal 

that marijuana had been successfully used to treat laboratory-induced seizures in rats. It was really quite unbelievable that marijuana might control the seizures that I was experiencing, when 

FDA-approved medicines could not. In fact, I did not believe it, at 

first. 

As time passed, our experience led us to quite a remarkable healing, if you will. I still experience some difficulty, neurological problems. However, I don’t have seizures. 

This also led us to work more broadly in our community. People 

who lived in our community contacted us about the possibility of 

working with them, and we began this small outreach program by 

growing a collective garden of medicine in which our members or 

their caregivers participated. 

This is quite remarkable—over the 14 years that we have conducted our operation, 189 of our members have passed. That gives 

me, while not the experience of dying, quite a remarkable experience, that which most people don’t have the opportunity to participate in. 

27 

And what we found is that each of our members—and not everybody that comes to WAMM finds marijuana to be a useful medicine. However, those that stay with us do. 

These 189 people, of which I have been at the bedside of more 

than 100, tell us that maijuana works. And while Dr. Murray has 

expressed in his testimony that patients say we feel better, I ask 

the Committee, isn’t that really what every doctor asks? Do you 

feel better? Is the medicine working? And when we say yes, doctors 

believe us. Why not with this medicine? 

When I received confirmation that I would be here today speaking before you, I was at the bedside of a dear friend of mine of 

more than 30 years. Little did I know that she would become a 

WAMM member. 

She lay dying of ovarian cancer. She is the single mother of a 15- 

year-old daughter. That child grew up in our collective, respecting 

her mother’s medicine, understanding the difference between an 

abuse and a recreational drug and a very important, life-altering 

medicine, pain-relieving medicine. 

In a word, I cannot call the members of my community liars. We 

have worked diligently since the early 1990’s on State law, on 

county law and on city law. We work very close with law enforcement. We are transparent in our work and we offer medicine at no 

cost. 

We have changed the laws in each governing body, very slowly, 

but it has worked. We have convinced people of our truth by living 

in this transparent reality. 

In 2002, the DEA raided our small collective, arresting both my 

husband and myself and this set our members into a panic, as you 

might imagine. Yet, while illness is a great enemy, fear is even 

greater. And we continued our work, as we do to this day. 

It is not that we wish to break the law, for surely we do not. We 

have made every effort to change it. 

I ask for a few things here today. One is that I realize that I 

can’t change America. I know that. But there are simple things 

that we can do to relieve human suffering. 

When you stand next to a person who is dying, and I suspect 

that all of you have had an experience, or will, that it changes you. 

You do what you can to relieve that suffering. 

We use allopathic medicines, pharmaceuticals, of course. They 

are remarkable pain relievers and assist people in expanding their 

lives. 

But what we ask here today is that you stop the aggressive antics of the DEA against sick and dying people, because that is what 

we are. Stop the raids. Allow research to continue. Allow the research to continue that the DEA is blocking in the Craker case, for 

instance, because only you can do that. 

We offer you our testimony and we offer you the truth, and we 

ask that you allow us the opportunity to relieve our suffering, because only can do that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. Time of the witness has expired. You may conclude. 

Ms. CORRAL. That is it, and thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Corral follows:] 

28 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VALERIE CORRAL

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for inviting 

me to speak today. 

Upon receiving confirmation that I would have the privilege to appear before you, 

my elation was tempered only by exhaustion. For three nights I have had the honor 

of caring for my beloved friend, a member of WAMM, the medical marijuana hospice 

that I co-founded, and medical marijuana patient who is nearing the end of her 

struggle with ovarian cancer. She is the single mother of a 15-year-old daughter, 

and today she lays dying at her home in Santa Cruz. As I stood by her bedside, 

the impact struck me deeply, and the importance of this opportunity grew profoundly tangible. It is difficult to deny personal experience, and having repeatedly 

witnessed the relief of suffering in hundreds of my dying friends leaves little room 

for doubt. 

Today, thousands of seriously ill Americans face arrest and prosecution at the 

hands of the federal government. Why? Because our doctors recommend a medicine 

that is condemned without evidence. Science does not form the basis of the irrational decision to hold this medicine hostage. Yet, sick and dying Americans are 

willing to risk imprisonment because suffering is a greater enemy than the fear of 

our own government. We rely on the medicinal properties unique to marijuana to 

help us cope with a variety of debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer, epilepsy 

and multiple sclerosis. Marijuana provides otherwise unattainable relief from an 

array of unbearable symptoms, such as chronic pain, intractable vomiting and muscle spasticity, as well as from the side effects of allopathic drugs, pharmaceuticals 

that cause addiction, nausea and confusion. This simple medicine allows seriously 

ill people to gain a measure of control over symptoms and, in turn, the ability to 

affect the circumstances of death. 

Despite the testimony of thousands of patients and doctors, coupled with a tome 

of scientific research confirming marijuana’s medical value, our government, specifically the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), remains married to subversion 

in its denial of a state’s right to protect its seriously ill citizens. It is not the purpose 

of government to stymie medical science, but to avail itself to the gathering of 

knowledge as it seeks to create a compassionate response to the ills of a nation and 

its people. Devoid of scientific rationale, the federal intransigence toward medical 

marijuana appears to be rooted in the political calculations of the ‘‘War on Drugs.’’ 

Can our elected officials ignore an ever-growing patient force that decries the callous 

antics of a government which puts politics before people’s lives? 

On March 23, 1973, at the age of 20, I suffered a severe closed head trauma in 

a serious automobile accident, and my life was changed forever. As a result of the 

accident, I began to suffer as many as five gran mal seizures a day. When I began 

to convulse, my parents would hold me on the floor while I foamed at the mouth 

and lost control of my bladder, urinating all over myself. During the seizures, I had 

no conscious control over my body, my mind or my being. Following the seizures, 

I typically slept for several hours and would wake up in tremendous pain with no 

memory of the seizures. 

Doctors prescribed a myriad of anticonvulsants and pain medications. But the 

medications did not prevent the seizures and only minimally reduced my pain. Since 

phenobarbital and Dylantin offered little reprieve from the convulsions, my doctors 

added more prescription medications to my regimen. They prescribed a crippling 

anti-epileptic drug called Mysoline along with Percodan and Diazepam for pain. I 

did not fare any better with these medications. Each left me drunk with side effects 

and failed to alleviate my seizures. No medication or treatment offered me any hope. 

These anti-convulsant and pain medications also sedated me to the point that I 

lived in a near vegetative state. My parents described me as ‘‘catatonic.’’ I felt like 

I was living under water. I was wholly dysfunctional. Friends and family had to remind me to eat. I could not think clearly. I slept fitfully. My doctors changed my 

medications and tried different dosages, but the seizures continued to strike with 

little warning. The medications affected my vision, disabling my ability to read. 

They also affected my joints and connective tissue, my kidneys and liver, and they 

depleted my white blood cells, diminishing my immune system and rendering me 

vulnerable to viruses. I constantly battled ordinary colds and flus, which often resulted in hospitalization. 

Eventually, I became physically dependent on my medications. I descended into 

a deep pharmaceutical darkness that paralyzed me. I could not work. I discovered 

that I could not even cross the street by myself after an incident where I walked 

into oncoming traffic. On another occasion, I nearly drowned while taking a bath. 

I could not complete the simplest of tasks. Family and friends would not leave me 

unattended, because at anytime I could have been overcome by a seizure and injure 

29 

myself. I spiraled into the isolation resulting from both the illness and the only 

drugs available to treat it. I survived this way for more than two years. 

Meanwhile, my husband and caregiver, Mike Corral, scoured scientific and medical journals for a sign of some promising new therapy. His thorough research uncovered information that changed my life forever. He found an article published in 

a medical journal in the early 1970’s, discussing marijuana’s ability to control laboratory induced seizures in rats. This revelation, though hard at first for us to believe, offered a rare glimmer of hope. I yearned for any alternative to the powerful, 

debilitating prescription drugs and the ravages of the seizures and pain that consumed me. I obtained a small amount of marijuana and found that smoking it diminished my seizure activity almost immediately. Mike and I carefully figured out 

how much and with what frequency I should use medical marijuana to stave off my 

symptoms, and I adhered to that religiously. Whenever I felt an aura (the premonitory sensation that often precedes a seizure), I smoked a little more. To our amazement, it halted the onset of convulsions. 

For the next two-and-a-half years, I slowly decreased the dosages of my various 

prescription drugs and finally stopped my anti-convulsants altogether. The only 

medication that I continue to rely on is marijuana. It controls my seizures and restores normalcy to my life. I can now do virtually everything that I did before my 

accident. I still experience neurological problems, but I live seizure-free because I 

use medical marijuana. 

My personal experience with medical marijuana led me to share what I had 

learned with other patients, allowing me to again and again witness the benefits 

of medical marijuana firsthand. A particular patient, Harrold Allen, comes to mind. 

He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and given a prognosis of six months to 

live. His illness did not only devastate his health, it robbed him of his ability to provide for his family. Financially, he had to rely solely on state disability funding, 

which was not enough to pay for his prohibitively costly medication. Consequently, 

he lost everything, including his home, his automobile and family heirlooms. He 

reached a point where he was taking 42 Dilaudid per day. He substituted medical 

marijuana for the narcotics he was taking and within one day he ceased all narcotic 

use, without experiencing any withdrawal. His doctor once told me how astonished 

he was at the success of medical marijuana in Harrold’s case and that he completely 

supported this alternative treatment. The miracle is that Harrold Allen lived six 

years beyond his prognosis. 

It is because of just such experiences that, in the Spring of 1993, Mike and I cofounded the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, WAMM, our hospice care 

community comprised of patients who rely on medical marijuana to quell the symptoms of grave illness. WAMM grew to a membership of 250 patients, mostly terminally ill. In the 14 years since our inception, 189 WAMM members have died—nearly one per month. Our collective serves as a critical support group for members and 

families who gather at our weekly meetings. Our members are as diverse as disease 

itself; still an intimate relationship with illness is the very thing that unites us. 

WAMM is committed to working in accordance with state law and in partnership 

with our local community and law enforcement agencies. 

Unfortunately, the federal government seems to determined to sabotage our efforts. Both WAMM and the course of my own life were irrevocably changed the day 

the DEA focused its wrath on our small collective garden in Santa Cruz, California. 

Their target . . . Mike and me. 

Early in the morning on September 5, 2002, Mike and I were awakened by the 

sound of approaching vehicles. With no warning, 20 to 30 armed DEA agents broke 

into our home with terrifying and overwhelming force. Yelling, with guns drawn, 

they commanded us to lie on the floor. They cuffed us and held guns to our heads. 

A paraplegic WAMM board member who sleeps with an assisted breathing device 

was staying at my home. She was awakened at gun-point by five agents, handcuffed, and ordered to stand, which she is physically incapable of doing. Officers 

brought me to the other house on the land, leaving my friend behind. Knowing the 

severity of her condition, I pleaded with them to remove her handcuffs and bring 

her to where we were being detained. Eventually they did so and I noticed that she 

was experiencing difficulty in breathing. She mentioned that she was also experiencing chest pain and her blood pressure was dangerously high. 

The officers proceeded to our collective garden, used to cultivate medical marijuana, and tore from the ground and seized 160 of WAMM’s marijuana plants and 

seven plants growing in my personal vegetable garden. They also seized numerous 

allotments of marijuana that had been pre-sorted for correct patient dosages and 

were kept in assigned envelopes. Additionally, they took various pieces of property 

including personal laptops, and photographs. The confiscation of WAMM’s medicine 

has had a devastating effect on our ability to serve patients and to mitigate sufVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
30 

fering. In addition, WAMM members have expressed fear that our government will 

commit additional acts of reprisal against us because of our visibility. To date, neither Mike nor myself have been officially charged with any crimes stemming from 

the raid. It is worth noting that at the time of the raid all of WAMM’s activities 

remained in full accordance with state law. 

Following the DEA raid Santa Cruz County Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt echoed 

the sentiments of our community when she said, ‘‘It is not reassuring to me to know 

that federal agents, instead of concentrating on issues of national security, are running around the mountains of Santa Cruz County disrupting the work of people who 

provide a valuable medical resource to the community.’’ 

In fact, both the City and the County of Santa Cruz County have signed on to 

our lawsuit against the federal government challenging the constitutionality of the 

DEA raid and seeking an injunction against future raids and arrests. The City of 

Santa Cruz has further enacted an ordinance establishing a mechanism for the provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients as an official government function. 

The ordinance becomes effective when federal sanctions are granted. 

The situation in Santa Cruz offers a microcosm of the current tensions between 

the federal prohibition of medical marijuana and the will of the American people 

as expressed through mounting medical marijuana voter initiatives. Throughout our 

nation, patients and doctors, cities and states, are grappling with a means to provide medical marijuana to those in need. Twelve states have enacted legislation protecting qualified patients under state law, and more are destined to follow. But 

rather than allow the states to serve as laboratories for the federal system, current 

federal policy prevents states from establishing legitimate medical marijuana infrastructures—no matter how safe or secure such systems may prove. This leaves patients and state elected officials adrift in a legal morass—confident that medical 

marijuana is medicine, but blocked by federal law from following the recommendations of doctors and the will of voters. There is a solution to this dilemma provided 

by a piece of legislation soon to be considered by the House of Representatives: the 

Hinchey amendment. 

The Hinchey medical marijuana amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science 

Appropriations bill, sponsored by Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), would bar 

the Department of Justice, specifically the DEA from using funds to interfere with 

state medical marijuana laws. Under Hinchey, patients would no longer fear raids, 

arrests or prosecutions for using medical marijuana in compliance with state law. 

The Hinchey amendment would allow states to chart their own course on medical 

marijuana, instituting policies to best protect local patients and reflect the wishes 

of local communities. 

A second, longer-term federal fix to the medical marijuana impasse was actually 

signaled by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer during oral arguments in 

Gonzales v. Raich—a Supreme Court case challenging the federal prohibition on 

medical marijuana. Justice Breyer suggested that patients ask the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) to reclassify marijuana for medical use as ‘‘the obvious way 

to get what they want,’’ adding, ‘‘Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by 

referendum.’’ Unfortunately, the route suggested by Justice Breyer is currently 

closed. 

For 40-years the federal government has maintained a monopoly on the supply 

of marijuana available for scientific research. Through this monopoly, the government has prevented any research aimed at taking marijuana through the established FDA regulatory system by simply denying marijuana to those attempting to 

conduct such studies. Efforts to develop marijuana as a legal, prescription medicine 

have been effectively hamstrung. 

Incredibly, marijuana remains the only Schedule I drug that the DEA prohibits 

from being produced by private laboratories for scientific research. Other controlled 

substances, including LSD, MDMA (also known as ‘‘Ecstasy’’), heroin and cocaine, 

are available to researchers from DEA-licensed private laboratories. 

In contrast, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) constitutes scientists’ 

sole source of marijuana in the U.S. This monopoly exists despite NIDA’s inherent 

conflict of interest due to its mission to study the harmful effects of drugs of abuse. 

Further undermining its position as marijuana gatekeeper, NIDA has been criticized for its repeated refusal to make marijuana available for privately funded FDAapproved research seeking to develop smoked or vaporized marijuana into an FDAapproved prescription medicine. Researchers also report that marijuana available 

through NIDA is of poor quality and variety and is not optimized to meet FDA 

standards for prescription drug development. 

As the situation currently stands, due to an inability to secure marijuana to research its development as an FDA-approved prescription medicine, privately funded 

scientists in the U.S. are entirely blocked from conducting such research. ConVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
31 

sequently, pharmaceutical companies are effectively barred from the standard research path that would enable the FDA to determine whether marijuana should be 

brought to market as an approved prescription medicine. 

This illogical arrangement is fundamentally responsible for muddying what would 

otherwise be a rather clear-cut discussion: If marijuana is an effective medicine for 

a variety of debilitating ailments, then why not simply develop it as a prescription 

medication through the accepted pharmaceutical regulatory framework? It is because this framework, available to all other substances, controlled or otherwise, is 

effectively closed to marijuana. The federal government has created a marijuana exception. 

Thankfully, change is in the air. On May 15, DEA Administrative Law Judge 

Mary Ellen Bittner officially forwarded to DEA Deputy Administrator Michele 

Leonhart her final recommendation in support of University of Massachusetts-Amherst Professor Lyle Craker’s almost six-year-old petition to cultivate marijuana for 

use in privately funded FDA-approved studies. 

Simply put, Professor Craker is seeking a license from DEA to cultivate marijuana that would be used by other scientists in privately funded, FDA-approved 

studies aimed at developing marijuana as a legal, prescription medicine. 

On February 12 of this year, following nine days of hearings, testimony and evidence from both sides, including from researchers who reported that the government 

denied their requests for marijuana for use in FDA-approved research protocols, 

Judge Bittner concluded that, ‘‘NIDA’s system for evaluating requests for marijuana 

has resulted in some researchers who hold DEA registrations and requisite approval 

from [HHS and FDA] being unable to conduct their research because NIDA has refused to provide them with marijuana. I therefore find that the existing supply is 

not adequate.’’ She added, ‘‘Respondent’s registration to cultivate marijuana would 

be in the public interest.’’ 

Unfortunately, Judge Bittner is not the final arbiter. The Judge’s opinion serves 

as a recommendation to DEA Deputy Administrator Michele Leonhart, who will 

make the final call. It is imperative that Deputy Administrator Leonhart be made 

aware of the need to follow the recommendation of the DEA’s own judge and grant 

Professor Craker’s application. After all, if marijuana is a legitimate medicine, 

would it not be logical that it be allowed within the FDA’s established regulatory 

framework. If it’s not, what’s the harm in finding out through legitimate, unobstructed scientific studies? 

And has not the federal government already acknowledged marijuana’s medical 

efficacy? To this day, a federal program established in 1978 provides government 

grown marijuana to seven patients. This FDA-administered Investigational New 

Drug program was closed to new applicants in 1991 due to a massive influx of applications stemming from the AIDS crises, which the program was not designed to 

handle. In addition, the FDA has approved the cannabinoid drug Marinol. Marinol, 

which contains dronabinol, an analog of Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), is prescribed as an appetite stimulant, primarily for AIDS, chemotherapy and gastric bypass patients. 

The fact is that marijuana is an extremely effective treatment for many serious 

ailments. As documented by a recent, rigorous and unassailable double-blind study 

conducted by Dr. Donald Abrams at the University of California at San Francisco 

that found smoked marijuana to be extremely effective at relieving the intense pain 

of a debilitating condition known as peripheral neuropathy, which often afflicts 

AIDS patients as well as those suffering with diabetes or multiple sclerosis. This 

study leaves no doubt that marijuana can safely ease this type of pain, which is 

often unresponsive to powerful narcotics like morphine and OxyContin. And of 

course, the study necessarily utilized government-supplied marijuana of notoriously 

poor quality—as all such research in the U.S. must currently do—and so likely 

underestimates marijuana’s medical benefit. 

As Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical 

School, recently wrote in the Boston Globe, ‘‘Marihuana is effective at relieving nausea and vomiting, spasticity, appetite loss, certain types of pain, and other debilitating symptoms. And it is extraordinarily safe—safer than most medicines prescribed every day. If marijuana were a new discovery rather than a well-known substance carrying cultural and political baggage, it would be hailed as a wonder drug.’’ 

It is unconscionable for federal agencies to continue to put politically expedient 

promotion of reefer madness before irrefutable medical science and the will and best 

interest of the American people. The well-being of thousands of seriously ill Americans backed by the opinion of the vast majority of their countrymen demands that 

medical marijuana be freed from federal interference. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

32 

We will now recognize—— 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Siobhan. 

Mr. NADLER. Siobhan. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. It is Siobhan. 

Mr. NADLER. Ms. Siobhan Reynolds, for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF SIOBHAN REYNOLDS, PRESIDENT, 

PAIN RELIEF NETWORK, SANTA FE, NM 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, 

Members of the Committee. 

I am not going to go into the really sad story of my husband’s 

death and everything that we endured leading up to it. It is in my 

testimony, and I hope you will read it. 

What I am going to go into is how my community perceives the 

DEA’s behavior over the last 12 years, specifically, really, though, 

since 2001, and ask you to intervene and to stop what we feel is 

an outrageous crackdown on the medical treatment of pain. 

The DEA contends that they only prosecute 0.01 percent of registrants. However, that is a misleading figure, because a very small 

number of registrants prescribe opioid medicines and an even 

smaller number would prescribe in doses that would relieve serious 

pain. 

So the actually number of doctors who are arrested is far greater, 

when you look at the correct denominator, which this leads me to 

my next point, which I think is really the most important point. 

This is a government agency that plays fast and loose with the 

facts, uses incredibly inflammatory rhetoric, talks about crime and 

addiction and dependence and puts them all together and maybe 

has no cognizance of the fact that this all ultimately falls on and 

stigmatizes very, very sick people. But that is in fact what happens. 

So people go to their doctors or they go to their pharmacists. And 

the fear that physicians actually have toward the DEA is expressed 

as hostility and brutality toward patients. There are several articles that I could show you in medical journals, one in particular 

that I gave to the Committee, called ‘‘Pitfalls in Pain Management,’’ where it is very openly discussed that physicians who treat 

pain view their role as very much prison guards, or captors, of pain 

patients. 

Now, Congressman Forbes, I just wanted to address the underlying assumption that you expressed, in that you think it is important to treat pain, but we have to not interfere with the underlying 

goals of drug control, or something like that. 

I just want to say that I think that that fails to respect the idea 

that our country was founded on, which is that each individual 

matters and that the individual in this country is sovereign. And 

what is happening is that people are being sacrificed to this goal, 

which it seems to me to be illusory and un-winnable. 

I don’t know if you can imagine what it is like to have your husband or your wife or your son or your daughter sacrificed to an unwinnable goal. But, when you are an American, at least for me, I 

thought that my individual existence and that of my loved ones 

and my countrymen really did reign supreme. 

33 

And so here I am, bringing you evidence that 10 million Americans live in out-of-control pain, and that was prior to the Bush administration crackdown, so we have no idea how bad it is now. And 

you have to realize that there are no suicide statistics kept in the 

United States for people who commit suicide as a result of untreated pain. 

We see untreated pain pushing the assisted suicide agenda, we 

see untreated pain causing enormous costs to the medical community. We see physicians maybe unwittingly, but taking advantage 

of patients who would otherwise choose to treat their pain instead 

of, for instance, having extensive surgeries or what not. 

So I just want to say that there are tremendous consequences to 

the actions that are taking by the Drug Enforcement Administration and I think that if we are going to take a responsible view and 

the country is going to look at what is genuinely going on here, 

that you will allow my community to speak out and to make what 

is happening known. 

And that is that people who are in pain are being set upon by 

SWAT teams and we really need your support and we are asking 

you to put an end to it as soon as possible. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Reynolds follows:] 

34 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SIOBHAN REYNOLDS


SR-1.eps
35 


SR-2.eps
36 


SR-3.eps
37 


SR-4.eps
38 


SR-5.eps
39 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And we will now recognize Mr. John Flannery for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN FLANNERY, ATTORNEY, CAMPBELL, MILLER, ZIMMERMAN, PC, AND AUTHOR OF ‘‘PAIN IN AMERICA— 

AND HOW THE GOVENMENT MAKES IT WORSE!’’, LEESBURG, 

VA 

Mr. FLANNERY. Thank you, Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Forbes and the rest of the Committee and those in attendance 

today. I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to address 

this critical issue. 

I want to commend the Committee and the Congress for showing 

oversight of DEA. For too long, the DEA and the department in 

which it serves has not been held accountable for its acts. And I 

want to commend you for taking a look at these very difficult 

issues. 

The title of the hearing, which is the regulation of medicine by 

DEA is an apt one. Unfortunately, it is an apt one and DEA has 

been regulating medicine. For them to come here and say that they 

don’t know it means that they either are consciously doing it or 

recklessly doing it. And I can’t believe they are doing it recklessly, 

because we see the quality of people who work at the department. 

And that means there is an ideological purpose in regulating medicine. They do not approve of certain medical practices. And, if that 

is it, they should bring it to the Congress and tell us why, with statistics and explanations, because then it should be a formal policy 

rather than the secret one that it is presently. 

We had a comment earlier that we are not here to deal with compassion. Well, I do not understand what a democratic government 

does if its policies do not reflect policies that show compassion and 

fairness and justice. And the DEA has become the resident location 

of a policy that lacks compassion, has a very harsh effect that is 

compromising the health of Americans and has been doing so for 

years. 

We have fewer physicians in this country who dare treat chronic 

pain than at any other time in the last 50 years. And we have a 

population that is living longer and more susceptible to pain and 

more in need of treatment and pain medication than at any other 

time, perhaps, in American history. 

And, at this point in time, we have to look at the underlying enforcement structure. Because if the underlying enforcement structure is not addressing crime and it is addressing and compromising 

our health instead, then it has to be reformed or it has to be replaced, but it cannot be suffered any longer. 

We have seen in this country, and the DEA doesn’t recognize 

this, a paradigm shift in our medical treatment. We used to think 

of medicine, if you want to compare it to the industrial age, in 

terms of mechanical things. But, increasingly, it has become chemical. It has become digital. It is even more microscopic, which reflects a much more sophisticated kind of machinery. But we don’t 

see a reflection of this acknowledgement of this in our enforcement 

mechanism. 

40 

There are studies from Sloan-Kettering that tell us that 98 percent of people who knock on the door of every physician are serious 

pain patients. They are not faking it. 

Two percent of those patients may have a problem with addiction 

if they are not careful, but they also have pain. Physicians across 

this country, by nature and by practice, trust the people who come 

to them. 

In other words, the physicians can’t tell and say in 80 percent 

of the back pain cases, that the person is faking it, because there 

is absolutely no identifiable way, by any imaging device, to tell that 

thee patients are or are not in pain. 

The government says that we have a standard and we are enforcing the law. Well, we have to look at the difference between the 

words that they say they are enforcing and what they are actually 

doing. This is a bait and switch. 

The bait is we have a statute that this Congress passed. Then 

we have a Supreme Court case in 1975, United States against 

Moore, that says what the standard is, that you have to act outside 

the course of professional medical practice with the intent to push 

drugs, not treat. 

Today, the DEA said to us ‘‘outside the course of standards.’’ 

Even today, the person charged with telling us what is the law and 

enforcing it can’t state it, because they enforce it as they stated it 

here today. They create these standards on a case-by-case basis. It 

tells you that they make it up. 

The juries in this country get the most complicated instructions 

in this case and they are told there is no standard. We make it up 

case by case. And how do they do that? They bring a doctor into 

the courtroom that they pay, who travels around the country, and 

the standard is created on a case-by-case basis by the DEA doctor. 

And take the case that I cited in my testimony. In the case of 

Dr. McIver, serving 30 years in prison because of an incompetent 

government doctor who says that the standard is an ever-changing 

modality. Whatever happened to criminal law? 

In the first year of criminal law, we are taught strict construction, errors are in favor of releasing the guilty. We have an everchanging modality and we have a doctor who based on his testimony—we have a doctor who is ‘‘the expert’’ who says, ‘‘My doctor 

didn’t look at charts,’’ when he doesn’t look at charts to give his 

opinion. 

So let us examine what we have to do to look at the underlying 

enforcement structure. We have a failure give constitutional notice 

of the crime that we are enforcing. That has got to change. 

We seize a person, a business and his property when the person 

has been innocent, has been charged, but has not been convicted 

of anything. There is a presumption that we should punish him before we have proven a single thing. 

We ambush the defendant at trial with prejudicial hearsay and 

experts who say whatever they have to do in each individual case. 

In short, we have a lot to do. 

I refer you and commend you to review my prepared testimony. 

I thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and I commend you for scrutinizing, finally, once and for all, the terrible, unaccountable behavior of the DEA. 

41 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flannery follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN P. FLANNERY, II 


JPF-1.eps
42 


JPF-2.eps
43 


JPF-3.eps
44 


JPF-4.eps
45 


JPF-5.eps
46 


JPF-6.eps
47 


JPF-7.eps
48 


JPF-8.eps
49 


JPF-9.eps
50 


JPF-10.eps
51 


JPF-11.eps
52 


JPF-12.eps
53 


JPF-13.eps
54 


JPF-14.eps
55 


JPF-15.eps
56 


JPF-16.eps
57 


JPF-17.eps
58 


JPF-18.eps
59 


JPF-19.eps
60 

Mr. NADLER. Perfect timing. I thank the witnesses for their testimony. It was perfect timing. The Chairman has returned. I have 

to go to a T.V. interview. 

I will give the Chairman back his chair to direct the questioning. 

Mr. SCOTT. [Presiding.] I want to thank the witnesses and apologize for my absence. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I would like to ask, I guess, Dr. Murray, in terms of policy, what 

the public policy imperative it is to deny terminally ill patients the 

right to both marijuana, if they believe that it is going to help 

them, they believe that it reduces pain, terminally ill patients? 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The public policy imperative, actually, there are several. One of 

the first is the status of marijuana as the most widely abused 

medication claim in the United States. 

It is a drug that is addictive. It is the leading prevalence rate 

drug for abuse and dependency, particularly for young people, causing more than 60 percent of treatment admissions for drug dependency. 

Marijuana more readily available, marijuana ‘‘legitimized’’ as 

though it were a therapeutic medication, we fear would become 

more available and more used by young people who are already 

possessed of mistaken notions that somehow it is a miraculous 

cure, that it is good for you, that it can be used for medical conditions. So we think there would be a loss of deterrent effect. 

Moreover, there is the realization that the scientific and medical 

bodies who have looked at this, who are charged with the responsibility of evaluating medical claims, have said there are too many 

risks to the use of the substance, that patients may be actively 

harming themselves. Though the intent there is to feel better, in 

the process of trying to feel better, they are not being better treated. They are not getting better. 

The point of a therapeutic medication is to help the patient heal, 

not to provide to them a risky, contaminated, intoxicating substance that transiently gives them the impression they are getting 

better, when in fact it is doing active harm to their lungs, to their 

minds, to their susceptibility to depression and psychosis. 

It is not the sort of thing that is going to be, in its raw, smoked 

form, an approved medication, according to the bodies charged with 

making that determination. Much to be lost and nothing to be 

gained by putting marijuana into the hands of people who are actively suffering. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if they want it and they are terminally ill, what 

scientific studies have you had to show the effectiveness of marijuana? What scientific studies have you had? Do you have a list 

that you can supply to the Committee? 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there have been 

multiple claims and quite an extensive list of the purported conditions, medical conditions, that marijuana is supposed to actively 

treat. 

But when each of these has been investigated in clinical trials 

situations, in animal studies, in active medical investigations, those 

claims have not been borne out. 

Mr. SCOTT. Could you give us the list of those studies? 

61 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir. The literature is quite replete with efforts 

to see whether marijuana is safe and effective, and it never has 

been able to satisfy the threshold, the requirement, that it demonstrates by medical science that it actually is useful and does do 

harm. And that has been repeated many, many times over. 

Mr. SCOTT. What is the status of the study that the judge—I believe it is University of Maryland—Massachusetts. I am sorry. 

What is the status of that study? 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, I am not quite sure I follow the question. If you 

are referring to the case of an applicant to be a marijuana provider, 

that is an active case and we obviously can make no comment nor 

weigh in no an active administrative matter that is being determined properly in the form of government now. 

We have no intervention, nor any commentary, on the suitability 

of that application. It is in the hands of others. It is not a research 

project, as I understand it, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Didn’t the judge suggest that the permit should be 

awarded? 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, I think we are constrained from making any 

comment on a matter that is actively being considered by the administrative process of an agency, which I believe this matter is. 

Mr. SCOTT. So you don’t deny it was 6 years ago. 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, I think we are constrained at the White House 

from making comments or interventions with regard to actively ongoing cases. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is the court order not public? 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, I don’t wish to offer commentary, because I 

think it would be improper for us, and not our role, to step into 

an actively considered administrative process where an agency is 

doing the correct evaluation of oversight and determination with 

regard to this matter. 

Sir, I have to defer and say it is not proper for us, I think, to 

make commentary on this case that is being actively considered by 

other agencies. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Flannery, there is a difference between criminal 

activity and malpractice. 

Mr. FLANNERY. There certainly is. 

Mr. SCOTT. And different medical theories about how to prescribe. Can you say a word about how impossible it is for a doctor 

to get in the middle of that? 

Mr. FLANNERY. What has become so impossible is that the only 

crime that at doctor should be prosecuted for is pushing drugs and 

happening to be a doctor at that time. And the elements of that 

crime are that, as a doctor, I know and I intend to traffic in some 

drug, and these are controlled substances. It would mean I would 

be selling it to you or writing a prescription for you when you have 

no need for it, I know it, there is no question about it. 

You haven’t fooled me. You have said, ‘‘I am going to give you 

$200 if you write a prescription for OxyContin 80-milligram tablets.’’ 

Now, malpractice, someone comes in and I don’t spend enough 

time with them. Maybe I don’t check all their records. I believe 

them, which the studies have shown doctors do believe their paVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
62 

tients. They believe they come there with problems, and so they do 

believe them. 

And I give them medication and say they get sick. They don’t die, 

they get nauseas or something. And then I am sued, because it 

leads to other things. I, the doctor, am sued. That would be malpractice. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are these questions better for the DEA or the board 

of medicine in the different States to consider? 

Mr. FLANNERY. They are better suited to and historically and 

constitutionally suited to have the several States decide by their 

boards of medicine. And there have been studies saying this for 

years. The medical profession itself has become less able to articulate and advocate for itself for fear of being perceived in the current propaganda environment of being ‘‘soft on drugs’’ rather than 

strong on medicine. 

We have discouraged the best voices in America and the most capable physicians from speaking out on this issue, because they are 

terrified that they will be targeted and they will watch their family 

and their practice or the patients they can help with other medicines all be compromised. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Dr. Murray, let me apologize to you for having your 

initial testimony interrupted. That is not normal order. I am sorry 

that I was not able to stop that. 

I also want to say that when we are talking about compassion, 

one of the things that we really—it is really great to come in here 

and beat on the desk and yell compassion, but it is also compassionate when we try to curb teenage drinking so we stop people 

from ending up going to funerals. We had people that were killed 

by drunken driving, when we stop the pharm parties that I know 

you guys have worked on so much. Because kids are taking drugs 

that they don’t have any idea what the consequence is about. 

We have to go the funerals and look at the parents and they are 

telling us, why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you try to stop 

it? Or when we see suicides that take place because kids are addicted to drugs or other people are doing it. 

So when we talk about compassionate, let us not suggest that 

anybody sitting at the table is not compassionate. 

Ms. Corral, first of all, I thank you for being here and for your 

testimony to everybody. I want to ask you, and I only have 5 minutes, so I want to be kind of concise, but do you feel marijuana 

should be legalized? 

Ms. CORRAL. Medical marijuana should be legalized. 

Mr. FORBES. What about ecstasy, the drug, ecstasy? 

Ms. CORRAL. I am here to testify, sir, about medical marijuana. 

Mr. FORBES [continuing]. On that. 

Ms. CORRAL. No, I am just here to speak about medical marijuana. 

Mr. FORBES. I appreciate that. 

Ms. CORRAL. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. Dr. Murray, let me ask you a question on Tylenol. 

Is Tylenol a good drug to relieve pain? 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, sir. I believe it is widely sold and offered. 

63 

Mr. FORBES. If you have an overuse of Tylenol—I am not talking 

about on a regular basis but a single or a couple of overuses of Tylenol, what is the impact? 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, it is my impression that it is a widely used and 

safe drug, taken appropriately, but as with all effective medicines, 

inappropriate use can be damaging. 

Mr. FORBES. It can damage your liver if you have that. 

Mr. MURRAY. Indeed. 

Mr. FORBES. The question I am raising, everybody is talking 

about, almost like what should be a controlled substance and 

shouldn’t be, but doesn’t Congress decide whether drugs are based 

on a schedule under the Controlled Substance Act? So isn’t it true 

that Congress is the one who places things on the schedule one? 

Mr. Rannazzisi, you can speak on that, too. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. A drug can be scheduled in one of two manners. 

Congress could place it on a schedule through legislation or it could 

go through the administrative process, a collaborative effort between FDA, who does a scientific evaluation, safety and efficacy of 

the drug, and then DEA scheduling recommendation. 

Mr. FORBES. Once it is placed on that list, does DEA have the 

discretion to not enforce the drug laws? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, sir, it doesn’t. 

Mr. FORBES. So you can’t just pick and say that you don’t want 

to enforce this one, or you do want to enforce this one. You don’t 

have that discretion, do you? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, sir, I don’t. 

Mr. FORBES. If a doctor is over-prescribing pain medication, even 

if done for a patient who is suffering, can the DEA just ignore this? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, sir. Many of these cases come from complaints, complaints from law enforcement agencies, other medical 

doctors, pharmacists. No, we can’t ignore it. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you ever have situations where suicides have 

taken place, or murders have taken place, as a result of some doctor over-prescribing medication to some individual that was taking 

it? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. We have had cases where there were deaths related to the prescription medication prescribed by the physician, 

yes. 

Mr. FORBES. And if we had that, wouldn’t we be in here pounding on you and saying, why didn’t you try to stop that? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir, I believe that is—— 

Mr. FORBES. Let me ask you, are you familiar with this map that 

I believe was put out by Heritage. It is cannabis plants eradicated 

in 2006. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. It is the national drug intelligence—yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Can you explain what this represents to us? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. These are the outdoor plants and sites that were 

seized in California, by county, in 2006. 

Mr. FORBES. And how widespread were they? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Extremely widespread, almost the whole State. 

Mr. FORBES. Is that the same map that is up here now with this 

chart up here? 

[The material referred to follows:] 

64 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Is there any concern that you have in some of these 

areas, some of those reports that we have looked at that talk about 

having armed guards, that they have conducted counter-surveillance. Are you familiar with any of that on any of these sites? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Are we talking about the grow sites, the outdoor 

grow sites? 

Mr. FORBES. Yes. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, absolutely. Currently, in addition to the 

grow sites, we are having problems with growing on public lands 

and we have just entered into a task force with the Park Service 

to address that. 

Mr. FORBES. Dr. Murray, can you address that? 


Q.eps
65 

Mr. MURRAY. Yes, thank you, sir. 

It is a huge problem in the United States. The domestic production of marijuana is an enormous danger. Criminal elements deeply 

moved in. States of Kentucky, Tennessee, California and Hawaii 

predominate, where public lands, national parks, off limits to people because of dangers of gangs, of undocumented aliens, cutting 

down forests to grow marijuana by the metric ton, spreading 

through the country. 

It is quite a problem, and, moreover, the difficulty is connected 

to some of the compassionate care dispensaries, because some of 

the marijuana seized in episodes where the DEA has gotten involved, it was clear that it was not mom-and-pop locally grown 

marijuana from an herbal garden. It was criminal elements that 

moved into this country to generate indoor, hydroponically grown, 

high-potency and/or outdoor grow marijuana operations that were 

systematic and made thousands and thousands of dollars a day to 

distribute marijuana through the dispensaries to people for whom 

it was never intended. 

So it is a public threat to have this production going on in the 

hinterland. It is moreover a criminal threat to have them have a 

readily available outlet. And it is clearly not the intention or the 

principle of the well-meaning people who tried to offer compassionate care for a few. 

Mr. FORBES. My time has expired, but if the Chairman would 

just allow for an additional question, for either Mr. Rannazzisi or 

Dr. Murray, can you tell us about the concept of pharm parties and 

how bad they are getting now and you are problems in trying to 

deal with Internet pharmacies. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Currently, Internet pharmacies are one of the 

fastest-growing pharmaceutical diversion areas. What these kids 

are doing, basically, are acquiring drugs from either their medicine 

cabinets, their doctors or friends—their doctors—their relatives or 

their friends. And they are taking the drugs and they are coming 

to these parties where they throw the drugs into a bowl and then 

they systematically take the drugs out and take them. 

They really don’t know what they are taking. It could be a 

benzodiazepine. It could be a narcotic. It could be anything. And 

they just take them. 

And so they don’t know what they are ingesting, and this is a 

form of—just a form of adolescent partying now. 

Mr. FORBES. It is becoming a widespread concern? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. We have had several reports throughout the 

country, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, and just one other. We are going to have 

a hearing on Internet pharmacy issues coming up. 

I would like to ask one other question. I guess, Dr. Heiden—— 

Mr. HEIDEN. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do we know where ephedrine comes from that makes 

methamphetamines, where most of the people get it? And, if you 

closed one source, would other sources quickly sprout up? 

Mr. HEIDEN. Yes, I think DEA has even addressed this, that I 

think Administrator Tandy in some recent testimony indicated that 

methamphetamine production, a major source is the Mexican 

super-labs, I guess you call them, in Mexico, controlled by drug 

66 

kings are supplying the vast majority of the methamphetamine 

that is consumed in this country. 

And the vast bulk of the products found in small 

methamphetamines are brand pseudoephedrine cough and cold 

products, such as Sudafed, and it is not the products distributed by 

ACRC members, which are the off-brand combination ephedrine 

asthma-relief products. 

And it is those products that are being essentially targeted by 

the small allocation under the DEA needs assessment in the draft 

report that we reviewed and critiqued for ACRC, a report where 

there was absolutely no rationale given for the needs assessment 

of essentially 100,000 kilograms, essentially, of product, when the 

national estimate of the members of what indeed they sell for legitimate purposes is in the millions of products. 

I am here basically, and I didn’t get to say it in my final remarks, to indicate that DEA just missed a very, very large portion 

of the ephedrine that is useful for products that are relied upon 

and needed by asthmatics for relief, particularly in low-income environments and others. And if it allows this very, very small allocation to go through, based on a study that completely draws an X 

through the needs of this ACRC sector—if it allows that kind of allocation, this whole sector, it is my understanding, will be wiped 

out. 

But it is not the major source of diversion. As I said, the major 

source here, according to DEA itself, is the super-labs and the 

small toxic labs, not the members of ACRC or small categories of 

suppliers. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do those convenience stores have cost of compliance 

with the regulations? 

Mr. HEIDEN. They certainly do have significant costs of compliance. I have heard nothing in discussing with the members of 

ACRC that their sales to convenience stores are anything but legitimate sales. But I do think the convenience stores have significant cost of compliance, although I haven’t studied that issue. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. May I respond, Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. Sure. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. First of all, the study, the initial needs assessment, was a proposed assessment. Our contract with IMS is a twophase contract. We do the initial assessment by IMS. They give us 

the results and we publish them. The whole idea behind the deliberative process and notice and comment is that it gives industry an 

opportunity to respond, and industry can give their comments and 

provide data that shows that we can be wrong. 

And there are times in the past that we were wrong, and we 

made the corrections. Right now, we are in the deliberative process. 

I could tell you that we are looking at industry comments and that 

those numbers will not necessarily stand. 

However, for us to do our job, we have to have a starting point, 

and that starting point was with our IMS contact. We appreciate 

the comments from industry and we take them under advisement. 

And a final needs assessment will be out shortly. 

As far as the ACRC market, the people that are represented by 

ACRC, they are mostly small retail convenience stores and wholeVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
67 

salers, I believe, that distribute to them. The fact is that that sector of the market is a large avenue of diversion to small toxic labs. 

Put aside the Mexican methamphetamine labs, which, incidentally, we didn’t say a vast majority comes from Mexico. A vast majority of the methamphetamine produced by those organizations is 

produced in Mexico and the U.S., so we can’t really tie it to either 

Mexico or the U.S., but we know it is tied to those organizations. 

Well, put that aside for a second. Twenty percent of the meth on 

the street, currently, is coming from small labs. We believe that. 

And the fact is, is those small labs are obtaining their chemicals, 

their pseudoephedrine, or their ephedrine products, from retail 

places. 

Now, I noticed in Mr. Heiden’s testimony, he says the products 

distributed by ACRC and other small distributors are off-brand 

combination ephedrine asthma relief products which are not found 

in illicit labs as precursors to make methamphetamine. That is incorrect. 

In 2006, we had 87 labs with brand names like BDI, Blue Label, 

Mini Thins, Bronchis, Mini Ephedrine, Double Action Ephedrine, 

Rapid Ephedrine, Fred’s Private Label, Ephedrine Extra, Biotech, 

AM, BC Powder, Ultra Max Strength. Those are all off-brand, gray 

market, crypto-generic products. 

So I don’t know where his information was coming from and I 

would like to talk to him afterwards about it so I could clear it up 

with him. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, may I add one brief commentary as 

perspective, please, sir, with regard to methamphetamine issues? 

The policy dilemma with regard to combat meth and somewhat 

restricting access to pseudoephedrine, ephedrine products and so 

forth was a cost-benefit equation. We had to make a balance, preserving legitimate access to needed medications, and we thought 

we did achieve that by making them still available in supplies that 

can still be had. 

But, at the same time, we had to balance that with the diversion 

threat that was a very serious issue. While methamphetamine 

flow, already finished product from Mexico, continues to be a 

threat, we think we are taking effective action against that. We 

think it will be dramatically reduced in the future, which is a critical point that needs to be brought into the equation of cost and 

effect and the balancing here. 

The methamphetamine laboratories that were small, toxic laboratories, that were fed by diverted pseudoephedrine, ephedrine 

products, from retail establishments, was not a small phenomenon 

in states in like Missouri and Tennessee, states like Arizona and 

Oregon and Oklahoma. 

These were extraordinarily threatening circumstances that both 

produced meth use and the toxic laboratory residues from where 

people had cooked meth that left extraordinarily dangerous poisons 

in the atmosphere, on the walls, on the ground, on the furniture. 

That has been addressed. 

In 2004, there were more than 17,000 such laboratory incidents 

reported across the United States. Today, in large measure due to 

the effective actions at restricting, not prohibiting, but narrowing 

68 

the access to the precursor chemicals, there are between 6,000 and 

7,000 laboratory incidents reported. 

That dramatic drop has produced such a powerful beneficial consequence for these rural communities in particular that face the 

methamphetamine threat, including the lives of young, drug-endangered children, whose parents were exposing them to toxic environments, that retained that toxicity even after the first family 

moves out. Hotel rooms, trailer parks, barns, places where methamphetamine cooks take place, there is leftover residues of poison 

that has respiratory consequences for children, neurological consequences for children, exposure for first responders and fire and 

police, that has been dramatically reduced. 

That was the cost-benefit equation that we had to take into account of when we made the public policy choice, about not eliminating these medications, but restricting access in such a way 

where we retained the right for legitimate use and yet cut away 

the criminal dimension. 

I think that has been a powerful success. 

Mr. SCOTT. When all that was going on, did the cost of meth go 

up or down? 

Mr. MURRAY. The cost of methamphetamine is measured somewhat indirectly by a complex system of drug reporting that the 

DEA maintains. We have seen both increases and decreases in the 

price of methamphetamine nationally over time. 

We have also seen increases and decreases in purity, and the effects of the combat meth act in reducing the laboratory production 

has also been felt in reduced access and availability of methamphetamine itself that we can see in data such as workplace drug 

testing, where we have seen a steep tailing off of the use of methamphetamine of the work force, and by the survey reports we are 

getting from young people in particular, who are turning away 

from methamphetamine very strikingly. 

Yet the drug importation from Mexico has also been a countervailing tendency to have purity pushed forward. But we believe 

that price and purity has been affected by the success of taking 

down the meth labs, that we have gotten success against the laboratory incidents and the toxic waste issue and also gotten better 

purchase on trying to control the use of methamphetamine. 

It has been a successful and slow, but I think appropriate, process of curtailing access to these precursor chemicals. They used to 

come in from Canada, diverted in bulk form from Canada and fed 

super-labs in California, Nevada, Arizona. 

We took action in conjunction with the government of Canada 

and effectively cut off that route. That is when people turned to the 

small toxic lab, pseudoephedrine diversion from the retail establishment. We took action against that. 

Now we have got the third quadrant, the last piece of this down 

in Mexico. We are taking effective action in conjunction with the 

Mexican government to reduce their importation of 

pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products and to help them attack 

the methamphetamine laboratory production on their side of the 

border. 

We are moving against this problem, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Dr. Murray. 

69 

We have been joined by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble. And I understand you did not have questions, or you do you 

have questions? 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, my belated arrival was because of 

two conflicting hearings and I apologize. And I have no questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. I just have one additional statement to follow up 

with yours. 

I want to first of all say, based on your testimony, that the word 

‘‘balance’’ is always one that we don’t like to hear. A lot of times 

people don’t like to talk about it, but that is what government is 

all about. 

We are not perfect, but you are going to constantly see some of 

these criminals moving from one place to the other. They are going 

to come up with new technologies, new ways to do it. You have to 

work on it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

As the gentleman from Texas is coming in, do any of the witnesses have any closing comments before I recognize the gentleman 

from Texas? 

Mr. FLANNERY. I have one. 

Mr. SCOTT. I will start with Mr. Flannery. 

Mr. FLANNERY. Compassionate seems to me to care when you 

have 40 million to 75 million people in America who have chronic 

pain, which means that they have pain that has been living with 

them for longer than 6 months—it is so bad they can’t sleep at 

night. When they drive to work, they are falling asleep, they are 

irritable. 

And, at first, it only bothers them a little bit, and then they start 

thinking about, ‘‘should I commit suicide?’’ Because the pain is so 

great and ‘‘I am so worthless to the people I am with and that I 

can’t just put up with this pain anymore.’’ 

The Ranking Member appropriately noted that if one takes a Tylenol for pain, you can only take so much of it before your gastrointestinal tract is injured, before you literally bleed and you compromise your organs. And there is an answer to that, and it is a 

recent chemical answer, and it is the fact that the opioids we have 

in our bodies are not sufficient to take care of the pain. And it is 

that oxycodone and other medications can help us where our bodies 

fail us. 

And I don’t think this argument is that dissimilar from the other 

issues that are before us today. So if we want to talk about compassion, and numbers matter, we have to look at the 40 million to 75 

million people who are daily living in chronic pain, many of whom 

are contemplating suicide because they can’t get medical attention 

and they can’t get medical treatment because the physicians in this 

country are not going to risk going to jail and compromising their 

own lives and their other patients by doing so. 

Then compassion means, in numbers and for this Nation, changing how we do our business of law enforcement. It means changing 

our structure. It means not hiding behind some privilege when you 

are asked a question about a medical study. 

It means actually having the medical study and examining it and 

then deciding what is the right policy. Thank you. 

70 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Reynolds? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Thank you. Just the thing I was thinking about 

as this was going on was that I just don’t feel that the people are 

really getting their voices heard in this hearing. 

I am trying my hardest, and I know that you are, and several 

of us are, but I feel that we are being drowned out by a lot of sort 

of endless bureaucratic chatter about Mexico and appropriate procedures and what not. And we are talking about American citizens 

being denied medical treatment that they would afford, that they 

want, that they need to survive and take care of their families 

with. 

I mean, it is so serious, and we have been working, my organization and I, for 5 years to get heard on this issue. And this is it. 

This is the culmination of those efforts. Two of us are here to speak 

about this. 

So much more needs to be done. The platform needs to be so 

much bigger. I don’t know how to describe it. It is just that what 

we need, for you to hear from doctors. You need to hear from patients. You need to hear about the science, which has been suppressed by the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

Mr. Forbes just demonstrated a real misunderstanding of the 

science. Over-prescribing is a misnomer, sir. The doses can go as 

high as the sky, if they need to. That is the real anomaly of this 

medicine. And so if the medicine is being treated scientifically, it 

makes the doctor a target. 

That is what I want you to understand, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to ask that we have 

regular order in the Committee. 

Mr. SCOTT. Regular order has been called for. 

Mr. FORBES. We have not had it the whole Committee meeting. 

Mr. SCOTT. We will resort to regular order and recognize the gentleman. I would like to recognize the gentleman—— 

Mr. NADLER. I just want to know, since I just walked in, what 

was the objection to lack of regular order just now? What was 

being violated? 

Mr. SCOTT. My recognizing witnesses out of order for extended 

periods of time, which was in fact out of order and the gentleman 

made a good point. And recognizing the gentleman from Texas at 

this point. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate that. 

I appreciate your being here and I understand the frustration of 

not being heard. Actually, there is a majority of my district that 

is not represented anywhere here, because the majority of my district does not want to see marijuana legalized for anything. 

So I understand the frustration you have in feeling that you are 

not being heard, but there are also a lot of other sides to this that 

have not been heard. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. Sir, I just don’t represent marijuana. I just want 

you to know that. I am talking about legal medications. 

My name is Siobhan Reynolds, I am with the—— 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. Marijuana, right? 

Ms. REYNOLDS. No, nothing to do with marijuana. We are here 

about schedule two substances, oxycodone, et cetera, supposedly 

legal medications that people can’t get hold of. 

71 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thought you were speaking about marijuana on 

that. All right. 

Ms. REYNOLDS. No, thank you, though. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I am sorry I had to step out, momentarily. 

But I do want to go back very quickly to pseudoephedrine. I was 

one of the few that voted against making it so difficult to get it, 

because it works to decongest me, as so many Americans. 

Pseudoephedrine P.E., in my humble, non-medical opinion, is absolutely worthless for me. I can’t speak for anybody else. It is anecdotal. 

But, anyway, it is funny, not in a humorous, but ironic, way, this 

Administration has been accused of sending jobs to Mexico, and apparently when we tightened up pseudoephedrine, that is exactly 

what we did. The job of making meth went to Mexico and the people I talk to in law enforcement back in Texas, having lots of contacts there, as a former judge, they say, man, it is coming in from 

Mexico. It is pure, there is more of it. We don’t have the mom-andpop labs in east Texas, which was once a real haven for them, because of the trees and whatnot, the rural areas. 

So, anyway, I am not sure—I know we did a lot of good putting 

mom-and-pop labs out of operation, but from what law enforcement 

is telling me, including—and I won’t mention DEA agents, but 

some of them are telling me back home, man, it is coming in faster 

than ever from Mexico. 

Perhaps if we got some border security instead of having National Guard troops that call in the fact, or radio in the fact, that 

there are armed drug smugglers coming in and then their SOP is 

to flee the area once they radio that in, maybe we could get some 

help there. 

But I also want to bring to the DEA’s attention, I mean, if the 

law is marijuana is illegal and it is, it has been. But I had a case 

as a judge where marijuana seeds were an issue. And we ended up 

having DEA come from the DEA lab up here back to my little 

courtroom in Tyler, TX, and I didn’t realize, but, apparently, if 

marijuana seeds are sterilized, then they are not illegal in Texas 

and most other places. And that is why they are included in so 

many birdseeds. 

Well, we had a 50-pound bag of marijuana seeds that were legally bought from a feed seed place in Houston and they kept using 

it as an example, as a demonstrative aid in court. And I kept seeing hands go in and when they would pour the seeds back in, there 

were green, leafy substances on their hands, of the prosecutor, the 

defense attorney, the witnesses. 

And so at the end of the trial, I had it sent out for analysis and 

it turned out that 25 percent of that 50-pound bag would germinate, would produce marijuana plants, legally bought. 

So, Ms. Corral, I don’t know if you want to take note of that or 

not. But, anyway—— 

Ms. CORRAL. Well, I can address that, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You could buy it legally, and not only that, you 

buy a 50-pound bag of marijuana seed that is supposedly sterilized, 

25 percent germinate and they had a plastic baggie full of marijuana as like a Crackerjack prize for buying the 50-pound bag. 

72 

So I provided that all to the FBI. I said, I know you all are under 

the same DOJ with Janet Reno, but this really needs to be looked 

into. 

And it turned out, and we had testimony to this, that the DEA 

once in 3 or 4 years went to the single plant in New Jersey that 

actually does the sterilization. They said it was a complete surprise. They had no idea. So it was a really random survey. 

Yet they met the ship at the dock, they were able to call in the 

people that worked for this company that the DEA was coming to 

watch them do the sterilization process. Unlike every agriculture 

department, which sticks a rod in and then opens, turns and gets 

seeds from every level of this huge vat. So you see how the DEA 

agent scooped a handful up. 

They took those to the DEA plant. They were put in a petri dish 

to see if they would germinate. They were set on top of an oven, 

where the temperatures ranged 100 to 200 degrees. And after they 

were adequately cooked for 7 days, the report was they didn’t germinate, after we cooked them, which the Agriculture Department 

will tell you that is not the way to germinate. 

I never got a report back on whether we were continuing to have 

such thorough investigations in the sterilization of marijuana. But 

we are apparently importing, or we were at the time of this trial 

in my court, carloads of marijuana seeds from China that were received at the dock and received that kind of really explicit study. 

So, anyway, I bring that to your attention. I hope it has been 

looked into. If it is illegal, we ought to follow the law. Of course, 

we have laws on immigration that aren’t followed either, but that 

is another matter. 

Anyway, thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York? 

Mr. NADLER. Dr. Murray, marijuana is the only controlled substance currently for which the Federal Government maintains a 

monopoly on the supply for use by scientists conducting research, 

even though Federal law requires competition in the production of 

research-grade, schedule-one substances, such as research-grade 

heroin, LSD, ecstasy and cocaine. 

Can you please tell us marijuana, as a comparatively harmless 

drug, compared to these other substances, is the only controlled 

substance for which the Federal Government maintains a monopoly 

on the supply made available to researchers? 

In other words, why is it different than heroin, ecstasy, LSD, et 

cetera? 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. NADLER. Quick and short, because I am going to have a few 

more questions. 

Mr. MURRAY. All right, sir. 

We do not regard marijuana as a relatively benign schedule-one 

substance, sir—— 

Mr. NADLER. Why is it treated differently than these other harmful drugs? 

Mr. MURRAY. Sir, I believe that we have international treaties 

and obligations that are specific to how we handle schedule-one 

controlled substances with regard to a single government source. 

73 

And I believe that Mr. Rannazzisi can tell us even more about how 

that works. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Rannazzisi, maybe you will answer my question and not evade it the way Dr. Murray did. 

The question is, why do we handle marijuana differently than 

other schedule-one drugs with respect to maintaining a monopoly 

of research on it? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Because there is only one supplier, because that 

supplier basically handles the need for research. And that supplier 

is under a NIDA contract. We look at the NIDA contract—— 

Mr. NADLER. But why is that different from other drugs. There 

is more than one supplier for heroin? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Because heroin poppies are not grown in the 

U.S. Cocaine, coca, is not grown in the U.S. 

Mr. NADLER. And LSD isn’t made in the U.S. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. LSD is manufactured for research, yes it is. 

Mr. NADLER. But, again, I don’t understand your answer. What 

has that got to do with the fact that for LSD, for heroin, there is 

not a monopoly for supply for use by scientists conducting research 

by the Federal Government, whereas for marijuana there is? Why? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, first of all, the research that is conducted 

is approved by NIDA and FDA. NIDA and FDA make a determination—NIDA makes a determination that that source of supply for 

that marijuana fits the needs of those researchers. We have no dog 

in that fight, really. 

Mr. NADLER. Basically, they refused almost every researcher for 

marijuana. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I am sorry? 

Mr. NADLER. They have refused the supply for basically every researcher. They have basically cut off medical research with respect 

to marijuana. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don’t believe that is the case. If you look at my 

testimony—— 

Mr. NADLER. I won’t debate that with you, because it is clearly 

the case. Let me go onto the next question. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, I mean, would you like me to respond? 

Mr. NADLER. I want to get the information I want to get. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. So you don’t want—okay. 

Mr. NADLER. I heard your answer. I am going to go from there. 

Administrative Law Judge Mary Bittner recently recommended 

DEA grant a license to the University of Massachusetts professor 

Lyle Craker allowing him—and I understand this may have been 

referred to—allowing him to grow research-grade marijuana for use 

in FDA-approved studies that could evaluate whether marijuana 

meets the FDA safety and efficacy standards for approval of prescription medicine. 

This application was submitted to DEA more than 6 years ago. 

Mister—— 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Rannazzisi. 

Mr. NADLER. Rannazzisi. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Can you please tell us within what time period can 

we expect the DEA will decide whether to accept Judge Bittner’s 

ruling, before the expiration of the President’s term? 

74 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I can’t give you a time period about when a ruling is—— 

Mr. NADLER. Would you expect it will be—the President has a 

year and a half to go. Would you expect a decision whether to accept an administrative law judge’s recommendation would be made 

within the next year and a half? Is that reasonable? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Excuse me 1 second, please. 

Mr. SCOTT. I would advise the Committee that we will have an 

opportunity to submit questions in writing, and I think this might 

be—— 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. That would be a question that we would rather 

submit in writing. We would like to submit that—— 

Mr. NADLER. Well, let me ask you a different question. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Normally, how long does it take the FDA to agree 

or disagree with an administrative law judge’s recommendation? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. The FDA would not—— 

Mr. NADLER. Not the FDA, the DEA. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. It just depends on the issue. It is a case-by-case 

basis. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, does it normally take, on average, 6 months, 

on average 6 years? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I wouldn’t have that information handy, sir. I 

would have to get back to you on that. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, think of any instance where it has taken more 

than 5 years. Are there any? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, that is erroneous. It has not been 5 years. 

If I am not mistaken, the decision was handed down months ago. 

Mr. NADLER. Are there any longer than 2 years? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. I don’t know that information, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Are there any longer than 1 year? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Sir, again, I will have to get back to you. I will 

get back to you, and if you would like, I would—— 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. I would like a commitment that the decision 

will be made within the lifetime of this Administration. I think 

that is a minimum that we could ask. 

Let me ask you the following question: Does the DEA oppose or 

support efforts by scientists to resolve the controversy over medical 

marijuana by conducting FDA-approved clinical trials, yes or no? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Well, the DEA does not oppose any clinical 

trials that have been accepted for trial by the FDA and NIDA. We 

have never done that. 

In fact, in our process, the only thing DEA—— 

Mr. NADLER. The answer is, no, you do not oppose. 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. No, we don’t oppose any trials. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, and let me ask you the following—— 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will have just 

a few last questions. 

Mr. NADLER. A company in England, GW Pharmaceuticals, has 

developed a marijuana-derived drug called Sativex that is already 

available for patients in Canada, England and Spain. I understand 

that GW Pharmaceuticals have now teamed with a major Japanese 

pharmaceutical company, Otsuka, to conduct Sativex trials in the 

U.S., which the FDA has approved. 

75 

Can you please tell the Committee why the Federal Government 

is allowing foreign corporations to develop a monopoly on marijuana-based drugs in this country? Are we opposed to American 

economic development? 

Mr. RANNAZZISI. Sir, I guess you have got to understand what 

DEA’s role is, here. DEA doesn’t approve studies. 

All DEA does is issue registrations for controlled substance handlers and researchers. That is what we do. The studies are approved at NIDA and HHS, where studies have always been approved. That is not in our purview. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. I would like to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

Ms. CORRAL. May I just add something quickly? 

Mr. SCOTT. Very quickly. 

Ms. CORRAL. Very quickly. I just wanted to respond to Congressman Gohmert’s assumption about the 50 pounds of marijuana 

seeds. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It wasn’t an assumption. 

Ms. CORRAL. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. GOHMERT. It was some factual testimony. 

Ms. CORRAL. It is factual testimony. And, in fact, those seeds 

from sterilized plants, while they were germinate, will not render 

full-grown plants that actually sex out male or female and produce 

usable marijuana. They actually die after quite a short time. 

I also wanted to mention that there is a great deal of scientific 

research. In 1992, the International Cannabinoid Research Society 

was founded, and there are numerous prestigious physicians and 

researchers throughout the world who are part of this. 

Mr. SCOTT. I am going to ask you to submit those studies to the 

Committee. 

Ms. CORRAL. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Murray is going to submit the studies he has, so 

we will be able to review them all at the same time. 

Ms. CORRAL. Yes, and I would just like to mention that while the 

DEA does block research by not approving, throughout the world, 

other research, even in the face of these treaties, continues to provide and substantiate the medical value of marijuana. 

Thank you for your time, and I am sorry to go over. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much. 

And Members may have additional written questions for our witnesses, which we will forward to you and ask you to answer as 

promptly as you can so they will be made a part of the record. 

Without objection, the hearing will remain open for 1 week for 

submission of additional materials. 

And, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

77 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


A-1.eps
78 


A-2.eps
79 


A-3.eps
80 


A-4.eps
81 


A-5.eps
82 


A-6.eps
83 


A-7.eps
84 


A-8.eps
85 


A-9.eps
86 


A-10.eps
87 


A-11.eps
88 


A-12.eps
89 


A-13.eps
90 


A-14.eps
91 


A-15.eps
92 


A-16.eps
93 


A-17.eps
94 


A-18.eps
95 


A-19.eps
96 


A-20.eps
97 


A-21.eps
98 


A-22.eps
99 


A-23.eps
100 


A-24.eps
101 


A-25.eps
102 


A-26.eps
103 


A-27.eps
104 

f 


A-28.eps
105 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTIN E. WAUGH, D.O. 

From the time I was little, I had always dreamed of becoming a doctor. Though 

I grew up on a farm, my folks always encouraged me to pursue my dream, even 

though that meant not following in my father’s footsteps as a farmer in western 

Kansas. 

I had always pictured myself in the healing profession, sharing the forgiveness 

and healing power of Christ to those who were hurting in body, mind, and spirit. 

In 1982, I graduated from Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a body, 

mind, and spirit university. I met my wife, April, there, and in May of 1982, we 

were married. I subsequently attended Oklahoma State University in Tulsa, where 

I received my D.O. degree. I was well on my way to living out my dream as a physician. While living in Tulsa I entered the Army Reserve, and with that took an oath 

to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies. This 

was a very proud moment for me, as my father had served in the Marines in the 

Korean Conflict. 

In the late 80’s and early 90’s, I was very concerned about the spread of HIV, 

and I pursued an opportunity at Yale University after graduating from medical 

school. I managed an outpatient clinic whereby heroin addicts received detoxification on an outpatient basis that I helped to develop. This population was, of course, 

at risk for the spread of AIDS. 

After a two year substance abuse fellowship, our clinic’s published success rate 

won several million dollars of federal grant monies. At that time, my mentors encouraged me to pursue a specialty in Psychiatry at Yale. So, I entered and completed the Yale Psychiatry Residency program in 1995, which added another three 

years to my postdoctoral studies. 

During my time at Yale, I became aware of the use of brain scans and its application in diagnosing impulses that addicts and other patients had. Studying brain 

scans in the university setting was difficult, mostly due to the fact that we had only 

one functional brain scan machine, and many others competed for time on that machine. So, when the opportunity presented itself in 1996 of joining a 

Neuropsychiatric private practice in Northern California with 3,000 brain scans on 

file with the latest brain scan machine available, I accepted a position there. I was 

also able to continue to publish studies on substance abuse and brain scans. 

After a year of working for Dr. Daniel Amen in Fairfield, California, I opened up 

my own practice in Davis, California, while continuing to collaborate with him on 

using his excellent brain scan machine for my patients. My practice grew very 

quickly, mostly from referrals from other physicians due to my substance abuse fellowship and Psychiatric training. Many patients who had been problematic to others 

were also given to me by the clinic. 

My patients were typically people whose diagnoses were lost in the chasm between Neurology and Psychiatry, proper. This can occur when a temporal lobe seizure disorder creates a constellation of symptoms that resemble ADHD, but must 

be treated primarily with anticonvulsants, before considering a stimulant for any residual ADHD. Many of them had tremendously complex medical needs and some of 

them needed daily supervision. These were the ones that moved to houses in Davis, 

CA. 

I would typically make rounds early in the morning, sometime dispensing medications to those who had been unable to manage their medications on their own. This 

dramatically cut down the abuse potential of a medication like Ritalin, and since 

this was similar to making house calls in New Haven, CT, as I did throughout my 

Substance Abuse Fellowship, and Psychiatric residency, I thought that it was or 

should be the standard of care. It certainly was the standard of care when I was 

at Yale, so I thought this should be acceptable in Davis, CA. I did not realize that 

without the protective arms of Yale around me, however, this behavior, which was 

helpful to my patients, became suspect to the town authorities. 

Throughout our married life, my wife and I had always shared extra rooms in our 

home with others. Some were patients, some fellow physicians. Now that we were 

in California, when the needy presented themselves for treatment, and we found 

that they had neither safe housing nor ability to afford medications, sometimes we 

would intervene by offering them a room at the boys house, or even a temporary 

respite in our house. 

I have been deeply ingrained with the oath I took, the Osteopathic version of the 

Hippocratic Oath, which states that we will treat our patients as friends, and the 

religious command I had to care for how I treated the least of these, in matters of 

hunger or medicine. They had been put in my path; I could not turn them away. 

While at Yale, the treatment and medications were given free to the patients, paid 

for by grants. While training at Walter Reed on active duty in the Army, medicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 16:47 Sep 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\071207\36607.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36607
106 

tions were paid for by the Army. In California, this was the first time I had ever 

encountered patients who needed life saving medicine, who sometimes could not afford to buy it. So, since my practice was successful, I used up to $5,000 a month 

to buy medicines for patients, while we were getting them on State services. In retrospect, in the town of Davis CA, this was not a wise move. 

As I was used to the rigorous, thorough practice of medicine at Yale, I was 

shocked to encounter a substandard practice of it in California. We began to sense 

that what had been praised and well-funded on the East Coast, with in-house treatment and outpatient detoxes, was now scorned, mocked and put under surveillance 

in California. The authorities could not accept that I was a Christian doctor, treating some of my live-in patients for free. They thought otherwise and after spending 

quite a bit of time and money investigating me, they finally resorted to actions 

below the law. I was always fully cooperative with any questions they or the State 

had about the care I was giving. 

Fully mindful of the penalties of perjury to Congress, I shall now describe what 

happened on the day that my world turned upside down. I will only state facts that 

can be independently verified. 

On the morning of May 29, 1999, I was arrested for the unlawful distribution of 

a controlled substance. 

At 7:15 a.m., our home was raided by a SWAT team. My wife awoke to five policemen breaking open our bedroom door, guns drawn, screaming at her to get out of 

bed and down on the floor. They handcuffed her for several hours—saying that she 

was not being arrested but being ‘‘detained’’ for questioning. I had already left the 

house to make my morning rounds. When my wife asked to see a search warrant, 

she was told that one would be forthcoming, (since they didn’t have one until the 

courts opened at 9 a.m.). The three other people who were staying with us had their 

seizure disorder medication taken from them, their pain medicine (one patient had 

a few Vicoden for her Fibromyalgia) and their stimulant medications taken. They 

also took all of the empty bottles that my wife had saved in the garage of all of 

the people we had bought medication for that she was saving for tax purposes. Most 

of these prescriptions were antidepressant or anticonvulsant medications, not controlled substances. 

At the same time across town, my office was being broken into. Many patients 

charts were taken, including all of my back copies of triplicate prescriptions that 

I was required by State law to save, and most importantly my computer system that 

had a custom program to keep track of all patients’ medications, serial numbers of 

the triplicate prescriptions, and dates that they were prescribed. When the prosecutor’s office gave me back this computer 11⁄2 years later, they said that there was 

no medical data on it. It had been erased while in their custody, but since I had 

a back-up copy of the data on a disk that they didn’t find, I was able to bring the 

computer back with all of its lost data. 

The worst thing they did that day was to take my triplicate prescriptions which 

had just been issued for that month. Even though the DEA were also present at 

the time of my arrest, and at my house raid, they told me and the town police that 

they had no problem with my triplicate prescriptions, the town of Davis police force 

said they did have a problem with them and were still taking them from me, in direct violation of State law that mandates a hearing must be conducted before triplicate prescriptions are confiscated. 

So, I now had 100 patients that I had to refer immediately, with no court hearing 

and no recourse. These patients were children entering into summer school, needing 

their Ritalin, and some were patients with chronic pain. Thankfully, all the physicians to whom I referred these 100 patients kept them on the same doses as had 

worked for them in the past. 

All—except for one patient who was on a higher dose of stimulant, and other doctors initially didn’t want to take on his care due to his complex medical needs. These 

higher doses of stimulant medications had literally brought him back from a serious 

depression in which he had made a serious attempt at suicide before I took him as 

a patient. 

With his parent’s desperate pleas and the fact that I had treated him for three 

years, I felt responsible to make sure he had a smooth transition to another doctor’s 

care. Since I still had legal authority to issue white prescriptions, I gave him a 

white prescription and told him that until we could find another doctor to take him, 

he could fill it in Nevada as they had no requirement for a triplicate form for controlled substances. This action earned me a second arrest, and my bail was set at 

$500,000 dollars, clearly an attempt to financially deplete me. The judge even said 

that ‘‘we couldn’t even hold you for a day, so money doesn’t appear to be a problem.’’ 

In desperation, we hired a San Jose attorney, who told me that he taught at Stanford. With $25,000 given just for the preliminary hearing, and $50,000 given to him 

107 

up front to prepare to fight a trial, he dragged out my case for 11⁄2 years, ultimately 

calling my parents in Kansas without my permission or knowledge, and told them 

that he thought I could get up to 27 years in jail. This prompted them to drive 24 

hours straight to Davis, to plead with me to take a no contest plea to one count 

of improper distribution of a controlled substance, and to get out of California. They 

said they might die and I would not be able to be with them at that crucial time. 

They also reminded me that without my computer records, and the files that had 

not been given to my defense lawyer, how could I expect to get a fair trial on my 

memory and word of proper diagnoses and treatment of my patients. So, I plead no 

contest to a felony count of an unlawful prescription. I did not want to do this, but 

my wife and my parents did not want to risk a trial with a potential outcome of 

state prison time for the maximum sentence of 27 years. So, I gave in. In exchange 

for pleading no contest to something I did not do, I spent 4 months in county jail 

and worst of all, accepted a felony on my record. I was devastated. 

When the Osteopathic medical board investigated this, they refused to accept my 

backup copies of computer records for all my triplicates for the past three years, 

stating that since the police said that they were not there in my computer at the 

time of the arrest. They stated that I must have made these records up from memory. There is no way that I could remember all the data including serial numbers 

of three years of triplicate prescriptions. When I asked them if I could just go back 

to the Army, their reply was no, because they did not trust the Army to properly 

supervise me. They ultimately revoked my CA license. I never got past the administrative section of the CA medical board to the doctors on the board. I felt that if 

they could just see what had been done, and hear on a case by case basis the tremendous gains that patients had made under my care, that they would rule differently. 

During my earlier years of training, I had previously been licensed in New York 

where I had moonlighted in various ER’s. When the State of New York reviewed 

my case, they had a three doctor panel. They listened for hours and reviewed all 

of my back copies of my recovered records from the computer, and most notably said 

that they thought I should be able to have my license renewed, since I had suffered 

‘‘legal malfeasance,’’ in California. Their carefully considered ruling was overturned 

by an administrative lawyer from the New York Department of Health, and it has 

been stated that until CA says that I can practice again, they will take no further 

action, other than to suspend my New York license. The thought of me going back 

to CA puts my family into such fear and depression, that I cannot bring myself to 

put them through further trauma. 

My hope now resides with my expired license in Connecticut or even Oklahoma 

where I have had good records of training. Once I get a state to license me, I will 

go straight to the Army, where I served honorably for 10 years; the Army has already said that they could use me here at Walter Reed. I would even prefer a tour 

overseas, so that the returning wounded could see that I have a combat patch and 

would relate to me better. I believe I know something personally about how to rebuild your life after great trauma. I simply want to discharge the skills that I have 

spent so many years getting and desire to be in an institution where the Constitution of the United States is still revered and followed. 

Since there are two cases that highlight the type of patient care that I gave in 

Davis, and these folks don’t have the honor of having their voices heard by Congress, I feel that I should briefly describe their stories: 

Suzanne was a 57 year old woman who was known in Davis as the town’s worst 

drunk. She had lost her housing years before when she lost her disability due to 

her alcoholism. Her case was made more complicated by a Temporal Lobe Seizure 

disorder and Fibromyalgia. I sent her to the town’s local ER, when she showed up 

in my office one day with early signs of potentially life threatening alcohol withdrawal seizures. The hospital accepted her referral from me over the phone, but 

when they saw it was Suzanne, whom they knew had no way to pay for her care, 

they did no treatments other than to give her cab fare, with instructions to get out 

of the county. No other treatment facility would take her, either. So, I took her into 

my home where she successfully completed her alcohol detox. 

Over the next 6 months, she cleared up all her many public court cases for public 

drunkenness, and the court even ordered her as a part of her probation to continue 

treatment with me. She was also on a low dose of opioids for her Fibromyalgia and 

anticonvulsants for her seizure disorder. She progressed from barely being able to 

think straight, to six months later being able to play the piano again and recite the 

Night before Christmas from memory. She was also reconciled with her daughter. 

When I asked the police how they could explain her progress on the day I was arrested, they said that they could not. 

108 

Judy was a 37 year old heroin addict from the next town over in Woodward, CA. 

I had been treating her daughter for ADHD and when I asked her grandparents 

where the mother was, they shook their heads and said she was a heroin addict and 

prostitute, and that they could not even acknowledge her when they saw her on the 

street. I told them that we could find her and detox her because I felt that this 

would go a long way in helping her daughter with her anger and ADHD. We found 

her and since there was no treatment facility that would take her either, she also 

moved into our house while she was working on reintegrating with her parents and 

daughter. She was on parole and when she was approached after my arrest, she was 

given a choice by the police—to either say that I had been sexually inappropriate 

with her or had given her medications for sale. If she chose neither, she faced going 

back to prison to serve out her time. She chose the latter and served 11 months 

in a CA state prison. She told them and us that she could not lie just to make it 

easy for herself. 

My office secretary was also a recovering alcoholic whose children I was treating 

for ADHD. Court records of her divorce showed that the police came to her after 

she sent her children to school with an afternoon dose of Ritalin in their pocket. 

They told her that unless she said that I gave them Ritalin without even properly 

diagnosing them, they would file child endangerment charges. Since she was afraid 

they would be returned to their father’s custody, she agreed to lie. Her divorce 

records in Suisun, CA, record these facts about what choices the police had offered 

her. This was the charge that I plead no contest to—since their records had been 

confiscated, and I had only my word as proof. I do understand and forgive why she 

buckled under such tactics by the Davis police. 

While the DEA did not object to my practice, they did nothing to stop the town 

police from illegally seizing my triplicates. The fact that one county over they had 

one month before employed similar tactics in the prosecution and arrest of Dr Frank 

Fisher, from which he was eventually exonerated, is something that the town police 

could have taken a page from the same playbook. I am afraid that the war on drugs 

has been turned into a war on doctors and patients. 

My seventh great grandfather, John Waugh, came to Virginia to serve as a 

Church of England parson in 1660. During that time, he got into trouble with an 

English court, controlled by powerful few for such offenses as taking in pregnant, 

unwed girls cast out from their homes from Maryland and performing marriage 

ceremonies for young couples who were in love without parental consent. He was 

even thrown in jail in Jamestown. 

When he was elected from Stafford County to the House of Burgesses in 1699, 

they denied him his seat, saying that a member of the clergy could not serve in the 

House due to having two masters, the King and the people he would represent. His 

wife was Elizabeth Madison. His progeny helped to craft this government of a more 

perfect union, with a Constitution and Bill of Rights. 

It is a terrible irony that the Bill of Rights has been turned into a ‘‘Bill of Wishes’’—only for those wealthy enough to prosecute when it is violated. I hope that this 

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, which 

has oversight supervision of the DEA, will consider my testimony when thinking 

about how the tactics used in the war on drugs in spilling over into local town cops’ 

attitudes about dealing with doctors with whom they disagree. 

I don’t seek revenge, because that will cripple me. I don’t even seek justice, because no amount of money could compensate me for the pain I saw my patients and 

family put through. I only seek remembrance, so that this won’t continue to happen 

to others, and that the practice of medicine be freed from fear of intimidation for 

treating patients in good faith. Thank you for your time and attention. I will be 

happy to respond to any questions you might have about my testimony. 

f 

109 


C-1.eps
110 


C-2.eps
111 


C-3.eps
112 


C-4.eps
113 


C-5.eps
114 


C-6.eps
115 


C-7.eps
116 


C-8.eps
117 


C-9.eps
118 


C-10.eps
119 


C-11.eps
120 


C-12.eps
121 

f 


C-13.eps
122 


D-1.eps
123 


D-2.eps
124 

f 


D-3.eps
125 


E-1.eps
126 


E-2.eps
127 


E-3.eps
128 


E-4.eps
129 


E-5.eps
130 


E-6.eps
131 


E-7.eps
132 


E-8.eps
133 

f 


E-9.eps
134 


F-1.eps
135 


F-2.eps
136 


F-3.eps
137 


F-4.eps
138 


F-5.eps
139 


F-6.eps
140 


F-7.eps
141 


F-8.eps
142 


F-9.eps
143 


F-10.eps
144 


F-11.eps
145 


F-12.eps
146 


F-13.eps
147 

f 


F-14.eps
148 


G-1.eps
149 


G-2.eps
150 


G-3.eps
151 


G-4.eps
152 


G-5.eps
153 


G-6.eps
154 


G-7.eps
155 


G-8.eps
156 


G-9.eps
157 


G-10.eps
158 


G-11.eps
159 


G-12.eps
160 


G-13.eps
161 


G-14.eps
162 


G-15.eps
163 


G-16.eps
164 


G-17.eps
165 


G-18.eps
166 


G-19.eps
167 


G-20.eps
168 


G-21.eps
169 


G-22.eps
170 


G-23.eps
171 


G-24.eps
172 


G-25.eps
173 


G-26.eps
174 


G-27.eps
175 


G-28.eps
176 


G-29.eps
177 


G-30.eps
178 


G-31.eps
179 


G-32.eps
180 


G-33.eps
181 


G-34.eps
182 


G-35.eps
183 

f 


G-36.eps
184 


H-1.eps
185 


H-2.eps
186 

f 


H-3.eps
187 


I-1.eps
188 


I-2.eps
189 


I-3.eps
190 

f 


I-4.eps
191 


J-1.eps
192 


J-2.eps
193 


J-3.eps
194 

f 


J-4.eps
195 


K-1.eps
196 


K-2.eps
197 


K-3.eps
198 


K-4.eps
199 


K-5.eps
200 


K-6.eps
201 


K-7.eps
202 


K-8.eps
203 


K-9.eps
204 


K-10.eps
205 


K-11.eps
206 


K-12.eps
207 


K-13.eps
208 


K-14.eps
209 


K-15.eps
210 


K-16.eps
211 


K-17.eps
212 


K-18.eps
213 


K-19.eps
214 


K-20.eps
215 

f 


K-21.eps
216 


L-1.eps
217 


L-2.eps
218 


L-3.eps
219 


L-4.eps
220 


L-5.eps
221 


L-6.eps
222 


L-7.eps
223 


L-8.eps
224 


L-9.eps
225 


L-10.eps
226 


L-11.eps
227 


L-12.eps
228 


L-13.eps
229 


L-14.eps
230 


L-15.eps
231 


L-16.eps
232 


L-17.eps
233 


L-18.eps
234 


L-19.eps
235 


L-20.eps
236 


L-21.eps
237 


L-22.eps
238 


L-23.eps
239 


L-24.eps
240 


L-25.eps
241 


L-26.eps
242 


L-27.eps
243 

f 


L-28.eps
244 


M-1.eps
245 


M-2.eps
246 

f 


M-3.eps
247 


N-1.eps
248 


N-2.eps
249 

f 


N-3.eps
250 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DON KUNZ, PRESIDENT, FOUR SEASONS DISTRIBUTORS

My name is Don Kunz, President, Four Seasons Distributors of Belleville, Illinois. 

My first experience with the DEA was when they came to check our warehouse 

and security system in December of l998. The agent that did our inspection was less 

versed in the type of pills we carried than we were. The agent asked some pretty 

stupid questions just to try to trip us up. We keep records, I feel, as good as anyone 

in our business and the agent just couldn’t understand why we did things the way 

we did. The agent told us that our documentation on invoices and records at our 

warehouse were as good as she had seen. We asked for documentation of her visit 

and were told that they did not do that. It sure would be nice to receive something 

from the DEA stating what you are doing right and wrong. It would also be nice 

to be able to go the DEA for a written handbook or guidelines pertaining to List 

1 Chemicals. They do not put anything in writing. 

Our second experience was when the DEA St. Louis office requested our sales invoices for Missouri stores that we call on for pseudoephedrine sales in that state. 

I told them the only pseudoephedrine we sold was 8 pills of 25 mg bottles. This did 

not make any difference; they still wanted any invoices showing sales of List 1 

Chemicals. This was delivered as requested in a timely manner and it was very difficult to get someone to sign that they had received these records. 

Our third experience was in January 2006. The agents were very nice; but, again, 

they were not familiar with the normal terms for products that all distributors 

carry. They requested all of our records for 2004 and 2005 that had any List 1 

Chemical sold. This request came two weeks after a 2-day inspection of our warehouse, vehicles, and office. The records for those two years comes to approximately 

6000 pages and 10 days of work just on this project. After we objected to releasing 

our customers’ information without some sort of written request, they changed their 

mind and requested only 2005 and January1-5, 2006. Again, I asked for some written documentation of what we were doing right or wrong; and I was told that they 

never give any written inspection report. 

We were verbally told that our facilities and records were in the best shape of 

anyone they had inspected. They could find nothing wrong with anything we do. 

The problems persist. On Tuesday, May 29, 2007, I received a letter from the 

DEA stating that they wish to have a list of our customers that buy List 1 products. 

This seems to be a form letter to all registrants; but our company and its address 

were used. 

First of all, the DEA has this information already from our last inspection. By 

the way, the investigators who inspected us said our records were the best and the 

cleanest they had seen. The DEA would also have this information from the selfcertification that each store must go through in order to sell these products. 

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn from this letter and that is to contact and harass and scare our customers into not selling these products. When we 

place these products with our customers, we are very careful to make sure that each 

one is self-certified and that each store has a log book (and uses it) and has trained 

their employees. Each visit to the stores we talk to the manager or owner about 

these products and how they are to be sold. 

In the letter, it states ‘‘the DEA will in turn send a notice to these companies that 

they are selling regulated products and what their obligations are under CMEA.’’ 

The next sentence states ‘‘DEA will not use these lists for any other purpose other 

than insuring compliance with the CMEA.’’ This is a pure scare tactic to scare our 

customers. We have already lost a substantial number of customers due to the provisions of this new law. This letter will only insure more lost customers. 

In the DEA own web site it states that 85% of the illegal meth comes from Mexico; yet they are still harassing my company and my customers. 

My biggest concern is that you don’t know if you have done something wrong until 

they come knocking on your door. As a legitimate businessman, I try to always be 

proactive and take care of any records or questions before they become a problem. 

The DEA calls convenience stores ‘‘gas stations’’ or ‘‘gray market’’. I think the major 

petroleum companies would find this offensive. There isn’t an agent anywhere in the 

United States that doesn’t stop at a convenience store for gas, cigarettes, coffee, or 

whatever every day they are working. And they consider this a ‘‘gray market’’!! 

I hope the committee takes a hard look at the DEA actions and intimidation of 

small businesses and our customers. 

Thank you. 

f 

251 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BUDDY POOL, POOL MARKETING

My name is Buddy Pool, and I am the owner of Pool Marketing, which is located 

in Georgia. 

In 1976, Georgia began requiring a State Pharmacy License for any wholesaler 

engaging in the sale of pseudoepheedrine products. I applied for the License. After 

the state licensing board received my application, I was instructed by the board to 

contact the Drugs and Narcotics Agency to schedule an inspection of my facility. 

When I made this request, I was told my company would not be granted a license. 

The business has a residential address and the only way to get the license was for 

the Licensing Board to grant an exemption. I visited the board office in Macon and 

spoke with Ms. Ann Shockley. She advised me to call Mr. Rick Allan with the Drug 

and Narcotics Agency. I spoke with Mr. Allen and he really overreacted even to telling me I could have been arrested for trespassing for visiting the office. He also stated I would not be receiving the state license and that he had been in touch with 

the DEA and they were in the process of pulling my DEA License. My DEA License 

expired on March 31, 2006. I submitted the application to renew on Feb. 19, 2006. 

After a few weeks, I began calling the DEA in Arlington to check on the status of 

the application. Each time I was told the application has not been processed yet. 

On April 20th I contacted the Atlanta office and was informed by a lady named 

Liz, that they had no record of my applying and Liz advised me to reapply on line 

and to be sure to get a confirmation no. and run a copy of the application, which 

I did. A couple of weeks later I called Liz back to follow up. She connected me with 

her supervisor, Mr. Shortas. The first question Mr. Shortas asked was ‘‘Who are 

your customers?’’ 

I answered that I service Convenience Stores. Mr. Shortas replied that my DEA 

License would not be renewed. He said convenience stores don’t need to sell ephedrine products. If a person needs ephedrine products, he should go to a drug store. 

He also stated my company would be investigated and they would make a recommendation to Washington about my renewal. But the license would not be renewed. 

f 

252 


R-1.eps
253 


R-2.eps
254 


R-3.eps
255 


R-4.eps
256 


R-5.eps
257 


R-6.eps
258 


R-7.eps
259 


R-8.eps
260 


R-9.eps
261 


R-10.eps
262 


R-11.eps
263 


R-12.eps
264 


R-13.eps
265 


R-14.eps
266 


R-15.eps
267 


R-16.eps
268 


R-17.eps
269 


R-18.eps
270 


R-19.eps
271 


R-20.eps
272 


R-21.eps
273 


R-22.eps
274 


R-23.eps
275 


R-24.eps
276 


R-25.eps
277 


R-26.eps
278 


R-27.eps
279 

f 


R-28.eps
280 


S-1.eps
281 

f 


S-2.eps
282 


T-1.eps
283 


T-2.eps
284 


T-3.eps
285 

f 


T-4.eps
286 


U-1.eps
287 


U-2.eps
288 

f 


U-3.eps
289 


V-1.eps
290 


V-2.eps
291 


V-3.eps
292 

f 


V-4.eps
293 


W-1.eps
294 


W-2.eps
295 


W-3.eps
296 


W-4.eps
297 


W-5.eps
298 


W-6.eps
299 


W-7.eps
300 


W-8.eps
301 


W-9.eps
302 


W-10.eps
303 


W-11.eps
304 


W-12.eps
305 


W-13.eps
306 


W-14.eps
307 


W-15.eps
308 


W-16.eps
309 


W-17.eps
310 


W-18.eps
311 


W-19.eps
312 


W-20.eps
313 


W-21.eps
314 

f 


W-22.eps
315 


X-1.eps
316 

Æ 


X-2.eps