[ Also see the Document Register ] 0170 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 2 DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x : 5 In the Matter of: : : Docket No. 05-16 6 LYLE E. CRAKER, Ph.D. : : 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8 VOLUME II 9 Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10 DEA Headquarters 600 Army Navy Drive 11 Hearing Room E-2103 12 Arlington, Virginia 13 14 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 16 17 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. 18 19 BEFORE: 20 21 MARY ELLEN BITTNER 22 Chief Administrative Law Judge 0171 1 APPEARANCES: 2 On Behalf of the DEA: 3 BRIAN BAYLY, ESQ. Office of Chief Counsel 4 Drug Enforcement Administration Washington, D.C. 20537 5 IMELDA L. PAREDES, ESQ. 6 Senior Attorney Office of Chief Counsel 7 (202) 353-9676 8 CHARLES E. TRANT, ESQ. Associate Chief Counsel 9 Office of Chief Counsel (202) 307-8010 10 On Behalf of the Respondent: 11 JULIE M. CARPENTER, ESQ. 12 Jenner & Block LLP 601 13th Street, N.W. 13 Suite 1200 South Washington, D.C. 20005 14 (202) 661-4810 15 M. ALLEN HOPPER, ESQ. Senior Staff Attorney 16 Drug Reform Project American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 17 1101 Pacific Avenue, Suite 333 Santa Cruz, California 95060 18 (831) 471-9000 Ext. 14 19 ALSO PRESENT: 20 MATTHEW STRAIT Representative of the Government 21 Richard Doblin, Ph.D. 22 Representative of Respondent 0172 1 C O N T E N T S 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3 Lyle E. Craker By Mr. Trant 183 -- -- 4 By Mr. Bayly 206 -- -- 5 Barbara Roberts By Ms. Carpenter 281 336 6 By Ms. Paredes 303 342 Further 343 344 7 Further 346 -- 8 Lyle E. Craker (resumed) -- -- 350 377 9 Further 390 -- 10 John Vasconcellos 393 406 420 -- 11 Dale Gieringer 422 444 452 463 12 - - - 13 E X H I B I T S 14 EXHIBIT NOS. MARKED RECEIVED 15 RESPONDENT'S 16 1 293 293 17 GOVERNMENT'S: 18 1 209 209 19 20 30 278 278 21 22 30A 372 372 0173 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 JUDGE BITTNER: On the record. I have 3 here Respondent's Third Supplemental Prehearing 4 Statement and Motion for Relief to file it. Mr. 5 Bayly, have you had an opportunity to look at it? 6 MR. BAYLY: Yes, Judge Bittner, we did 7 have an opportunity yesterday afternoon when we got 8 it to look at and review it. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: And do you have any 10 objection to it? 11 MR. BAYLY: Yes. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 13 MR. BAYLY: For the record. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 15 MR. BAYLY: The motion indicates that Dr. 16 Doblin will testify instead of Mr. Alden, and 17 that's because Mr. Alden decided to take the Fifth 18 Amendment. And it is true what Dr. Doblin will 19 testify was placed in the prehearing statement 20 under Mr. Alden's proposed testimony way back in 21 June, but there are a couple of problems, major 22 problems here. 0174 1 First of all, this issue about giving Mr. 2 Alden immunity came up last week and, in fact, it 3 was just this past, I believe it was just this past 4 Friday that I talked to Mr. Alden's counsel, and 5 while I disagree with the characterization that the 6 Government, quote, "refused to give them immunity," 7 I do want to point out that even if we had some 8 kind of obligation to do so, that obligation was 9 only brought to our attention last week even though 10 Mr. Alden's testimony was out there since I believe 11 the initial prehearing statement. 12 The motion also says that there won't be 13 prejudice to the Government. I would note that we 14 disagree with that characterization simply because 15 we can't cross-examine Mr. Alden. We have to do it 16 through Dr. Doblin, and I don't see how that's 17 possible. 18 I believe, Judge Bittner, you're aware of 19 21 CFR 1316.58(b). That's the rule that says if 20 you've got an affidavit, the affidavit may be 21 admissible, but you have to take into account the 22 fact that the opposing party would not have an 0175 1 opportunity to cross-examine. 2 Well, here we don't even have an 3 affidavit. We just have another witness who just 4 yesterday gave us notice that he's testifying as to 5 hearsay. So obviously we have no opportunity to 6 cross-examine Mr. Alden as we anticipated. 7 Lastly, our objection is based upon the 8 premise that I am totally unaware of any obligation 9 or requirement for the Government to give immunity 10 to a defense witness. Maybe defense counsels can 11 help us out here, but I don't know of any 12 obligation or requirement. If there were any, then 13 this motion might have some merit if it weren't 14 belatedly asserted, but to explain the procedure on 15 this, Judge Bittner, there are a number of statutes 16 which guide prosecutors in giving witnesses--that 17 is Government witnesses--immunity. 18 And of course, it has to be through 19 statute, and we do have an immunity procedure here 20 at DEA. The procedure would be to--it's found--let 21 me give the cite--it's found at 28 CFR 0.175, and 22 the procedure would be to request of the 0176 1 Administrator to give a witness immunity, and the 2 Administrator couldn't unilaterally give a witness 3 immunity without consulting with the Criminal 4 Division of the Department of Justice. 5 And again, I'm totally at a loss to know 6 what kind of a procedure we would do to do this for 7 defense witnesses. I mean I'm Government counsel 8 and theoretically if there were a witness that I 9 wanted to put up there, but I wanted to give the 10 witness immunity, I would request that the 11 Administrator in consultation with the Criminal 12 Division please allow this witness immunity, and 13 they may say fine; they may say, Bayly, you're 14 nuts; get out of here. 15 I don't know if--this is totally 16 unprecedented to me, so I don't know if perhaps 17 even Defense counsel could request from the 18 Administrator. I don't even know if we as counsel 19 or DEA Chief Counsel here, if we'd have the 20 obligation to do it. I just don't know. Like I 21 said, I don't believe there's a legal duty or 22 obligation for us to do this. 0177 1 So for those reasons, I think we would 2 oppose this motion at this time. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Ms. Carpenter, 4 would you like to respond? 5 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 Mr. Bayly is entirely correct in his 7 characterization of the timing. It did come up 8 last week. The reason it came up is because it 9 hadn't occurred to any of us that it would be an 10 issue. The witness who we don't represent 11 obviously talked to his lawyer, and his lawyer 12 said, you know--talked to him about this testimony, 13 and didn't call him until a week or so before, and 14 said this is what I'm going to say, and he said do 15 you realize that there, although it seems remote, 16 there is some possibility that the DEA could come 17 after you for talking about your marijuana use as 18 medical marijuana use. 19 The witness said what can we do about 20 that? As I understand it, counsel contacted the 21 Government to see if they would give immunity. I 22 am not a defense lawyer. I don't know whether 0178 1 there is any obligation, but I'm not sure that 2 that's determinative of the question here. 3 We did ask the Government and they did 4 refuse. So I think that characterization is clear. 5 They would not give immunity regardless of whether 6 they had an obligation. In terms of prejudice to 7 the Government, it is true that they can't cross-examine Mr. 8 Alden, but it is also true that the 9 rules specifically allow hearsay testimony to come 10 in. 11 We're not able to cross-examine all the 12 investigators whose interviews Mr. Strait is going 13 to talk about later during the Government's case. 14 We can't put them on the stand to talk about 15 whether what he characterizes them as saying is 16 accurate or not. That's just a facet of hearsay 17 testimony that's inescapable in the context of an 18 administrative law hearing. 19 So we would argue we're doing the best we 20 can, I guess is our argument. We have a witness 21 who is in some jeopardy of criminal prosecution and 22 who is legitimately concerned about that. We think 0179 1 it's important testimony given that the rules 2 specifically allow hearsay testimony to be 3 admitted, given that Dr. Doblin has talked directly 4 to this particular witness and can say exactly what 5 was in the prehearing statement, and that the 6 Government has had plenty of time to prepare to 7 address that in any way that they see fit. 8 There doesn't seem to me to be any more 9 prejudice to them than that which goes to us from 10 not being able to put somebody on because we're in 11 front of the DEA. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: You know I spent all that 13 time in law school learning the hearsay rule. Fat 14 lot of good it did. 15 [Laughter.] 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. It seems to me that 17 this whole question of immunity and obligation or 18 lack of obligation to grant it is something of a 19 red herring because the only difference between the 20 situation we have today and the situation we would 21 have had if Respondent had initially listed this 22 evidence under Dr. Doblin's testimony is that the 0180 1 issue arose last week. So the Government was 2 assuming correctly that it--appropriately I should 3 say--that it would have the opportunity to cross-examine the 4 witness and now it doesn't. 5 But I have said I don't know how many 6 hundreds of times that hearsay is admissible. 7 Everybody is agreed on that whether we like it or 8 not, and that the hearsay nature of testimony is 9 something that I consider when I weigh the 10 evidence, and I think that's what applies here. 11 So I will overrule the objection, consider 12 Respondent's Third Supplemental Prehearing 13 Statement as properly filed, and therefore I will 14 allow Dr. Doblin to testify as recited therein. 15 But, of course, I will also keep very much 16 in mind that this is hearsay and that the 17 Government is put at "x" amount of disadvantage--and I don't 18 know how to quantify "x" at this point. 19 It may be zero. It may be a positive number. I 20 don't know--by finding this out yesterday instead 21 of earlier. So that's the ruling. 22 Okay. Anything else before we cross-examine Dr. 0181 1 Craker or is that not what we're doing 2 this morning? 3 MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, we do have one 4 request, and Mr. Trant has entered an appearance 5 here. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 7 MR. BAYLY: And he would start the cross- 8 examination of Dr. Craker, only limited to the 9 questions pertaining to how the witness goes about 10 making, growing, cultivating marijuana, and how 11 that would apply to 823(a)(3) and then that would 12 be limited to where he would cross, and then I 13 would pick it up and move on. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Any objection, Ms. 15 Carpenter? 16 MS. CARPENTER: I guess not. It's a 17 little unusual. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Mr. Hopper wants to jump 19 into the act here. 20 MS. CARPENTER: I guess I would ask for 21 similar retroactivity if it becomes necessary to 22 split the cross between us for some reason down the 0182 1 line for your witnesses. 2 MR. BAYLY: You mean reciprocity? 3 MS. CARPENTER: Reciprocity. 4 [Laughter.] 5 JUDGE BITTNER: I like retroactivity 6 better. 7 MS. CARPENTER: I'm feeling a little 8 nuclear this morning. 9 [Laughter.] 10 JUDGE BITTNER: I think, yeah, that would 11 be appropriate. I mean normally I don't allow 12 that, but I think it's safe to say that Dr. Craker 13 is not an unsophisticated witness. So I'll allow 14 it. 15 MR. BAYLY: Yeah, certainly. I mean 16 reciprocity is understandable, and we'd certainly 17 agree with that. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 19 MS. CARPENTER: Or retroactivity. 20 [Laughter.] 21 MR. BAYLY: We don't plan to do this as 22 far as I know any other time, but if Defense 0183 1 counsel want to have that arrangement, that's fine. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 3 MR. BAYLY: What's good for the goose-- 4 JUDGE BITTNER: Dr. Craker, would you 5 please resume the stand now that we've been talking 6 about you. And I'd like to remind you that you're 7 still under oath. 8 DR. CRAKER: Thank you. 9 Whereupon, 10 LYLE E. CRAKER, PH.D. 11 was recalled as a witness herein and, having been 12 previously duly sworn by the Administrative Law 13 Judge, was examined and testified as follows: 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. TRANT: 16 Q Good morning. Thank you, Your Honor. Dr. 17 Craker, the reason we're doing this so that you're 18 not in any state of confusion is because it's very 19 important for the Government-- 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Hold on, Mr. Trant. We're 21 having this microphone fight again. Off the 22 record. 0184 1 [Off the record.] 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Back on the record. 3 BY MR. TRANT: 4 Q Dr. Craker, the only area that I want to 5 go into is the actual processes that you follow 6 when growing marijuana, and the reason is that it's 7 very important that when the time comes for the 8 Deputy Administrator to make her decision that she 9 have a complete factual record in terms of what it 10 is that you do. She may be a lot like me. I mean 11 I could have been useful in some of your defoliant 12 studies. I walk near a plant; it dies. 13 So I would probably need a Gardening 101 14 course, and that's all I'm really attempting to 15 establish at this point, just so it's very clear in 16 the record exactly how this process occurs. We may 17 think of it like growing a tomato plant, you put it 18 in a little dixie cup, and somewhere down the road 19 you transplant it to your garden, and ultimately if 20 the deer don't get at it, you have tomatoes at the 21 end of the season. 22 So would you tell me initially how would 0185 1 you initiate the process? Does it involve like a 2 seed selection? You actually select the seeds that 3 you would want to use in order to start the 4 germination process? 5 A Yes, once we have located a seed source 6 and have permission to import seeds or get seeds 7 that we could use, then we would want to--I mean 8 the normal procedure would be similar to what we 9 use with other plants, your tomatoes included. We 10 would place them in a growth media which growth-- 11 Q For want of a better term, that's soil or 12 some type of soil? 13 A No, that would not be soil. We generally 14 don't grow plants in soil because the soil becomes 15 compacted as they're watered. We use a mixture of 16 generally a greenhouse mix they call them, and 17 there are various ones on the market. They usually 18 consist of perlite, vermiculite and peat moss. 19 Q These substances are ones you'd use in 20 virtually then any plant type of growth? 21 A In any plant, any greenhouse plant. 22 Q Just kind of a standard-- 0186 1 A Yes. The ratio may change. There's 2 usually lime added to neutralize the acidity of the 3 mixture, and there is usually starter fertilizer in 4 there of some kind, nitrogen, phosphorus and 5 potassium, in order to give the germinating seed a 6 boost, nutritional boost, as it attempts to emerge. 7 Q And these are all commercially available 8 products that you've used in the past and would 9 anticipate using in this project? 10 A Well, I don't know what you're--commercial 11 products? 12 Q Well, I mean you buy--I assume you buy 13 them from somewhere? 14 A The media? 15 Q The media. 16 A Well, at the university, I try not to buy 17 too many things. I like to have donations. 18 [Laughter.] 19 BY MR. TRANT: 20 Q I'm sorry. 21 A The media, generally we use media that's 22 donated to us. We on occasion need to mix our own 0187 1 media because again most commercial media comes 2 with a starter fertilizer, and in some situations 3 where we're looking at a specific nutrient 4 deficiency, we may very well buy the ingredients 5 and mix them ourselves in a cement mixer. 6 Q But this is a process you've used in the 7 past-- 8 A Yes. 9 Q --in terms of securing this type of media 10 and then testing it out in order to develop it to 11 the point where it's exactly the type of media that 12 you would want to use for the type of plant that 13 you're seeking to cultivate? 14 A Testing it out I don't quite understand 15 there. I mean commercial media usually is 16 satisfactory for everything we're going to do. 17 Q You said you might have to test. It may 18 need more phosphorus. 19 A Oh, yes, if we need-- 20 Q In some way or other make certain it has 21 all the nutrients in it that you want. 22 A Some way, yes. Yes. 0188 1 Q That's the testing process. And then when 2 you secure the seeds, what would you do in order to 3 determine the seeds are acceptable in terms of 4 they--that they are, I guess, fertile seeds or 5 viable seeds or capable of growing or-- 6 A Well, hopefully, the source of seed supply 7 will be able to tell us the percent germination of 8 those seeds. The general procedure is to overplant 9 the number of seedlings needed in a greenhouse 10 flat, and then one selects out the most vigorous 11 growing seedlings and places them into a larger 12 container, as we develop the plant towards 13 maturity. 14 Q Okay. And this is a standard methodology? 15 A It's a standard methodology used. 16 Q It's the same methodology you would use in 17 this project? 18 A Same methodology I use with many medicinal 19 plants. 20 Q And in terms of the seeds, now at some 21 point down the road, if you were cultivating a 22 plant like marijuana that actually has seeds, will 0189 1 you secure any of the seeds from those plants for 2 later use so you wouldn't have to purchase them 3 from somewhere else or you would have more control 4 over the supply of seeds that you've been using for 5 future generations of plants? 6 A I think to some extent that depends upon 7 the source of seeds, and I'm not sure about the 8 legal ramifications of that. We would certainly 9 want to go according to any of the instructions 10 from the Drug Enforcement Administration on the 11 ability to keep our own seeds or not. That's not 12 something I'm anxious about doing, especially as 13 the initial studies get underway. 14 We'd rather get the seeds, a seed source, 15 and get our seeds there, yes. 16 Q Yeah. Initially. But then assuming that 17 was permissible practice there to just, you know, 18 collect some of the seeds, then you wouldn't have 19 to worry about having them donated or securing them 20 elsewhere. You'd basically have your own ready-- 21 A That's a possibility. 22 Q --recurring supply? 0190 1 A That's a possibility. 2 Q So then you don't actually then test the 3 seeds for their viability. You do that by planting 4 enough and so long as they come in from a reputable 5 source, they will presumably grow a sufficient 6 number of plants for your purposes? 7 A That would be the procedure, yes. 8 Q And then initially, I mean I've described 9 this kind of little dixie cup approach, you know, 10 when you start off, you take the little dixie cup, 11 you have the thing germinate, then move it to a 12 bigger pot and ultimately to a garden? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Is that essentially the process that you'd 15 be following here, when they first start to 16 germinate, you move them from one container to a 17 larger container or? 18 A Well, the answer to that is yes, only your 19 initial container is usually a flat which has 20 several, maybe several hundred seedlings in it when 21 we start out, not a dixie cup. 22 Q Okay. 0191 1 A But they'd be essentially transplanted 2 that way, yes. 3 Q Okay. A flat tray so the media level 4 would be-- 5 A They're standard trays. 6 Q --filled in? 7 A They're standard trays and there are 8 standard trays in the tray. 9 Q And these are the type of standard 10 equipment that's available that you've used in the 11 past? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And would use in the future? 14 A Use them. Use them all the time. 15 Q Okay. And then when they're then 16 transplanted, what type of container are they 17 transplanted to initially from the flat container? 18 A I'm sorry? I didn't-- 19 Q What would be the next? Initially they 20 germinate on this flat container. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Then they're moved to--what's the next 0192 1 container? 2 A Well, generally, it would depend upon the 3 size of the seedling because you have to match the 4 pot size essentially to the seedling so that you 5 don't rot the roots off with too much water being 6 accumulated and that. So I mean it could be--it 7 could be a three-inch diameter pot, a four-inch 8 diameter pot, or if the seedlings are growing very 9 vigorously, it could be a six-inch diameter pot. 10 But there would probably be--there probably would 11 be in the case of marijuana, which I have no 12 experience in growing, I would suggest we would 13 probably germinate them in flats, probably move 14 the, transplant the seedlings into three-inch or 15 four-inch diameter pots and then transplant them 16 into larger pots for final growth. 17 Q And these are--this is the process you've 18 followed with other plants? 19 A The process we follow with other plants. 20 Q And the types of containers are standard 21 flower pot type? 22 A Standard greenhouse plastic pots that we 0193 1 purchase by--they don't donate those. We have to 2 purchase those. 3 Q And in terms of the growing process, are 4 there any special nutrients, chemicals, 5 fertilizers, you would use or are these-- 6 A These are-- 7 Q The combination may vary, but they're 8 basically, and again-- 9 A They are standards. 10 Q I'm definitely Gardening 101. Is there 11 some standard fertilizer that you would use? 12 A We use a commercially available 13 fertilizer. It's usually 10-10-10, which means ten 14 parts nitrogen, ten parts phosphorus and ten parts 15 potassium. 16 Q So this is not any type of new fertilizer 17 that you'd have to develop specifically to grow 18 these type of plants? 19 A Not that I'm aware of, no. 20 Q And then--I'm sorry. 21 A If special nutrient deficiencies were 22 noticed, then I suspect we would have to add 0194 1 something else, but I don't foresee that. 2 Q So you would then--the plants then just 3 grow given the, I guess, the adequate nurturing, 4 the skills that I'm incapable of? 5 A They're going to need, I assume like all 6 plants they're going to need light and they're 7 going to need water, and I think then they would 8 grow. 9 Q Okay. And all these you anticipate will 10 be grown in a greenhouse environment? 11 A Well-- 12 Q That may be the wrong term, and again I 13 apologize if I-- 14 A No, that's okay. 15 Q --if I used the inappropriate terminology. 16 A I think where they'll be grown depends 17 upon the security arrangements that are needed. 18 What I have talked with DEA agents who visited my, 19 our campus, we have spoken about an enclosed room 20 with--they wanted one wall against the, buried by 21 earth so nobody could drill through from the 22 outside. We have such a room, and it's an enclosed 0195 1 room. I mean it has one door in and one door out. 2 Q Now you anticipate that they would come to 3 their final maturity there while still in a potted 4 environment as opposed to an in-ground environment 5 or? 6 A I think that would not be to--we could use 7 larger pots to grow those in, yes. 8 Q And at a certain point you would determine 9 that the plant is fully grown, ready for 10 harvesting? 11 A Yes. There would be some point in the 12 development where they want to be harvested. 13 Q Okay. And what determination would go 14 into deciding the plant is ready for harvesting? 15 Is it size or it's something about its ostensible 16 maturity or? 17 A I assume it would be the maturity, 18 depending on the type, the part of the plant that 19 we wanted to harvest. If leaves, you could get 20 almost immediately, but if you want to harvest, if 21 you want to harvest flower buds, you'd have to wait 22 until they appear. 0196 1 Q And then when you harvested it, it then 2 goes to a drying process of some kind? Would that 3 be the next step in the process? 4 A That would be, if people wanted dry 5 material, which I assume that everybody would, the 6 material would need to be dried, yes. 7 Q And what does the drying process entail? 8 A Well, we have, again, commercially 9 available drying ovens which we dry other plant 10 material in. We would probably dry them somewhere 11 around I would suspect about 40 degrees Centigrade. 12 That's usually for medicinal plants is where 13 material is dried, unless there's available 14 literature that suggests another drying temperature 15 and to remove, and they would be dried down to a 16 low enough moisture content so that we would not 17 have to worry about fungal growth then. 18 Q And these are ovens that you already 19 possess or are at your facility? 20 A Well, we have drying ovens. The drying 21 ovens we have available are quite large and they 22 would not be suitable for this, the material, 0197 1 because they would not--I cannot secure those. We 2 have to buy a new drying oven that would go in. 3 Q But the drying oven-- 4 A But these are commercially available. 5 Q The drying oven is already commercially 6 available? 7 A Yes. 8 Q But it would just be a smaller volume one 9 than the ones you have? 10 A A smaller volume, yes. The one we have is 11 probably--I don't know--maybe eight feet by eight 12 feet by ten feet high with a lot of shelves in it. 13 I'm not going to move that into a small room. 14 Q But the process that you use would be 15 identical to using the smaller ovens as processes 16 you've used in the past with the larger oven? 17 A That's true. 18 Q So it would then result in the same 19 methodology would be used? 20 A The same methodology would be used, yes. 21 Q Now, you had indicated that you could grow 22 this to specification basically. At what point 0198 1 does that determination have to be made? Is it 2 from the seeds? Is it while the plant is growing? 3 Is it after it's grown? At what point would you 4 determine that you've met the specifications in 5 terms of growing the plant? 6 A Well, I think that needs to--I think the 7 only time you really know whether you're made the 8 specification or not is after you've harvested and 9 the material has been tested. Certainly I can't 10 tell from the seed or the seedling. What the seed 11 can do is give us an estimate of where we're going 12 to be. 13 Q So would you then--say, for example, if 14 you wanted a certain percentage of THC component in 15 there, and when you finished the process, it wasn't 16 where you wanted, would you go through some 17 selection process to then cross-germinating these 18 things in order to take the highest ones and 19 somehow keep boosting it up until your final 20 product reaches your specification? 21 A That would be one way of approaching the 22 problem, and one is not going to do a lot of that 0199 1 in the time we've asked for the license. That 2 would have to be an extended time. 3 Q I guess this is probably what-- 4 A Yes. 5 Q --I'm trying to understand is if you get a 6 request in that we want, that the researcher wants 7 a certain product with certain specifications, 8 other than the hope that the plants that happen to 9 be selected because they were the most vigorously 10 germinating plants end up at that level, is there 11 any other way you would manipulate the process 12 during the growth of the plant in order to try to 13 get to specification? 14 A Yes, from--there are some possibilities 15 from the literature, scientific literature that I 16 have read about. Scientific and unscientific 17 literature I guess I would have to say in-- 18 Q There are many unscientific growers of 19 marijuana. 20 A Yes, scientific growers of marijuana--which they 21 indicate that various light regimes can 22 influence the THC content. They indicate that 0200 1 various manipulations of plant material, pruning, 2 growing all female plants. There are--I have not 3 looked into those at depth because-- 4 Q But there are existing techniques out 5 there that you can try? 6 A There are techniques that we would try. 7 Q And so that you could then be able to do 8 it. And at the end of the process when you have 9 your dried product, how would you go about 10 determining what the THC content is, for example? 11 A Well, again, we have not had experience in 12 that, but those techniques are available, and one 13 would have to run the appropriate type of test 14 using the appropriate instruments, laboratory 15 instruments. 16 Q Okay. But all that technology is 17 available for actual-- 18 A The technology is available there, yes. 19 Q Okay. And do you think that you would be 20 performing that function there or having someone 21 else, an analytical lab test it out, or who would 22 make the determination prior to sending it off to 0201 1 the researcher who has requested it? I assume 2 you'd want to test it out to see if it meets their 3 requirements? You would have it tested to make the 4 determination? 5 A Well, I think that could go either way. I 6 don't think it's--I think we're some distance away 7 from making a decision like that. I think either 8 is possible. For example, if I get a sample of 9 material to--I was going to use a sample material--the 10 receiving end would certainly want to confirm 11 what they have and that may be enough that we don't 12 need to test it. 13 We could simply say this has been grown 14 from seed that's supposed to have this THC content. 15 We've done the following things to ensure that. 16 Here's your sample and you had better test it 17 before you use it. 18 Q Okay. Or you could maybe subcontract with 19 someone else to test it so that if the researcher 20 says I don't want to have to test--I want to 21 receive a product that meets my specifications as 22 opposed to here's a product, you test it out and 0202 1 maybe it will meet the specs, maybe it won't, 2 wouldn't they prefer to have it already pretested 3 to make certain that-- 4 A Well, that's a possibility, and I assume 5 that if there was a DEA approved laboratory where 6 this could be tested, we could send samples there 7 for testing. 8 Q Okay. To an analytical lab I think would 9 be the type-- 10 A An analytical laboratory of some type, 11 yes. 12 Q But again that's a process that already 13 exists and there are people out there-- 14 A There certainly are laboratories that-- 15 Q Who are capable of doing that? 16 A Capable of doing this. 17 Q Okay. So if that were a requirement for 18 this process to move forward, that would be done 19 through that method? 20 A A former colleague of mine does that for 21 the state police in Massachusetts all the time. 22 Q And you had mentioned something about 0203 1 this, I guess this smaller container. I forget. 2 Sounded like a metal box where you can really-- 3 A It's a plastic box. 4 Q It's a plastic box. 5 A Yeah. 6 Q Where you really control all the 7 environmental factors and-- 8 A You mean for the growth itself? 9 Q Yes, for the growth itself. 10 A Yeah, that's usually aluminum. 11 Q Okay. Now would that type of device be 12 used in this process at all? Is this just more of 13 a in-the-pot type of procedure? 14 A Well, depending upon--there are two 15 approaches there and I don't know if the final 16 decision has been made yet. My hope would be to 17 grow it under a completely controlled environment 18 where we gain a lot of information than we would 19 just from a hanging a light in a room. But either 20 is possible, and I guess it depends on the funding 21 that's available and everything else-- 22 Q Okay. 0204 1 A --which we use. 2 Q So that type of a chamber, it's a 3 possibility that that could be involved in the 4 process? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And if it is, you already have such a 7 chamber? 8 A I have small ones. I do not have ones--we'd have 9 to purchase larger ones. 10 Q Okay. So, but again the technology is 11 available. 12 A Yes. 13 Q It would just be in a larger--a larger 14 capacity? 15 A Yes, and I showed those to the DEA agents 16 who came to campus to visit. We have them in 17 another building, not in the building where we'd be 18 growing the marijuana or not in the room. 19 Q So even though you've never grown 20 marijuana, you've never grown any other Schedule I 21 controlled substance; right? 22 A No, that's true. 0205 1 Q But I guess from the botany or agronomy or 2 gardening level, the technologies are the same in 3 terms of growing these plants as opposed to any 4 other plant? 5 A I've grown a lot of different plants and 6 they've all--they all grow the same. 7 Q All right. 8 A They take the same water, they take the 9 same nutrients, and I don't think that marijuana is 10 any different. 11 Q Okay. And the equipment that you would 12 use in growing these plants is all equipment that 13 you've used in the past? 14 A It's all standard equipment used in the 15 past, commercially available. 16 MR. TRANT: Thank you very much, Your 17 Honor. That was all. I just wanted to make 18 certain so that to help educate the Deputy 19 Administrator in terms of what this process would 20 entail. I think that's been very helpful. Thank 21 you, Doctor. 22 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 0206 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Mr. Bayly. 2 MR. BAYLY: Thank you, Judge Bittner. 3 BY MR. BAYLY: 4 Q Thank you, Dr. Craker, for bearing with 5 us, and I say us, there's two of us. 6 A Yes. No problem. 7 Q I won't go through the same questions, but 8 I do have a number of questions based on your 9 testimony yesterday. 10 A Sure. 11 Q I want to start off, though, on one 12 question, just to follow up what Mr. Trant asked 13 you. Would you and the people that help you there 14 at University of Massachusetts, would you have the 15 ability to test the marijuana for THC levels? In 16 other words, you harvest some that you've grown and 17 could you do that? 18 A Well, we have standard laboratory 19 equipment. We have gas chromatographs. We have 20 high pressure liquid chromatographs and those are 21 the type of instruments that are usually used to 22 determine constituents in plants. Yes, we have 0207 1 those available. 2 Q And would you have the capability then of 3 testing for suspected marijuana? In other words, 4 somebody said here, I think, Dr. Craker, this looks 5 like marijuana. It smells like marijuana. Could 6 you test this and confirm it? 7 A Well, I suspect I, if I knew the pattern 8 that came from an analysis of those from marijuana, 9 the pattern that it shows from gas chromatograph or 10 from the high pressure liquid chromatograph, 11 theoretically I could, but that's not my job, and 12 I, even ethylene, which is a problem among growers, 13 I do not volunteer to do their analysis either, 14 even though I've been asked several times. 15 Working with the outside people is 16 generally a responsibility of the Extension 17 Division in our university. 18 Q You say theoretically you could, but also 19 if you wanted to, could you actually do it? 20 A You mean do I have the cap-- 21 Q Right. 22 A We have the instruments that could do it, 0208 1 yes. We could certainly learn the techniques if 2 necessary to do it, the proper procedure. 3 Q I want to shift gears here, Dr. Craker, 4 and now take you back in time. If the witness 5 could be shown just Government Exhibit 1, please. 6 A Is that one of these? 7 Q I have a copy if I can present it to the 8 witness. Do we have our originals here? 9 A I have Respondent's Exhibits. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Do you have a book there 11 that says Government Exhibits? 12 THE WITNESS: No, I do not. 13 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Mr. Bayly, you have 14 your copy; right? I mean you have the official 15 copy? 16 MR. BAYLY: We're looking for the 17 official. I do have a copy. It's just the 18 original application. I can present this. We use 19 this for now, Dr. Craker. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. 21 BY MR. BAYLY: 22 Q I just want to confirm that is the 0209 1 original application that you submitted to DEA? 2 A It looks like the original that was 3 submitted to DEA. But understand I did not do the 4 submission. The Office of Grants and Contracts did 5 the actual submission of the form. 6 Q Well, it's got a date stamp of June 28. 7 A Yes. 8 Q So would you be willing to testify that 9 that was the application initially submitted by 10 University of Massachusetts? 11 A Yes, I would think it looks like it the 12 original one to me. 13 MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, we'd like to now 14 just go ahead and admit Government Exhibit 1. We 15 do have a--well, I guess--I don't know if it's an 16 original but it's a clerk copy as well. 17 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Any objection, Ms. 18 Carpenter? 19 MS. CARPENTER: No, Your Honor. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Received. 21 [Government's Exhibit No. 1 22 was marked for identification 0210 1 and received in evidence.] 2 MR. BAYLY: Thank you, Judge Bittner. If 3 I may, I'll just take that back. 4 THE WITNESS: Sure. 5 MR. BAYLY: I don't think you'll need it. 6 BY MR. BAYLY: 7 Q Dr. Craker, before you filed this 8 application-- 9 A Yes. 10 Q --that's Government Exhibit 1, I 11 understand you were approached by Dr. Doblin? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q How did you know Dr. Doblin? Did he just 14 kind of approach you from out of the blue or did 15 you have any prior contacts with him? 16 A I think the initial approach--I can't 17 recall for sure, but the initial approach was 18 probably a telephone call. That's the way usually 19 people get in contact with me initially. And I 20 assume this would be the same procedure followed by 21 Dr. Doblin, but I can't honestly tell you. 22 Q When he called, did you know who he was, 0211 1 or was this-- 2 A I had no idea who he was. 3 Q Okay. Any idea how he found out about 4 you? 5 A Well, there's several answers. He could 6 have possibly picked my name by random, I assume. 7 But I suspect that he probably began investigating 8 people that work with medicinal plants and came 9 across my name. I suspect that. I would hope that 10 would be the case, but he could probably answer 11 that better than I could. 12 Q All right. Now, when you were first 13 contacted by Dr. Doblin, were you aware that there 14 was another cultivator of marijuana registered to 15 provide marijuana for researchers at that point? 16 A I had heard of it being grown, but I had 17 no interest in it at the time and had not followed 18 up on anything about it. 19 Q Now, the initial contact from Dr. Doblin 20 in order for you to file this application, was the 21 rationale that we needed another supplier for 22 researchers? 0212 1 A Well, that was certainly, if I can recall 2 from the conversation, what Dr. Doblin talked 3 about. Whether it was the first conversation we 4 had or secondary conversations, I could not tell 5 you. I was convinced by the--when I began, after 6 he--if I could back up just a little bit. I was 7 initially approached by the state of Massachusetts 8 about growing marijuana, medical marijuana, 9 approximately five to six years before Dr. Doblin 10 spoke to me. 11 And I began to look just a little bit at 12 the marijuana literature that was available, and 13 got interested in that, hey, this may very well be 14 a medicinal plant. It's illegal. So after talking 15 with Dr. Doblin, I began to look more into reports, 16 anecdotal reports and anything else I could find 17 about this and began to visualize this plant as 18 perhaps a medicine that should be available to the 19 public, not to violate security regulations or not 20 to see it diverted into a recreational drug, but 21 to--I thought it could be a medicine that could be 22 used. 0213 1 Q And can you recall, Dr. Craker, your 2 initial contacts with Dr. Doblin? Were there 3 discussions about needing an additional supplier 4 because the current supplier's product was not very 5 good or was the discussion more that we need an 6 additional supplier just because we need more 7 supply? 8 A I never heard that--I honestly can't 9 recall the initial conversations that well even 10 though I try. There were several things talked 11 about. I think we mainly talked about the 12 potential health, possible health benefits of 13 medical marijuana for the patients. 14 We probably talked about the available 15 supply, but I cannot, I honestly cannot recall. In 16 the initial conversations I just have no idea what 17 we all covered. 18 Q Well, Dr. Craker, at the time you filed 19 this application, and we'll go by that date stamp. 20 A Yes. 21 Q It must have been in late June-- 22 A Yes. 0214 1 Q --2001. When you filed this application, 2 was it your thinking that the University of 3 Mississippi had an inadequate supply of marijuana 4 to researchers? 5 A At the time this application was filed, I 6 had no idea how much the University of Mississippi 7 was producing. I had a minimal idea that there had 8 been some complaints about quality, but only a 9 minimal idea. I was, I think that probably, that's 10 probably where my thinking rested at the time. 11 Q All right. So would it be fair to say 12 then when you filed the application, you weren't 13 concerned with a lack of quantity, but there had 14 been some, a few reports about quality problems 15 with the University of Mississippi marijuana? 16 A I would say that's probably true. I think 17 that, because as I recall, again, we'd have to--Dr. 18 Doblin could answer--we probably had initial 19 contact probably two months or maybe three months 20 before this application went in. 21 Between that time and the application, I 22 had an opportunity to talk with other people about 0215 1 this, and we became concerned at that time, I 2 guess, about the availability. I wouldn't say 3 quantity necessarily, but the availability to 4 researchers to--again I was primarily concerned 5 with clinical, being able to do clinical trials, 6 and I understood from talking to other people that 7 there was a--that the marijuana from Mississippi 8 may have been of relatively low quality, and that 9 was not readily available to run the clinical 10 trials which some people wanted to run. 11 Q All right. Can you recall or, first of 12 all, was there anybody other than Dr. Doblin that 13 you talked about in terms of the quality problem 14 that you're talking about the University of 15 Mississippi had with its marijuana? 16 A I can't remember anybody specifically 17 because I talked to several, several people during 18 that time. I can't recall anybody specifically and 19 I can't recall all the conversations either. It's 20 been way too far from my mind, my memory, to recall 21 the specific conversations. Again, I talked with 22 everybody I could talk with at the time, and I just 0216 1 have to leave it at that. I would, if I had better 2 answers, I would give them. 3 Q Well, Dr. Craker, do you recall contact or 4 communicating with any researchers who use 5 marijuana before you filed your application in June 6 of 2001? 7 A I remember we talked to, I talked to a 8 medical doctor. I recall, I think I spoke with a 9 friend of mine at Beltsville who had been growing 10 these type of materials. 11 Q Was he using marijuana for clinical 12 research? 13 A No, no. It was--and he was using, growing 14 cocoa for cocaine at the time. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Doctor, I think you should 16 just for the Deputy Administrator and anyone else 17 who may review this explain what you mean by 18 Beltsville? 19 THE WITNESS: With USDA center in 20 Beltsville, Maryland. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: United States Department 22 of Agriculture? 0217 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 3 BY MR. BAYLY: 4 Q And perhaps also, Dr. Craker, for the 5 record, for clarity, when we talk about clinical 6 studies, we're talking about research with people, 7 on human subjects? 8 A Well, that would be up to the 9 investigator. That's not my, that's not my--I 10 assume that clinical trials eventually end up with 11 people, as we heard some testimony yesterday that 12 that was--I don't know--they have Phase 1 and Phase 13 2 and Phase 3. 14 Q Well, is it your understanding that you 15 would be supplying marijuana for clinical trials? 16 A My understanding would be that I would be--my 17 understanding is that I would be supplying 18 marijuana to people that wanted to use this 19 material in various DEA approved studies and FDA 20 approved studies, DEA, FDA. 21 Q All right. Other than your friend in 22 Beltsville, were there any other researchers or 0218 1 medical personnel that you talked about in terms of 2 the quality of marijuana before you filed your 3 application here? 4 A Not that I can recall. 5 Q Can you recall the sorts of information 6 that you found out? You said there were a few 7 problems with the quality of the University of 8 Mississippi marijuana. What sources did you check 9 with to find this out before you filed your June 10 28, 2001 application? 11 A I thought I had just told you those-- 12 MS. CARPENTER: Objection. Asked and 13 answered, Your Honor. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm not sure. Overruled. 15 Go ahead. Would you like to rephrase the question, 16 Mr. Bayly? 17 MR. BAYLY: All right. Yeah, I think I 18 could. 19 BY MR. BAYLY: 20 Q Were there any other sources that you 21 contacted to confirm or not confirm, as the case 22 may be, about the quality of the University of 0219 1 Mississippi marijuana before you filed your 2 application? 3 A I would say no, nothing other than I've 4 already said. 5 Q Would it be fair to say, Dr. Craker, that 6 this application was filed based on the urging of 7 Dr. Doblin? In other words, if you didn't get the 8 call, would you have filed this application? 9 A That's true. All research at the 10 university is done by source of funding, and 11 without funding, we don't do any research. 12 Q Well, this leads into another topic, Dr. 13 Craker, and I'd like to find out what your--and 14 when I say you, I mean you and the University of 15 Massachusetts-- 16 A Yes. 17 Q --relationship is with Dr. Doblin now? 18 Now, Dr. Doblin, I think we all know, is the head 19 of MAPS? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And that stands for? 22 A Multidisciplinary Association for 0220 1 Psychedelic--I don't know what the last-- 2 Q Studies? 3 A What? 4 MR. BAYLY: You want to stipulate? 5 MS. CARPENTER: I will stipulate Studies 6 is the last word, yeah. 7 THE WITNESS: Studies. Okay. 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Is it the 9 Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic 10 Studies? 11 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 13 MR. BAYLY: All right. We can stipulate 14 to that again. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Received. 16 MR. BAYLY: I know it gets tiring with all 17 these acronyms so-- 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 BY MR. BAYLY: 20 Q And MAPS is--your understanding, it's a 21 not-for-profit organization; is that correct? 22 A That's my understanding. 0221 1 Q Okay. Now who is going to pay for the 2 cost of, first of all, of buying any extra 3 equipment that you need to cultivate the marijuana? 4 A This would have to be funded by a research 5 grant. 6 Q A research grant to the university? 7 A To the University of Massachusetts. 8 Q And who would supply that research grant? 9 A Well, the initial funding would, has been--would 10 be raised by MAPS, I'm assuming. 11 Q All right. Now, as MAPS made that money 12 available or is it like in escrow or is there a 13 promissory note or anything of that nature? 14 A No. 15 Q And you've talked a little bit about the 16 security costs, Dr. Craker. Who is going to pay 17 for the security costs for the growing and 18 cultivating of the marijuana? Would that be 19 University of Massachusetts or would you need a 20 research grant? 21 A We would need grants to help support that 22 also. 0222 1 Q And would that come from MAPS? 2 A It could come from MAPS or any other 3 agency that would be willing to contribute. 4 Q When you say "agency," what? 5 A It could be, it could be, it could be 6 another organization interested in supporting the 7 university. We get money from--the university gets 8 money from several sources. 9 Q Dr. Craker, at this point, do you have an 10 estimate of how much money the security would 11 entail to initially install? 12 A Well, I do not have an exact estimate 13 because I don't know exactly what security is going 14 to yet be required. That has not been outlined to 15 me. I mean the, the agents have looked at the 16 room, but they have not, federal agents have not 17 told me anything about what's necessary. 18 Q You mean you've never discussed security 19 requirements with any DEA investigators? 20 A Not with any Drug Enforcement, federal 21 Drug Enforcement Administration people, no. Except 22 for what I've outlined before is they wanted an 0223 1 enclosed room, they wanted the outside wall 2 submerged below the ground level. Beyond that, we 3 have not discussed what would be necessary for 4 security. 5 Q All right. But based on those two 6 requirements that you just mentioned, any cost 7 estimates? 8 A Well, based on those two things, the cost 9 estimates would be practically nil because the room 10 is available to me and it has a lock on the door, 11 if that's all that's necessary. The university 12 will supply that. 13 Q All right. Now, if your application is 14 granted and you cultivate marijuana and you're 15 going to supply it to a researcher, does the 16 researcher pay you as the University of 17 Massachusetts for this marijuana? 18 A Those details are yet to be worked out. 19 Generally, in this type of case, I suspect that 20 there would be some charge to pay for shipping 21 items like this. 22 Q I'm sorry. You said generally what now? 0224 1 A That generally that there would probably 2 be some charges. For example, I would suspect the 3 person who wanted the material would pay for 4 shipping. 5 Q Do you have an idea if the marijuana would 6 be provided at cost or--well, let me back up here--I assume 7 as the University of Massachusetts in your 8 capacity, you're not a for-profit organization; are 9 you? 10 A No. 11 Q And you're not looking to make a profit 12 off of this endeavor? 13 A No. No, that's correct. 14 Q So would it be likely then that the 15 providing of the marijuana would be to reimburse 16 your costs, more or less? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Dr. Craker, are you familiar with the 19 prices that the University of Mississippi charges 20 researchers for the marijuana? 21 A I have no idea. 22 Q Now, will it be MAPS that will direct you 0225 1 to whom to supply the marijuana to? Is that how 2 you find out who your customers are? 3 A Well, that could be one way. I may very 4 well be approached by other people with approved 5 studies who need a source also. At this stage of 6 the game I have really no idea who the potential 7 customers all would be. 8 Q Sorry. Dr. Craker, I'm going to request 9 that you be handed Government Exhibit 3. 10 A Thank you. 11 Q Do you have that? 12 A Yes, I do. 13 Q Okay. Let's go to question, looks like 14 question one. It's the second paragraph, and we're 15 about four or five sentences down. Let's--I'll 16 read it and see, make sure you're with me here, Dr. 17 Craker. 18 It says: MAPS will sponsor research at 19 other institutions using smoked marijuana and 20 marijuana delivered through a vaporizer device. 21 Do you see that? 22 A Yes. 0226 1 Q All right. Now, I assume, and correct me 2 if I'm wrong, but this refers to Chemic; does it 3 not? 4 A I have no idea who it refers to. 5 Q Can you tell us--it says MAPS will sponsor 6 research at other institutions--can you tell us 7 what other institutions? 8 A No, I think that's a question for MAPS to 9 answer. 10 Q All right. So as far as any questions 11 about Chemic then, you're going to refer me to Dr. 12 Doblin? 13 A I would have to. I don't know anything 14 about Chemic. 15 Q Okay. Dr. Craker, has Dr. Doblin given 16 you any suggestions on whom your potential research 17 customers might be? 18 A Well, he certainly indicated to me that in 19 the case of any that MAPS would be working with 20 would be properly licensed. 21 Q Well, I understand that. I'm looking for 22 names, however. 0227 1 A No. They have not been discussed with me. 2 Q Have you yourself canvassed any potential 3 customers? 4 A Have I--the answer to that is no. I have 5 received e-mails from various people indicating 6 that they might be interested if we got a license. 7 Q Did you respond to those e-mails? 8 A I did not. 9 Q Could you tell us who any of those folks 10 are? 11 A No. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: No because? 13 THE WITNESS: No, because I did not, I 14 don't have any record of them with me obviously 15 and, secondly, because I'm not sure they're 16 legitimate requests. 17 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. So you didn't-- 18 THE WITNESS: I didn't make any note of 19 them at all. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: You didn't check these--I 21 don't mean to cross-examine you. I'm sorry. 22 THE WITNESS: No, that's okay. 0228 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Did you check these out at 2 all? 3 THE WITNESS: Not at all. 4 JUDGE BITTNER: You just got them and-- 5 THE WITNESS: Not at all. We did not--we 6 don't have a license to manufacture the material, 7 so I get enough e-mails to answer without having to 8 worry about ones that are some time in the future. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: So you didn't respond? 10 THE WITNESS: I did not respond to any of 11 them. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 13 BY MR. BAYLY: 14 Q Dr. Craker, have you had any 15 correspondence from or to a pharmaceutical drug 16 company? 17 A No, not that I'm aware of. 18 Q Dr. Craker, I understand--well, let me 19 back up here and rephrase this. Let's look at 20 Government Exhibit 3 here, your answers to the bulk 21 manufacturing questions. 22 A Yes. 0229 1 Q Looks like the second paragraph under 2 question number one, looks like the same sentence I 3 referred to before. I'm just looking at the end of 4 it. It says--well, let me read it. It's short. 5 MAPS will sponsor research at other 6 institutions using smoked marijuana and marijuana 7 delivered through a vaporizer device that heats but 8 does not burn the plant material, thus reducing the 9 products of combustion normally found in smoked 10 marijuana. 11 Do you have an idea of who is developing 12 this vaporizer device? 13 A The exact company, no. I've obviously in 14 talking with Dr. Doblin have become familiar that 15 MAPS is sponsoring research in this area. 16 Q This company, Dr. Craker, do you have any 17 idea of whether they're at this point permitted 18 under law to receive marijuana for research? 19 A I have no idea. 20 Q Do you have any idea what quantity or 21 quality of marijuana this company would need? 22 A I've had no contact with the company. 0230 1 Q All right. Dr. Craker, I understand that 2 you're not intending to do research yourself with 3 the marijuana that you grow and cultivate; is that 4 correct? 5 A That is--I mean--I don't know what you 6 mean by research. Research is a big word that 7 covers a lot of things. 8 Q All right. 9 A Certainly-- 10 Q That's fine. Let me break it down then. 11 A Okay. 12 Q Obviously, it's not going to be you the 13 one that is working on a vaporizer device; is that 14 right? 15 A That's certainly true. I'm not a 16 qualified engineer. 17 Q This manufacturing registration, you don't 18 intend to work on any particular devices, do you, 19 that deliver possible-- 20 A No. 21 Q --medical marijuana? 22 A No. 0231 1 Q Now is it your intent to--your intent, I 2 understand, is to provide the plant material to any 3 possible researcher or potential pharmaceutical 4 company that would need it for research themselves; 5 is that correct? 6 A That's correct if they have the 7 appropriate licenses. 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Could I jump in here a 9 minute because I have a feeling I'm in the same 10 category as Mr. Trant? I can't keep the deer away 11 from my tomatoes. So are you in a position to, for 12 example, say, supposing you get the registration-- 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: --and a research, a 15 clinical researcher says, well, you know, I found 16 that with Patient X, the vaporizer did such and 17 such in terms of relief of symptoms, let's say. 18 And with Patient Y, there was a somewhat different 19 response. 20 Based on your expertise with medicinal 21 plants, are you in a position to say maybe it's 22 because of alpha? 0232 1 THE WITNESS: No. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. So you see where 3 I'm kind of trying to understand. So is your 4 expertise in saying I know how to grow a plant that 5 will have more cellulose in it? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: And less something else? 8 THE WITNESS: Lignin. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: But now what that 10 cellulose is going to do in the human body? 11 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. I think I have 13 more, but I have to process that. Okay. Go ahead, 14 Mr. Bayly. 15 MR. BAYLY: All right. Thank you, Judge 16 Bittner. 17 BY MR. BAYLY: 18 Q Dr. Craker, again, I want to refer you 19 to-- 20 A Sure. 21 Q --this Government Exhibit 3. And if we 22 could flip over to page two. At the bottom of the 0233 1 page-- 2 A Yes. 3 Q You say the goal for the first year is a 4 maximum of 25 pounds dry weight of manicured buds 5 in an FDA approved dosage form. This amount would 6 be from several different strains to ensure 7 researchers a range of potency from about seven to 8 15 percent THC. 9 First of all, you say your goal is to grow 10 a maximum of 25 pounds dry weight. Now would you 11 say--for the first year--and are you able to tell 12 us if that amount of something that a--it's a 13 research amount as opposed to a commercial amount? 14 A I don't understand the point you're trying 15 to get at. 16 Q Well, all right. Let me put it this way. 17 25 pounds is not a lot in terms of amount, is it, 18 in your opinion in terms of wanting to supply to 19 researchers? 20 A Well, it all depends on the plant you're 21 talking about. It's certainly not a lot for some 22 plants, but it looks like a lot for me for 0234 1 marijuana. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: It would be a lot of 3 saffron. 4 THE WITNESS: Uh? 5 JUDGE BITTNER: It would be a lot of 6 saffron. 7 THE WITNESS: A lot of? 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Saffron. 9 THE WITNESS: Be a lot of saffron. We 10 should have that, yes. 11 [Laughter.] 12 BY MR. BAYLY: 13 Q All right. Well, let me ask you, if you 14 get there--let's say you get the registration 15 tomorrow. 16 A Yes. 17 Q That you're going to be registered. 18 A Yes. 19 Q Would you now at that point start planting 20 and making arrangements to grow up to 25 pounds? 21 A No. There would be, we'd have to install 22 the security required. We would have to purchase 0235 1 the necessary equipment. I assume that would 2 probably take at least six months. 3 Q Well, right now, you don't have any 4 pharmaceutical companies in mind to-- 5 A No. 6 Q --be a customer? 7 A No. 8 Q And you don't have any researchers that 9 you know of except one that is going to develop a 10 vaporizer; is that correct? 11 A That's correct. 12 Q Now, given that status, Dr. Craker, would 13 you still commence--I understand after you put in 14 the security and what have you-- 15 A Yes. 16 Q --would you still commence to grow the 17 marijuana? 18 A Well, I certainly think we would start to 19 commence to grow some marijuana because the system 20 needs to be checked and see if it all works. 21 That's probably the first go-around. 22 Q Well, this goal of developing 25 pounds, 0236 1 is that for the purpose of seeing if, how the whole 2 operation is going to work? 3 A No, I think that part of that would be 4 available if requested by appropriately licensed 5 people. That could be used to supply them also. 6 Q All right. Then the question is, Dr. 7 Craker, would you start to grow this 25 pounds for 8 researchers without actually having a commitment 9 from a researcher or pharmaceutical company? 10 A No, I would want to have a commitment 11 that--how much--we need to have a commitment of how 12 much the researcher needed and we need to have a 13 commitment of what THC level they needed in the 14 material. 15 Q Okay. And at this point, you don't have 16 that? 17 A I have not. 18 Q Dr. Craker, I'm going to refer you to the 19 same sentence that I just mentioned in Government 20 Exhibit 3 here, bottom of page two. 21 A Yes. 22 Q It says the goal for the first year is a 0237 1 maximum of 25 pounds dry weight of manicured buds 2 in an FDA-approved dosage form. What do you mean 3 by "an FDA-approved dosage form"? 4 A Well, to me, this meant in a dried ground 5 material. 6 Q So that would not include extracts or 7 anything of that nature? 8 A No. 9 Q Moving on, in the same answer here, on the 10 bottom of page two, top of page three, your answer 11 indicates this amount would be from several 12 different strains to ensure researchers a range of 13 potencies from about seven to 15 percent THC. 14 Dr. Craker, at this time, are you aware of 15 any researchers that would need any specific THC 16 potency amounts in this range? In other words, 17 there's somebody saying, Dr. Craker, I need 12 18 percent THC? 19 A The answer to that is no, I have not 20 received any researcher directly telling me that. 21 The comments I have received from researchers have 22 indicated that this is the type, the range they 0238 1 would like to be working in. 2 Q Can you tell us what researchers gave you 3 that information? 4 A These are--I cannot tell you the names of 5 any of them. Again, my apologies. But I go to 6 several medicinal plant conferences throughout the 7 year, and this is a general indication of the type 8 of range that should be used. 9 Q Dr. Craker, do you have any information 10 that these researchers are not getting this 11 percentage of this range of THC from the University 12 of Mississippi? 13 A I have no direct evidence that they're 14 not. 15 Q Dr. Craker, do you hold any patents with 16 regard to growing medicinal plants? 17 A No. 18 Q Do you have any patents of this nature 19 pending? 20 A No. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: When you say "you," I just 22 want to--does the University of Massachusetts have 0239 1 any patents for things you grew? I mean have you 2 had anything to do with any patent? 3 THE WITNESS: With reference to medicinal 4 plants, no. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. With anything else? 6 THE WITNESS: Directly, no. Indirectly, 7 one of our, the university does patent some 8 flowers, for agricultural plants, some vegetable 9 plants, and I'm in the same department. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 11 BY MR. BAYLY: 12 Q Now, Dr. Craker, if you supply marijuana 13 to researchers, well, let me back up here--let me 14 make sure--let me ask you this. I believe 15 yesterday on direct testimony, you indicated that 16 the supplying of the marijuana would not be for 17 smoked marijuana studies; is that correct? 18 A That's my understand--yes, the initial 19 type of studies for what I'm aware of would be the 20 vaporizer studies. That's all I'm aware of. 21 Q Was that also, were you aware of that at 22 the time you filed your application? 0240 1 A Yes. 2 Q Would you please look at Government 3 Exhibit 3. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Again, I'm sorry to skip around. 6 A That's okay. 7 Q But we're back on page one, paragraph one. 8 In fact, I think it's sentence in the application 9 answer that I've already read. It says: MAPS will 10 sponsor research at other institutions using smoked 11 marijuana. And that's what you put on your-- 12 A Yes. 13 Q All right. 14 A Well, I had no idea at the time that we 15 were filling this out where the applications may 16 come from. The only intent I had in mind at the 17 time, the only thing I was aware of was vaporizer 18 studies. 19 Q So where did you get the using "smoked 20 marijuana"? What-- 21 A Well, that probably came because it's a 22 common delivery source. If you ask me to write 0241 1 this answer today, I would leave the "smoked" out 2 because now that I've read more on the smoked 3 marijuana, I find that less attractive delivery 4 means. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: So would you be willing to 6 limited and to say I won't provide any marijuana 7 for smoking or do you want to have that option 8 open? I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I 9 don't know if you've thought about it. 10 THE WITNESS: I have not thought about 11 that at all. And we have, the, and again as we get 12 more into it, the science is divided on that. I 13 mean I think that I've read various studies that 14 says the smoked marijuana is a good way to deliver 15 it and smoked marijuana is a bad way to deliver it. 16 I would, I'm not in favor of the smoked 17 marijuana not only because of the possible 18 carcinogens, I'm against smoking in general, and 19 don't look at that as a nice thing to do. But if 20 that's the delivery system that is most effective, 21 then I don't think that we should eliminate it 22 entirely. 0242 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Would you have any 2 interest in, again, because I know nothing about 3 medicinal plants. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: So I'm asking questions 6 that might be kind of stupid. Would you have any 7 interest, for example, down the road, supposing you 8 get this registration, of working on developing 9 plants that wouldn't have the harmful components 10 that would be a problem with smoking or is that not 11 possible? 12 THE WITNESS: That is very possible, and 13 that would be a great idea. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 15 BY MR. BAYLY: 16 Q Now, Dr. Craker, if you do supply 17 marijuana for smoking to a researcher-- 18 A Yes. 19 Q --would you be in the position to supply 20 the cigarette papers, the marijuana cigarette 21 papers for the-- 22 A I have no supply of papers. I have no 0243 1 supply of papers currently. I mean I expect that 2 they probably can be ordered and purchased. 3 Q Well, then, would you, are you planning to 4 send it to the research in bulk, and they will roll 5 it? Are you planning to-- 6 A That would be my intention. 7 Q All right. Dr. Craker, let's talk a 8 little bit. I think you mentioned this, and we 9 want to just get some more estimates here. I think 10 you said it's going to take a certain amount of 11 time to put in the security. 12 A Yes. 13 Q Okay. But you're not certain what the 14 actual security requirements are at this time? 15 A That's true. Yes. 16 Q And then the next step would be to grow 17 the marijuana, to see if it works for lack of a 18 better-- 19 A Yes. 20 Q And how long would that process take 21 about? 22 A Well, I suspect that would probably take 0244 1 a--we would probably have some idea whether things 2 are going to work probably in the period of three 3 to six months. 4 Q Sorry to skip around. But I got a few 5 more questions about potency. 6 A Sure. 7 Q I think you've indicated both on your 8 application that--and from conferences that you 9 heard that the potency that researchers might need 10 would range from seven to 15 percent? 11 A Yes. 12 Q When you found out about the potency range 13 being from seven to 15 percent at these 14 conferences, were these conferences that you 15 attended after you filed your application? 16 A Yes. Most of them I would say yes. 17 Q And were most of them filed after you 18 filed these questions in Government Exhibit 3? 19 A Probably some of them were, but some of 20 them were certainly--it's another one of those 21 things I've not personally kept track of when I 22 talked to people. 0245 1 Q All right. 2 A It could be either way. 3 Q Okay. Thank you. Would these potency 4 ranges from seven to 15 percent, these are potency 5 ranges that you're saying the researchers would use 6 for clinical trials on people, on humans? 7 A They could use them on humans if they had 8 again the appropriate licenses to do so. 9 Q Okay. When you say "appropriate 10 licenses," just digress here for a second here, Dr. 11 Craker. 12 A Sure. 13 Q What do you mean by "appropriate 14 licenses"? 15 A I mean if they have FDA approval for 16 clinical trials and that they have any regulations 17 to handle these class of materials. I'm trying to 18 emphasize I'm not going to send this material off 19 to someone that would misappropriate it. 20 Q Well, I'll assume that if you develop a 15 21 percent THC content marijuana, that you'll be 22 sending it to a researcher that is licensed to use 0246 1 this marijuana on humans. 2 Do you have any idea what effect 15 3 percent THC would have on a human subject? 4 A I have no idea. That's not in 5 horticulture. 6 Q Dr. Craker, is it your understanding at 7 this time that the current supplier of marijuana to 8 researchers, and you know that's the University of 9 Mississippi-- 10 A Yes. 11 Q --supplies an inferior quality of 12 marijuana to the researchers? 13 A I have no direct evidence. 14 Q One way or the other? 15 A One way or the other. 16 Q So I take it then you've had no 17 opportunity to examine or confer with anybody at 18 the University of Mississippi in order to assess 19 their marijuana? 20 A No, I've talked to the principal 21 investigator at a conference last week, but we did 22 not discuss that. 0247 1 Q Now have you ever found out from any 2 source, Dr. Craker, that the University of 3 Mississippi was unable to supply a sufficient 4 quantity to the researchers and they said they ran 5 out, said I don't have any more? 6 A I've never come across that, no. 7 Q Now, I think you--well, I know you 8 testified that at one point about the time you 9 filed your application here that you had heard 10 about some complaints about the quality of the 11 University of Mississippi marijuana; is that 12 correct? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Do you know if the University of 15 Mississippi was ever apprised of these complaints? 16 A I have no idea. 17 Q Do you know if the University of 18 Mississippi ever had an opportunity to address 19 these complaints? 20 A I have no idea. 21 Q To your knowledge, has any researcher ever 22 made a direct complaint to the University of 0248 1 Mississippi about the quality of its marijuana? 2 A I have no idea. 3 Q Dr. Craker, I want to ask you a few 4 questions and we may be able to zip through this 5 topic because I'm not sure you've got information 6 about it, and if you don't, you don't. But are you 7 aware of researchers who have been denied the 8 University of Mississippi marijuana by NIDA? 9 A I have no information. 10 Q Okay. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: And NIDA is? 12 MR. BAYLY: National Institute of Drug 13 Abuse. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Is it "of" or "on," 15 probably not "for"? 16 MS. CARPENTER: I think it's "on." 17 MR. BAYLY: Yeah, "on." 18 JUDGE BITTNER: I don't know. Okay. I'll 19 look it up and let you know. 20 MR. BAYLY: Another acronym. 21 BY MR. BAYLY: 22 Q All right. So I take it also, Dr. Craker, 0249 1 you wouldn't have any knowledge about marijuana 2 research protocols that have been rejected by the 3 NIDA in the years 2003 or 2004? 4 A I have no idea. 5 Q Or even this year? 6 A No. 7 Q Are you aware that the University of 8 Mississippi is under a contract with NIDA and? 9 A Yes, I am aware of that. 10 Q And you're aware that this contract now 11 allows the University of Mississippi to cultivate 12 marijuana in order to supply researchers? 13 A I have no idea what the contract. I am 14 not privileged to the contract. 15 Q I think you testified yesterday, Dr. 16 Craker, that you did receive a copy of a bid-- 17 A Yes. 18 Q --to compete-- 19 A I did. 20 Q --a contract? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And this bid to compete for this contract, 0250 1 was that not for the NIDA contract that the 2 University of Mississippi now has? 3 A Yes. I assume it's the same one anyway. 4 Q Well, there's no other cultivator of 5 marijuana, at least legally, other than the 6 University of Mississippi at this time; is that 7 correct? To your knowledge? 8 A Well, for the manufacture of marijuana, 9 yes. I mean there are, there are other places 10 where marijuana is being grown legally. 11 Q Well, when you say manufacturing, I think 12 for purposes of your registration, it would be 13 growing, cultivating marijuana? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you obtained this notice to bid for 16 the contract, and that was for--that was sometime 17 in 2004? 18 A I don't think so. I think it was 2005. 19 Q Okay. 20 A But I don't know. 21 Q But in any event, fairly recently? 22 A Fairly very recently. We're in 2005; 0251 1 aren't we? Yes. 2 Q All right. And you chose not to compete 3 on the bid for this contract? 4 A That's true. 5 Q I think you said that yesterday as well. 6 A Yes, I did, yes. 7 Q Now, if I'm not mistaken, Dr. Craker, I 8 think one of the reasons you gave was that you 9 didn't feel you had the experience that the 10 University of Mississippi had and therefore there 11 wouldn't be much point in competing on this 12 contract? 13 A That was one of the reasons, yes. 14 Q And the other reason was you weren't--I 15 think you said you weren't interested in doing 16 analysis or assessing marijuana; is that correct? 17 A That's correct. 18 MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, I'd like the 19 witness to be shown Government Exhibit 13. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. I think you have 21 those, Mr. Bayly. 22 MR. BAYLY: Okay. 0252 1 JUDGE BITTNER: I think you have the 2 official copies of the ones that haven't been 3 received; am I right, Nicole? 4 MR. BAYLY: I'm sorry. Yeah. We may 5 have--should have given it to the clerk, but we 6 have the official-- 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 8 MS. CARPENTER: We have it, yeah. Thanks. 9 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 10 BY MR. BAYLY: 11 Q Thank you. Dr. Craker, I just handed you 12 Government Exhibit 13. And I'll represent that 13 that is the contract between NIDA and the 14 University of Mississippi and if you go to the 15 second page-- 16 A Yes. 17 Q --Dr. Craker, and the second paragraph, it 18 says in addition to analysis of grown material, 19 analyses shall be performed on approximately 100 20 samples of confiscated marijuana each month which 21 are provided by the Drug Enforcement 22 Administration. 0253 1 These analyses provide a means of 2 determining potency trends of illicit marijuana by 3 determination of the--I'm going to say THC rather 4 than pronounce that--concentration and also of 5 screening for herbicide contamination which might 6 create a public health problem. 7 Now, I believe you indicated yesterday 8 that the other reason you didn't choose to compete 9 on this contract was you weren't interested in 10 doing that aspect of it? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Dr. Craker, if you get this registration, 13 you wouldn't be the only person that would be 14 cultivating, drying, getting the marijuana ready to 15 be sent and all the other things you need to do, 16 would you? Would you have some help? 17 A Well, I usually have help in all projects, 18 yes. 19 Q All right. And what kind of--have you 20 planned who's going to help out and do what? Have 21 you made any plans? 22 A I mean we're an educational institution. 0254 1 I assume there would be graduate students that 2 would be interested in any type of project. We 3 hire technicians at the university to do work, and 4 I assume that they would participate in this in 5 some manner. 6 Q But you don't know how yet? 7 A I don't know how. I mean I usually don't 8 go down and water the plants in the greenhouse; I 9 usually, I have a technician that does that. 10 Q Other than that, any plans for what these 11 graduate students would do? 12 A I have no plans currently. It depends on 13 the graduate students you get and what their 14 interests are. They vary all over the board. Some 15 of them come interested in everything from growing 16 plants to determining the effect of environmental, 17 of variables on plants. It's very difficult to 18 predict what a student will be interested in down 19 the road. 20 Q What would be--what would be some of the 21 tasks that they would do? 22 A Well, we talked about watering. They 0255 1 would probably do the transplanting. They would 2 do--I don't know. I assume there would have to be 3 a daily check on any environmental controls we 4 have. They'd have to do that. These are the type 5 of things. 6 MR. BAYLY: All right. Your Honor, I'd 7 like Dr. Craker to be shown Government Exhibit 30, 8 and again we'll have to supply that. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Can I just ask, Doctor-- 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: --do you have any 12 experience with having to provide security for 13 plants? 14 THE WITNESS: I have personally no. The 15 only security I'm aware that I've dealt with in 16 plants has to do with my work at the U.S. Army in 17 Fort Detrick, Maryland, which was secret work we 18 did there. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. But you haven't 20 worked on growing, say, extremely rare or valuable 21 plants that had-- 22 THE WITNESS: No. 0256 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Like the iris gardens that 2 got trashed the other day. Off the record. 3 [Discussion held off the record.] 4 JUDGE BITTNER: On the record. Okay. Mr. 5 Bayly, did you find your exhibit? 6 MR. BAYLY: Yes. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 8 MR. BAYLY: And I'd like to present Dr. 9 Craker with Exhibit 30, Government Exhibit 30. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 BY MR. BAYLY: 13 Q Dr. Craker-- 14 A Yes. 15 Q --I just presented you with Government 16 Exhibit 30, and this purports to be a letter from 17 you to Frank Sapienza, who was then with the Drug 18 Enforcement Administration. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Is this a letter you wrote to him? 21 A It has my signature on it, and I would 22 assume this is the letter I wrote to him. 0257 1 Q And this is dated June 2, 2003? 2 A Yes. 3 Q All right. So you indicate--I'm going to 4 refer you-- 5 MS. CARPENTER: Just for a minute, for the 6 witness to have a chance to read the letter before 7 he answers questions about it. 8 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I did not hear. 9 MS. CARPENTER: Do you need a minute to 10 read the letter before you answer questions about 11 it? 12 THE WITNESS: I'd like--unless he's going 13 to refer to a specific part that I can read. I 14 mean I can--it looks like--may I read it? 15 MR. BAYLY: Well, yeah. I was going to 16 read the excerpts but if you want to review the 17 whole letter. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Why don't we just go off 19 the record and give the witness--I don't think we 20 really need to read it into the record. You can 21 just refer to paragraphs. 22 MR. BAYLY: That's fine. 0258 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Again, if it's received, 2 I'll read it. 3 MS. CARPENTER: It was just that it was 4 sometime ago, and I want to make sure Dr. Craker 5 remembers it. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. Okay. Let's go 7 off the record for a minute. 8 [Off the record.] 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Back on the record. 10 BY MR. BAYLY: 11 Q Dr. Craker, have you had a chance to 12 review Government Exhibit 30, the letter from you 13 to Frank Sapienza? 14 A I've done a read of it, yes. 15 Q All right. I want to refer you to an 16 excerpt in the first paragraph. 17 A Yes. 18 Q You indicate, quote, "A second source of 19 plant material is needed to facilitate privately 20 funded FDA approved research into medical uses of 21 marijuana." 22 Now, at the time you wrote this letter to 0259 1 Frank Sapienza, there was, you had no specific 2 researchers in mind; did you? 3 A That's true. 4 Q And the last sentence in this letter-- 5 A Yes, the last sentence in the letter? 6 Q I'm sorry. Last sentence in the first 7 paragraph of the letter. 8 A Yes. 9 Q I apologize. Let me read it here because 10 it's short so we'll get the context: 11 Ultimate testing of marijuana for 12 medicinal use will undoubtedly cost several 13 millions of dollars and expense that private drug 14 companies will be hesitant to invest without 15 assurances of being able to evaluate various plant 16 sources. 17 First of all, could you be a little more 18 specific about the amount of cost other than 19 several million or can you? I mean can you-- 20 A I can't be. I've taken this from 21 anecdotal evidence, anecdotal things you read in 22 the newspaper that it costs several million dollars 0260 1 to develop a drug. 2 Q All right. So there hasn't been any 3 specific pharmaceutical company-- 4 A No. 5 Q --that gave you that estimate? 6 A No. 7 Q And you didn't get this information from 8 any specific pharmaceutical drug company 9 representative? 10 A No. 11 Q Did any specific pharmaceutical drug 12 company representative give you the information 13 that their company would be hesitant to invest 14 without assurances of being able to evaluate 15 various plant sources? 16 A Reference to marijuana, no. 17 Q Okay. Let's drop down to I think 18 paragraph two. I'll quote it again. 19 Quote: "While I recognize that the primary 20 researchers now receiving plant material may openly 21 state to you that they are satisfied with the 22 current source, I am sure you appreciate that in 0261 1 private conversations, these same researchers 2 indicate a fear of having the current supply 3 eliminated if they complain about the available 4 source material." 5 So I just want to ask you a few questions 6 about that. 7 A Certainly. 8 Q When you wrote this letter to Frank 9 Sapienza, did you have any specific information 10 that any of these researchers had contacted DEA to 11 express dissatisfaction with NIDA marijuana? 12 A I had no information that they had 13 contacted NIDA, no. 14 MR. BAYLY: I'm trying to find this. 15 Maybe somebody can help me out here. I'm looking 16 for a quote, and it says in private conversations, 17 these same researchers indicate a fear of having 18 the current supply eliminated if they complain 19 about the available source material. That would be 20 the second paragraph. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Oh, here you go. I am 22 sure you appreciate that in private conversations--second 0262 1 line, second paragraph. 2 MR. BAYLY: Right. Maybe I should read 3 the whole sentence for context. 4 MS. CARPENTER: That would be a good idea. 5 MR. BAYLY: The whole sentence is, quote: 6 "While I recognize that the primary researchers now 7 receiving plant material may openly state to you 8 that they're satisfied with the current source, I'm 9 sure you appreciate that in private conversations 10 these same researchers indicate a fear of having 11 the current supply eliminated if they complain 12 about the available source material." 13 BY MR. BAYLY: 14 Q The question is, Dr. Craker, do you know 15 what researchers have made these private 16 complaints? 17 A By name, no. Again, this results from e-mails 18 that I've had. 19 Q E-mails from whom? 20 A Various individuals and whether they are 21 legitimate or not, I have no idea. 22 Q Okay. So you can't say that these e-mails 0263 1 are even from-- 2 A I can't even say these people were getting 3 the material from NIDA at the time, no. 4 Q Are you aware of the CMCR researchers in 5 California? 6 A No. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry. I think we 8 need the acronym spelled out. This is a quiz, Mr. 9 Bayly. 10 MR. BAYLY: Center for Medicinal Cannabis 11 Research. We had some exhibits on that, I think. 12 I think probably Defense does too. 13 MS. CARPENTER: Yes, that's the name. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry. The Center? 15 MS. CARPENTER: The Center for Cannabis-- 16 MR. HOPPER: Center for Medicinal Cannabis 17 Research. 18 MS. CARPENTER: --Research. 19 MR. HOPPER: CMCR. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Guess who no longer knows 21 the alphabet. CMCR. 22 MS. CARPENTER: Right. 0264 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 2 BY MR. BAYLY: 3 Q Right. So you won't be able to tell us if 4 any of these CMCR researchers made any complaints 5 about the University of Mississippi? 6 A I would not have any idea. 7 Q Okay. Now, your letter--this is going 8 down to the next to the last paragraph, Dr. Craker. 9 Third paragraph. It starts out, quote: "To 10 illustrate the problem of quality, I've enclosed 11 copies of two documents for your review, both of 12 which I know you are familiar. The letter you 13 received from Dr. Russo and an article from the San 14 Mateo County Times quoting Dr. Israelski, Director 15 of Medical Research at the San Mateo"--I think it 16 meant Medical Center in California. 17 A Umm, misspelling. 18 Q Probably a misprint. Have you ever spoken 19 with Dr. Israelski? 20 A No. 21 Q Did you actually see a quote in this 22 article where he complained about the marijuana? 0265 1 A Without looking at the original article, I 2 have no idea. 3 MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, I'd like to 4 present Dr. Craker with a copy of--it's not a 5 Government Exhibit, but I'd mark it I guess for 6 identification as a Government Exhibit. It's San 7 Mateo County Times article. 8 MS. CARPENTER: Was this previously 9 furnished to us? 10 MR. BAYLY: No, this was not. This was 11 only used for cross-examination. It's not a-- 12 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. I had 13 understood we had to introduce all documents that 14 were going to be used. Is there a rule about cross 15 examination that's different? 16 JUDGE BITTNER: No. It's that you have to 17 exchange or advise all documents that you intend to 18 offer into evidence. 19 MS. CARPENTER: Into evidence. Okay. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: I don't know if this is 21 going to be offered or not. 22 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. I understand. 0266 1 JUDGE BITTNER: I haven't gotten that far. 2 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Well, I would have 3 objection if it's going to be offered into 4 evidence. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, I'll let you show it 6 to the witness and we'll see what happens. 7 MR. BAYLY: All right. Your Honor, may I 8 approach you and give you a copy too? 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Sure. 10 MR. BAYLY: So we're all on the same page, 11 so to speak. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: As it were. 13 MR. BAYLY: And I have one for Dr. Craker. 14 MS. CARPENTER: I guess I'd just like to 15 know are you representing that this is what was 16 attached to the letter? Is that the relevance of 17 this? 18 MR. BAYLY: Yes. 19 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. And do we have some 20 evidence of that? 21 MR. BAYLY: I'm sorry? 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, I think that's where 0267 1 we're going. 2 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. 3 MR. BAYLY: I have to ask the witness. 4 MS. CARPENTER: Got it. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. Okay. 6 BY MR. BAYLY: 7 Q Dr. Craker, I just handed you a copy of 8 what's been identified as a San Mateo County Times 9 news article. It's dated January 24, 2003, and to 10 the best of your knowledge, is this the article 11 that you're referring to in the letter in 12 Government Exhibit 30? 13 A I don't see the date, the January 24, or 14 June 24 on here anyplace. Oh, from the January 24 15 from the date of the paper, you mean? Not the date 16 of the-- 17 Q Right. It's, you go down several lines 18 and then you see staff writer. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Under the byline. 20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, in the byline. I see 21 where you're getting the January 24 from now, yes. 22 BY MR. BAYLY: 0268 1 Q Right. It says Friday, January 24, 2003. 2 A Yes. 3 Q Is this, to the best of your knowledge, 4 what was attached to the letter to Frank Sapienza 5 by you? 6 A I honestly cannot say, but if it came, if 7 your records show that it came with the memorandum, 8 I assume that it's probably what I sent. But you'd 9 have to testify to that, not me. I have no idea. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Oh, I see. Okay. 11 BY MR. BAYLY: 12 Q Well, referring to this letter then, is 13 there any quote from Dr. Israelski that the 14 marijuana from the University of Mississippi has 15 quality problems? 16 MS. CARPENTER: Objection. That 17 mischaracterizes the letter that Dr. Craker sent in 18 which he just says I enclosed two copies of a 19 document quoting Dr. Israelski. It doesn't say 20 what the quote is in reference to. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Sustained. I guess the 22 question--well, Mr. Bayly, would you rephrase your 0269 1 question? 2 MR. BAYLY: I'm sorry? 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Would you rephrase your 4 question? 5 MR. BAYLY: Okay. 6 BY MR. BAYLY: 7 Q Dr. Craker, was this letter sent to Frank 8 Sapienza to illustrate that Dr. Israelski himself 9 had problems with the quality of the marijuana that 10 University of Mississippi provided? 11 A Not necessarily. 12 MS. CARPENTER: Just for clarification, 13 when you say "this letter," you're talking about 14 the letter, not the article? 15 MR. BAYLY: I'm sorry. The article, the 16 San Mateo article. 17 THE WITNESS: I'm confused about what 18 we're talking about now. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. The document that 20 Mr. Bayly just gave you-- 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. 22 JUDGE BITTNER: --which appears to be 0270 1 something from a Web site. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. Let me just 4 make one other objection. There's also no 5 foundation that shows that this is the one that was 6 sent. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. But no pointing, 8 Ms. Carpenter. 9 MS. CARPENTER: Sorry. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: All right. 11 MS. CARPENTER: I forgot your rule. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. I believe the issue 13 that Mr. Bayly is addressing is do you know if this 14 document or a copy thereof is what you attached to 15 Government Exhibit 30 when you sent it to Mr. 16 Sapienza? 17 THE WITNESS: I have no idea if this is 18 the exact one that I attached. I would assume it 19 is because Mr. Bayly says it is. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, no. Mr. Bayly is 21 not testifying. 22 THE WITNESS: I know he's not testifying, 0271 1 but I would believe him. 2 [Laughter.] 3 JUDGE BITTNER: But do you recall what you 4 attached to the letter? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, all I recall is what 6 I've said here. I have no idea if this is the one 7 or not. 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 9 BY MR. BAYLY: 10 Q Well, Dr. Craker, you sent some news 11 articles from the San Mateo County Times in this 12 letter, and that's what you indicated in the 13 letter. Is that right? 14 A Yes, yes. 15 Q And if it weren't this, what else would it 16 be? 17 A I have no idea if there are other 18 articles. I have no idea. I mean I just can't 19 honestly answer that. I assume this is the one. 20 Q All right. But given that you're assuming 21 this is the one, is there anything in there that 22 indicates that Dr. Israelski had some complaints 0272 1 about the University of Mississippi marijuana 2 quality? 3 A There's no direct quote that I see in it 4 that says that he had a problem. What he talks 5 about is a variety of factors. To me, the headline 6 in this story, the first line, which I assume from 7 my journalism class several years ago, you put the 8 most important thing first. And says that the 9 medical marijuana study want a better quality. 10 Q All right. It says: Doctors conducting a 11 groundbreaking medical marijuana study want better 12 quality weed from the federal government. But you 13 don't know who those doctors are? 14 A I have no idea. 15 Q And you didn't check with the reporter to 16 confirm who these doctors were? 17 A I did not. 18 Q And there's no way to determine whose 19 these doctors are? They may not even be 20 researchers; is that correct? 21 A Well, we have, both you and I have no idea 22 who these doctors are. We can leave it at that. I 0273 1 have no idea. I assume that the staff right here-- 2 Jean Whitney writing the article attempted to do a 3 good job and probably talked with appropriate type 4 of doctors. 5 Q All right. Dr. Craker, you didn't check 6 with Dr. Israelski-- 7 A I did not. 8 Q Now you also mentioned a letter from Dr. 9 Russo in--now, again, to clarify here, Government 10 Exhibit 30, that's your letter to Frank Sapienza, 11 June 2, 2003. And down to the third paragraph, 12 first sentence, quote, "To illustrate the problem 13 of quality, I have enclosed copies of two documents 14 for your review, both of which I know you're 15 familiar, the letter you received from Dr. Russo 16 and an article from the San Mateo County Times." 17 Now, I'm going to refer to the letter from 18 Dr. Russo. Actually Dr. Russo himself. Do you 19 know Dr. Russo personally? 20 A I have met Dr. Russo. 21 Q When did you meet him? 22 A The date I cannot recall. He's given a 0274 1 seminar in our department. 2 Q How long ago was that? 3 A Over a year. Maybe probably over two 4 years. I mean it could be three years. I don't 5 know the exact date. 6 Q Okay. Well, have you ever talked to or 7 corresponded with Dr. Russo about any complaints he 8 may have had about the Mississippi marijuana? 9 A Again, I did not understand your question. 10 Q Have you ever talked to or corresponded 11 with Dr. Russo about any complaints he may have had 12 about the marijuana provided by the University of 13 Mississippi for research? 14 A I've not had any correspondence with him 15 directly. We have, we've talked the time he gave 16 the seminar. We certainly talked about that issue. 17 Q Right. And what did he tell you? 18 A He told me that, well, again, my 19 recollection of the direct conversations is faded, 20 but from my memorandum here, we probably, we 21 probably talked about what was the problem with the 22 Mississippi source. 0275 1 Q And what was the problem according to what 2 you were talking about with Dr. Russo? 3 A I cannot directly attribute this to Dr. 4 Russo because of the number of times I've talked 5 with different people, but the general thing that's 6 been talked about is the material has been of poor 7 quality, that it's included stem tissue and other 8 artifacts, and that it has low potency. 9 Q Okay. But you're saying you can't recall 10 getting that information from Dr. Russo? 11 A I've talked to several people, and I can't 12 recall if that's directly for Dr. Russo or if it's 13 from some other people I've talked to at a 14 conference. 15 Q Do you know if Dr. Russo is currently a 16 researcher? 17 A I have no idea. 18 Q Do you know if Dr. Russo is currently 19 seeking any marijuana from any source to conduct 20 research? 21 A I have no idea. 22 Q Dr. Craker, I wanted to clarify one thing. 0276 1 I think earlier we talked about, I think both 2 yesterday and today, about you getting a notice, a 3 bid to compete for the NIDA contract? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Now, you did get that notice mailed 6 directly to you? 7 A I can't remember. It came by mail or e-mail. 8 Q Okay. But you didn't have to look in the 9 Federal Register and find it? 10 A No. 11 Q And that did come before the contract was 12 awarded; did it not? 13 A Yes, I recall it didn't come too soon 14 before the contract was awarded, but I mean it was 15 not a lot of lead time. That I recall. 16 MR. BAYLY: All right. Your Honor, if I 17 may just have a minute, please? 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Uh-huh. 19 MR. BAYLY: Thank you. 20 BY MR. BAYLY: 21 Q Dr. Craker, is it--I'm going to go back to 0277 1 just a couple of questions on funding. Is it your 2 understanding that you'll have a continual grant 3 from MAPS if you get this registration to cultivate 4 marijuana? 5 A No, that's not my understanding. I would 6 hope that would be true, but it's not my 7 understanding. 8 Q Well, if the MAPS funding doesn't come 9 through, let's say it comes through initially but 10 then it dries up, what would you anticipate being 11 the source of your income for the cultivation of 12 marijuana? 13 A Well, the source would have to be, as I 14 think we've answered before, would have to be from 15 other agencies, whether they were private 16 organizations or other government agencies that 17 were interested in sponsoring some type of research 18 on this. We'd have to search for funding. 19 Q Okay. And Dr. Craker, I understand that 20 the contract that you got the bid for, the NIDA 21 contract in 2004-- 22 A Yes. 0278 1 Q And you chose not to compete for that; is 2 that correct? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q And you know that that's every five years? 5 A Yes. I do now. 6 Q You do now. Okay. So that would make it 7 2009 and are you planning to complete on that? 8 A I have not made any decision there at all. 9 That's a little bit too far away. That's nice lead 10 time, but it's a little bit too far. Too much lead 11 time. 12 MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, I'd like to admit 13 Government Exhibit 30 into evidence. That's the 14 letter from Dr. Craker to Frank Sapienza and I 15 asked some questions on. It's dated June 2, 2003. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Any objection? 17 MS. CARPENTER: No, Your Honor. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Government 30 is 19 received. 20 [Government's Exhibit No. 30 21 was marked for identification 22 and received in evidence.] 0279 1 MR. BAYLY: Do we have a yellow copy of 2 30? Can I get it from Dr. Craker unless on 3 redirect, if you want him to keep the letter? 4 MS. CARPENTER: Yes, that would be great. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Let's mark it and give it 6 back to the clerk, and then if necessary we can 7 give it back to Dr. Craker so that she has 8 everything that's received. 9 MR. BAYLY: I got to tell you I had the 10 experience of a witness I gave him a--it was a DEA 11 witness, too--even more embarrassing. I gave him a 12 copy that was supposed to be in evidence, and 13 before I could put it into evidence, he ran away 14 with it. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: I think that was my case. 16 [Laughter.] 17 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. So, Nicole, would 18 you please retrieve exhibit. Okay. Do you have 19 anything else, Mr. Bayly? 20 MR. BAYLY: No. I'm done at this point. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Let's take a ten 22 minute break before cross--redirect. I'm sorry. 0280 1 [Whereupon, a short recess was taken.] 2 JUDGE BITTNER: On the record. I think 3 we're ready for redirect. 4 MS. CARPENTER: We are, Your Honor, and 5 once again we have talked with Government counsel 6 and they have agreed to let us go out of order. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 8 MS. CARPENTER: If you don't mind breaking 9 up Dr. Craker's testimony one more time, we have a 10 very short witness who's been here most of the 11 morning, Dr. Barbara Roberts. Her testimony will 12 be very short and we thought if we could just get 13 her on and off, she wouldn't have to come back 14 after lunch. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 16 MS. CARPENTER: So we call Dr. Barbara 17 Roberts to the stand. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Dr. Craker must be feeling 19 like a patchwork quilt. 20 [Laughter.] 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Dr. Roberts, if you would 22 come up here, please, and if you would stand and 0281 1 raise your right hand. 2 Whereupon, 3 BARBARA ROBERTS, PH.D. 4 was called as a witness herein and, having been 5 first duly sworn by the Administrative Law Judge, 6 was examined and testified as follows: 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Please be seated, and 8 there should be a fresh cup and some water over 9 there. 10 THE WITNESS: Oh, I see both. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION 13 BY MS. CARPENTER: 14 Q Dr. Roberts, could you state your name and 15 address for the record? 16 A Yes. It's Dr. Barbara Roberts, and I'm a 17 resident of Washington, D.C., 1346 Montique Street, 18 Northwest. 19 Q Okay. And what's your current position, 20 Dr. Roberts? What's your job? 21 A I'm a clinical associate professor in the 22 Department of Psychiatry at Georgetown University 0282 1 Medical Center. 2 Q Okay. 3 A And I'm also a psychotherapist in private 4 practice here in the city. 5 Q So I assume you have your Ph.D.? 6 A I do. 7 Q And what other degrees do you hold? 8 A I have a master's degree in psychology and 9 a B.A. degree in psychology as well. 10 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: So it's a Ph.D., not an 12 M.D.? 13 THE WITNESS: Ph.D. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 15 BY MS. CARPENTER: 16 Q Have you worked in the government 17 previously? 18 A I have. 19 Q And where have you worked in the 20 government? 21 A In various locations and in offices. My 22 last position was for about nine and a half years 0283 1 in the White House Office of National Drug Control 2 Policy. 3 Q Okay. Would that be ONDCP? 4 A ONDCP. 5 Q Okay. And what did you do when you were 6 there? 7 A I held two positions. One, I was a senior 8 policy analyst in the, both in the Office of Demand 9 Reduction, as a senior policy analyst looking at 10 all issues having to deal with treatment of abused 11 substances and particularly for the mandate for 12 that office, which was heroin and cocaine but also 13 substances of potential abuse to underage users. 14 Looking at barriers to treatment, creating 15 access to treatment, looking at health-related 16 issues in the area of treatment. 17 Q Okay. Did you work with NIDA at all in 18 connection with that work? 19 A NIDA is one of 55 agencies that have 20 mandates for substance abuse issues, and therefore 21 report to the Office of National Drug Control 22 Policy. NIDA conducts about 85 percent of the 0284 1 world's research in substance abuse policy and to 2 that extent we had considerable engagements and 3 encounters with dealings with that office. 4 Q Okay. Did the issue of medical marijuana 5 come up during your time at ONDCP? 6 A Yes, it did. 7 Q And how did that come up? What was the 8 context? 9 A Well, primarily in regards to underage 10 use. 11 Q Let me just be clear. This was medical 12 marijuana? 13 A Medical--oh, in terms of medical 14 marijuana. 15 Q Medical marijuana, right. 16 A In terms of the use of it by people not 17 under age but at any age who might have problems of 18 wasting diseases or who had difficulty with other 19 kinds of medical disorders and who wanted to be 20 able to use medical marijuana, medicinal marijuana 21 for those purposes. 22 Q And how did that come up at the ONDCP? 0285 1 Why was it an issue? 2 A Primarily it came up as a very huge and 3 very public issue during the time that Barry 4 McCaffrey was the Director, that person known as 5 the drug czar, for that office, and there were a 6 number of proposals I that were pending in 7 California and did pass to allow the use, permit 8 the use of--and Oregon too I believe at the time--of 9 medicinal marijuana, and he became very much 10 engaged on that point, and took some positions that 11 primarily in terms of and attempts perhaps--I don't 12 want to mischaracterize this, but in terms of 13 physicians who might want to engage with patients 14 and so he took some positions about perhaps 15 prohibiting that use, but it became a very public 16 discussion about that. 17 And he certainly did bring himself up to 18 date on what the issues were and then took a 19 position on that. He was very vocal on that, but I 20 think that there was a recognition at some point 21 that it was becoming very personal and that he was 22 getting in the middle of a lot of issues and there 0286 1 was some suits that were taken, lawsuits that were 2 filed against him on that point, and there was a 3 considerable amount of discussion in the office 4 about the best means for dealing with that. 5 And it was at one of these meetings that I 6 recommended that an office that we had extremely 7 high regard for and in terms of the work that they 8 do, and that was in the Institute of Medicine, to 9 let them study this issue in terms of any kind of 10 benefits from the use of marijuana in which the 11 Director, or the Drug Czar, General McCaffrey could 12 then announce that his office was recommending that 13 the Institute of Medicine study this issue which 14 would then take him out of the spotlight, but also 15 defer to this august body in terms of where we 16 should go on this issue. And, in fact, was there 17 any viable reason to study it in that regard? 18 Q So that was your suggestion? 19 A To him and to my, first, to my immediate 20 supervisor who at that time was Fred Garcia, who 21 was the--he was the Deputy Director for Demand 22 Reduction in that office, and he agency did accept 0287 1 that position and the IOM did, the Institute of 2 Medicine did take upon itself that study, and I 3 think they make some reference to the fact how they 4 came to become involved in that in their executive 5 summary. 6 Q Okay. Could I ask you to turn to, in the 7 first book there, Respondent's Exhibit No. 1? 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Could I just ask, Dr. 9 Roberts, what is the Institute of Medicine? 10 THE WITNESS: The Institute of Medicine is 11 a body that is formed from the National Sciences 12 Academy in which they take leading researchers and 13 scientists to study particular issues and to form 14 the state of the art in terms of thinking and 15 direction on matters of scientific matters. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: So it's like a medical 17 think tank? 18 THE WITNESS: A medical think tank. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: And it is funded by? 20 THE WITNESS: Congress. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. So it is a federal 22 agency? 0288 1 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 3 BY MS. CARPENTER: 4 Q Is it part of NIH or is independent; do 5 you know? 6 A It's a part of the National Science 7 Academy, NSA. 8 Q NSA? 9 A Yes. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Is it the National Academy 11 of Science? 12 MS. CARPENTER: Oh, NAS, right. 13 THE WITNESS: National--I'm sorry. 14 National Academy of Sciences. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: That's okay. I figured 16 next we were going to go on the shuttle and-- 17 [Laughter.] 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 19 THE WITNESS: Did you say the Respondent's 20 Exhibits? 21 BY MS. CARPENTER: 22 Q Yes, it's a-- 0289 1 JUDGE BITTNER: It's a big thick one. 2 MS. CARPENTER: Big thick one. Number 3 one. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. There are two big 5 thick ones over here. Under No. 1, yes. 6 BY MS. CARPENTER: 7 Q Have you seen that document before? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And can you tell the Court what it is? 10 A Tell you what it is. It is the marijuana 11 in medicine assessing the science base. It's a 12 study conducted by the Institute of Medicine. 13 Q And did you see this when it came out? 14 A Yes. 15 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. At this time, I 16 would move the admission of Respondent's Exhibit 1 17 into evidence. 18 MR. BAYLY: May I address that? 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Sure. 20 MR. BAYLY: Thank you, Judge Bittner. I 21 wanted to make what I will call partial objection 22 because we have to make sure we are in the bounds 0290 1 of your order, Judge Bittner, the order granting at 2 least in part the Government's Motion in Limine not 3 to delve into all these research issues. 4 On the other hand, I realize that it would 5 be an impossible task to redact what we would 6 consider not in compliance with your order. So 7 with that, I would not object to the admission of 8 Respondent Exhibit No. 1, but I would like for the 9 record to have it admitted with the understanding 10 that your order, Judge Bittner, would limit what it 11 can be used for in terms of admissibility. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Ms. Carpenter. 13 MS. CARPENTER: Could I respond to that 14 briefly? There were certainly specific exhibits 15 that were excluded as not being necessary given the 16 stipulations and the statute that authorized 17 regulation and the Government's stipulation that--I'm sorry- 18 -that authorized research and that 19 research is ongoing. 20 I think it's very hard to admit an exhibit 21 just partially, as Mr. Bayly just said, and while 22 we are not going to argue extensively about the 0291 1 therapeutic benefits of it, I think that exhibit 2 should be admitted as a full exhibit because it is 3 the context in which the pieces of it that we're 4 going to draw out are based, and I think it's 5 important for the record to be complete about what 6 that context is. 7 So I would urge that it be admitted with 8 my assurances to the Court that we're not going to 9 spend a lot of time going through it in terms of 10 therapeutic benefits. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Thank you. My thinking 12 when I granted the Motion in Limine, at least in 13 substantial part, was that whether marijuana should 14 stay in Schedule I is not an issue in this case, 15 and I think everybody agrees with that assessment. 16 Respondent's side is nodding their heads. 17 Mr. Bayly, you're not. 18 MS. CARPENTER: We certainly do, Your 19 Honor. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Or are you? 21 MR. BAYLY: I'm nodding in agreement. 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 0292 1 MR. BAYLY: I'm not falling asleep. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: I thought you probably 3 would. Okay. Now, and consequently evidence from 4 individuals who have or have not found therapeutic 5 benefit to marijuana per se is useless to me 6 because that's not an issue in this case. 7 I do think, however, and because we didn't 8 get the complete copy of Respondent 1, well, and 9 also because it's huge, I haven't read it. I just 10 kind of glanced at it to make sure it was complete. 11 I think the evidence as to the state of the issue 12 may be relevant. I'm not sure yet. 13 In other words, it may be in terms of 14 looking at the public interest aspect of this 15 application relevant as to what has been done and 16 what various authorities think needs to be done, 17 and it's basically impossible to have evidence on 18 those issues without having some indication of what 19 they think the results were. 20 So with that caveat, I will receive the 21 exhibit, but I do want to emphasize the parties 22 stipulated that research is ongoing. No one is 0293 1 arguing that research should not be ongoing or at 2 least nobody so far is arguing that position in 3 this case, and the question of whether or not there 4 is indeed a medical use for marijuana is not any 5 issue here. 6 I realize it may be an issue in a lot of 7 other places but not in this room, so with that, 8 Respondent's 1 is received. 9 [Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 10 was marked for identification 11 and received in evidence.] 12 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you, Your Honor. 13 JUDGE BITTNER: And of course, you are all 14 going to brief how much I should rely on it. 15 [Laughter.] 16 BY MS. CARPENTER: 17 Q Dr. Roberts, let me just step back. I 18 think you said you saw this when it came out. Were 19 you still with the Office of--ONDCP at that time? 20 A Yes, yes. 21 Q And do you recall what the reaction was at 22 the agency when the report came out? 0294 1 A Well, I would say probably muted would be 2 a good way to describe it. I don't think that it 3 was necessarily what had been expected, but I 4 certainly did accept the report, but I don't think 5 much happened with it after that point in time. 6 Q Okay. 7 A There was a recognition that it would have 8 been produced. We, when I say we, ONDCP, paid for 9 the study, but I don't recall that there was 10 anything significant that happened after-- 11 Q Okay. 12 A --after it was--at least on the part of 13 our office. 14 Q Okay. Do you recall whether there were 15 any task forces set up to implement any of the 16 recommendations? 17 A Oh, no. 18 Q No. 19 A No, there were not, uh-uh. 20 Q Do you recall generally, and this is very 21 general, given the thickness of the report, 22 generally what the conclusions were of the report? 0295 1 MS. PAREDES: Objection. It's outside the 2 scope of the summary from prehearing statements. 3 MS. CARPENTER: I think we said she would 4 talk about the IOM report. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: And this would have been 6 in the initials; right? 7 MS. CARPENTER: Or the supplemental. I 8 don't think it changed. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. So it's actually 10 the first supplemental. If I had the first 11 supplemental tabbed, I'd have just about 12 everything? 13 MS. CARPENTER: That's right. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Because, but the first 15 supplemental isn't then repeated in subsequent 16 supplementals; right? 17 MS. CARPENTER: That's right. Because 18 they were just so short and simply added a few 19 sentences. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 21 MS. CARPENTER: I was trying to cut down 22 on paper. 0296 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Now, all I need to 2 do is find it. Here we go. 3 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry that those pages 4 are not numbered, but it's very close to the end. 5 It looks about like five, five or six pages back 6 from the end. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Here we go. I've, of 8 course, forgotten what the question was. 9 MS. CARPENTER: I think the question was, 10 it was do you recall generally the results or the 11 conclusions of the IOM report? And our proposed 12 testimony was during her tenure she specifically 13 recommended that the National Academy of Sciences 14 be commissioned to undertake a review of the 15 scientific evidence regarding therapeutic 16 applications of marijuana. 17 It seems to me to flow directly from that 18 that you would say what were those conclusions? 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Yeah, she really doesn't 20 refer to the conclusions from the report, and of 21 course since it's in evidence, I'll read it. So 22 I'll sustain the objection. 0297 1 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. 2 BY MS. CARPENTER: 3 Q Can I ask you to turn to page 22 of the 4 report? 5 A I did. 6 Q Do you have that? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you see recommendation number two? 9 A Yes. 10 Q That says clinical trials of cannabinoid 11 drugs for symptom management should be conducted 12 with the goal of developing rapid onset, reliable 13 and safe delivery systems. 14 A Yes. 15 Q Do you recall whether ONDCP took any steps 16 to implement a recommendation similar to that? 17 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry. What page are 18 you on in the report? 19 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry. 22 of Exhibit 20 No., Respondent's Exhibit 1. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: And that's the automatic 22 stamp page 22? 0298 1 MS. CARPENTER: Yes, the Bates stamp 2 number to be clear about that, the number at the 3 bottom of the page. 4 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think any 5 actions were taken to. If it came up, it would 6 have been deferred to NIDA, but there were no, in 7 terms of an endorsement of the recommendation, no. 8 BY MS. CARPENTER: 9 Q Okay. Was there any discussion that you 10 recall about the need for a separate rapid onset, 11 reliable and safe delivery system? 12 A There was discussion certainly about the 13 recommendations in the report because we continued 14 to be bombarded with questions about the outcome of 15 the study, the IOM study, but there was no formal 16 action taken, as I recall-- 17 Q Okay. 18 A --to say, you know, we need to have a road 19 map to implement the recommendations, and we have 20 done that with other at the time, with other 21 reports that have come out, but I don't recall that 22 happening in this instance. 0299 1 Q Okay. In those discussions, do you recall 2 whether there was general approval of the notion 3 that marijuana could be delivered in non-smoked 4 delivery way that would be better? 5 A I think there was still a great deal of 6 skepticism about that. 7 Q Okay. Was there any discussion at the 8 time of vaporization devices as an alternative to 9 smoking? 10 A Discussion, but action, no. Discussion, 11 yes, but action, no. 12 Q Okay. Could I ask you to turn to page 13 234? 14 A 234. 15 Q Bates stamp number is at the bottom of the 16 page of Respondent's Exhibit 1. 17 A 234? 18 Q Yes. And give me just a moment, Your 19 Honor. I don't have--oh, here we go. In the 20 second paragraph, the first full paragraph that 21 starts: That marijuana smoked, that marijuana is 22 smoked. If you go down about halfway through 0300 1 starting with the sentence: Marijuana delivered in 2 a novel way that avoids smoking would overcome some 3 but not all of the regulatory concerns. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Do you see that sentence? Sorry. 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. And it continues: Vaporization 8 devices that permit inhalation of plant 9 cannabinoids without the carcinogenic combustion 10 products found in smoke are under development by 11 several groups. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry, Ms. Carpenter. 13 Where are you? 14 MS. CARPENTER: It's the middle paragraph 15 on page 234 of Respondent's Exhibit A. The 16 paragraph starts with: That marijuana is smoked. 17 Okay. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Uh-huh. 19 BY MS. CARPENTER: 20 Q So again was there any discussion back at 21 ONDCP about vaporization devices that would permit 22 inhalation without the carcinogens? 0301 1 A Well, obviously I don't have the records, 2 but I don't recall that there was an effort to look 3 at recommending to NIDA to pursue that as that 4 recommendation. 5 Q Okay. 6 A About vaporization as opposed to smoking. 7 Q Okay. 8 A Yeah. 9 Q And did you have any discussions with NIDA 10 about this issue? 11 A I don't recall that there were discussions 12 with NIDA. As far as pursuing the recommendation? 13 Q Right. Of the IOM report. 14 A No. No, no, no. 15 Q Okay. So to your knowledge, did NIDA or 16 ONDCP ever decide that vaporization of medical 17 marijuana was a goal that they would actively 18 support? 19 A No, it was not. 20 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. Could I have the 21 report, just for a moment? 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Uh-huh. 0302 1 BY MS. CARPENTER: 2 Q And let me just ask you as based on your 3 experience in working with public policy, what's 4 your view about how medical marijuana, the issue 5 should be resolved? 6 A Oh, the same as I would say for any other 7 plant substance, is that it needs to be 8 investigated by the scientists who have the 9 background and experience and training, 10 researchers, to delve into that subject. 11 It's marijuana and its active ingredient, 12 of course, are THC. It's highly controversial, but 13 if there is a medical benefit, then I think that 14 certainly coming down on the side of research to 15 once and for all to resolve the problem, and the 16 issue of its efficacy, and the IOM in a way really 17 provided a blueprint for us, or the go-ahead sign 18 to say to do this, to investigate this and to put 19 it to rest. 20 A tremendous amount of money is spent in 21 the prohibition of its use for medicinal purposes, 22 but certainly I think having the research to 0303 1 resolve this issue would be most beneficial. 2 Q And do you think that having an 3 alternative source to the marijuana that's 4 currently available for medical marijuana would 5 encourage that sort of research? 6 A I think it certainly would encourage 7 competition and NIDA of course does so much of the 8 world's research, as I mentioned previously, but I 9 don't think that there is any, if it can be vouched 10 safe in terms of the security of the product, I 11 really don't see that there is any reason not to 12 have an alternative source in order to pursue. 13 MS. CARPENTER: I have no further 14 questions. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Cross. 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION 17 BY MS. PAREDES: 18 Q Dr. Roberts, when did you receive your 19 degrees? 20 A I received my B.A. degree in 1967, my 21 master's in 1969 and my doctorate in clinical 22 psychology as a major and statistics as a minor in 0304 1 1977. 2 Q And do you have a medical degree? 3 A No, I do not. I have a doctor of 4 philosophy degree. 5 Q Do you have any specialized training in 6 the field of drug policy? 7 A I've had considerable experiences and 8 training in different areas, and certainly in 9 working with professors in the field in terms of 10 substance abuse. 11 Q Well, would you call that specialized 12 training? 13 A Yes. 14 Q And when did you get this specialized 15 training? 16 A That would have started in when I was in 17 the federal prison system and that was through the 18 Bureau of Prisons and prior to that. It was in the 19 Department of Justice. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: I assume you were working 21 in the federal prison system? 22 THE WITNESS: Decidedly. Let me clear 0305 1 that up. 2 [Laughter.] 3 THE WITNESS: My husband did you used to 4 say my wife went from prison and then she went to 5 drugs, but-- 6 [Laughter.] 7 THE WITNESS: But for the record, that was 8 in training in the Federal Bureau of Prisons 9 System. 10 BY MS. PAREDES: 11 Q And when did you work with the Federal 12 Bureau of Prisons? 13 A That was 197--the early '70s, '72, I think 14 it was, to '73, '71 to '73, somewhere in there. 15 Q So about for two or three years? 16 A No, it was about for a little over a year 17 that I was there with them. 18 Q And what was your position there? 19 A I was a clinical intern and looking at 20 issues of substance abuse and also the Youth 21 Sentencing Act, which was an opportunity at that 22 time for people who were--the judge was uncertain 0306 1 about whether this person should be in a confined 2 setting or not to send them to a federal prison for 3 evaluation and many of those instances involved 4 people who were charged with substance abuse 5 offenses. 6 Q And when you were at the Federal Bureau of 7 Prisons, were you involved in drug policy, making 8 drug policy? 9 A Oh, no. I was a student. 10 Q I'm sorry. You were a student at the 11 time? 12 A I was a clinical intern, yes. 13 Q Okay. 14 A It was a part of your doctoral training. 15 Q And then when you, from there you moved on 16 to the Department of Justice? 17 A It was through the Department of Justice 18 and Bureau of Prisons that I was at that facility. 19 From there I moved to the, I was in the military as 20 a civilian employee, and worked with establishing 21 the first substance abuse program for the military 22 at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. 0307 1 Q And what did you do to establish the 2 substance abuse program? 3 A Well, it had been mandated by law, 4 primarily prior to that time, most programs had 5 been for the treatment of alcohol use or dependence 6 and the mandate specifically was to move it into 7 the direction of looking at the use of people who 8 were dependent on drugs and primarily at that time, 9 the focus was on marijuana. 10 Q Did you also--were you also involved then 11 with other controlled substances aside from 12 marijuana? 13 A That was the primary one, but of course 14 there were, you dealt with whatever was presented 15 to you at the time, but marijuana was the primary 16 drug that we focused on. Every once in awhile you 17 find someone who had used heroin, but that was not 18 as frequent as the use of--people who presented 19 with the use of marijuana. 20 Q And how long were you in this position? 21 A That was approximately a year that I was 22 there. 0308 1 Q One year? 2 A It was about one year, yeah, and then I 3 went on maternity leave. 4 Q So from 19--can you estimate 197-- 5 A Oh, that would have been like '73 to--'72 6 to '73. 7 Q Okay. And then were you employed after 8 that by the Department of Justice? 9 A No, no, no. The Department of Justice, 10 the Bureau of Prisons used to come under the 11 Department of Justice before it became a separate 12 entity. Federal prison installations were under 13 the Department of Justice before they received a 14 separate office and that was the Bureau of Prisons. 15 So, but after I left the military 16 position, I was employed at a university. 17 Q At what university? 18 A That was the University of Oklahoma and 19 that was, that was a very, very short period of 20 time. Then I went to the Veterans Administration 21 Medical Center and the Health Sciences Center at 22 the University of Oklahoma. It was a dual position 0309 1 Q And when did you begin your career of 2 employment with the Department of Justice? 3 A It was when I was in the prison system. 4 Q Okay. And then when did you start your 5 career at ONDCP? 6 A That started in 1994. 7 Q And what was your position there? 8 A I was a senior policy analyst. 9 Q For Demand Reduction? 10 A For the Office of Demand Reduction, yes. 11 Q Okay. Was that your only position at 12 ONDCP? 13 A My last year that I was there, I was the 14 Interim Associate Department Director for the 15 Office of Demand Reduction. 16 Q Interim Associate Deputy Director? 17 A Uh-huh. 18 Q For the Office of Demand Reduction? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q Was that because--well, what does interim 21 mean? 22 A Acting. They did not have a--that 0310 1 position had to been filled. 2 Q How long were you in that position? 3 A It was about a year. 4 Q Okay. And then when did you--was that 5 your last employment with federal government? 6 A That's correct. I took-- 7 Q When did you--I assume you retired? 8 A I took the early retirement in August of 9 2003. 10 Q In when? 11 A August 2003. 12 Q And is it correct that your last year when 13 you were the Acting Associate Deputy Director? 14 A That's correct. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Was it Acting Associate 16 Deputy Director or Associate Director? 17 THE WITNESS: Acting Associate Deputy 18 Director for the Office of Demand Reduction. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. I left out an 20 adjective in there. Okay. 21 BY MS. PAREDES: 22 Q So it would have been 2002 to 2003 0311 1 approximately? 2 A Yes, yes. 3 Q Now have you ever taught in the field of 4 drug policy? 5 A I taught in the field of substance abuse, 6 substance abuse policy. I'm doing that now. 7 Q And what do you mean by substance abuse 8 policy compared to drug policy? How do you 9 differentiate between-- 10 A I would think the terms are 11 interchangeable. 12 Q Okay. So what are you teaching in 13 substance abuse policy? 14 A Well, you're looking at from a national, 15 at least what I'm doing, is looking at a national 16 perspective with the residents, where I'm currently 17 employed in terms of what are the issues that, the 18 data sets that we need to look at on the national 19 positions or the state and local positions on 20 substance abuse usage and in terms of this access 21 to treatment and barriers to treatment, and it 22 takes the residents more or less from a perspective 0312 1 of looking at it and just in terms of a treatment 2 issue, but that treatment is really part and parcel 3 of global positions that people take about in terms 4 of what we know about the particular substances of 5 abuse. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: Now when you say 7 "residents," you're referring to physicians? 8 THE WITNESS: Physicians who are-- 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Are residents at 10 Georgetown? 11 THE WITNESS: Who are--that is correct. 12 That is correct. Yes, yes. 13 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Not residents of a 14 treatment facility. 15 THE WITNESS: No, no, no, no. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 17 BY MS. PAREDES: 18 Q Are there any other areas in which you 19 taught in the field of drug policy aside from what 20 you just described? 21 A Probably some of that would have--I got 22 more involved in policy starting in 1990, 1990, so 0313 1 prior to that time, I was more the administrative. 2 I had gone from treating clinician to the 3 administrative side and then to policy. So that 4 would have started in 2000. 5 Q Okay. Are you published? 6 A Not in terms of benchmark research, no, 7 uh-uh. 8 Q In other regards are you published? 9 A No, not really in terms of scientific 10 papers, no, uh-uh. 11 Q Okay. Have you ever previously testified? 12 Have you ever testified under oath before today? 13 MS. CARPENTER: Objection. Relevance. 14 MS. PAREDES: Testified as an expert on 15 the subject of drug policy? 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Is she being proffered as 17 an expert? 18 MS. CARPENTER: No, we have not proffered 19 her as an expert. I'm sort-- 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Sustained. 21 BY MS. PAREDES: I believe the first 22 prehearing submission had a drug policy expert and 0314 1 when we objected to Dr. Roberts' testimony, Ms. 2 Carpenter referred us to the first prehearing 3 submission which proffered a drug policy expert. 4 MS. CARPENTER: Dr. Roberts was in our 5 original prehearing submission, and separately was 6 a drug policy expert. So we are not offering her, 7 nor does it say in our prehearing statement I 8 believe that we offered her as an expert. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: I think Dr. Roberts was 10 proffered only on the subject of what Respondent 11 Exhibit 1 is and how it came about. 12 MS. CARPENTER: Right. 13 JUDGE BITTNER: That was my understanding. 14 MS. CARPENTER: That's right. And her 15 experience in terms of working at ONDCP at the time 16 it came about. 17 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 18 BY MS. PAREDES: 19 Q Well, Dr. Roberts, what were your duties 20 as a senior policy analyst? 21 A Well, once again, it was all matters and 22 my specific focus was looking at health-related 0315 1 issues and what are some of the barriers for people 2 who are trying to from a national perspective in 3 terms of the formulation of policy for the 4 administration, what are some of the barriers to 5 people accessing treatment, and how could we, we 6 being the government, break down some of those 7 barriers, facilitate people not having to wait for 8 treatment, so it was treatment on demand. If you 9 need it, you're able to get it. 10 So to that extent, we would also look at 11 issues such as we only at the time that I started, 12 there were no medications for the treatment of 13 cocaine abuse. So that we would look at issues 14 such as how long does it take to bring a medication 15 to market; are there people out there who are 16 actually doing research in this area? What does it 17 take in order to get people more involve in this to 18 facilitate that process for heroin abuse or for 19 cocaine addiction or for people who said, well, you 20 know what, we also believe that there are certain 21 beneficial effects of the use of marijuana, and 22 then exploring that as well. 0316 1 So looking at, looking at it from a public 2 health perspective, looking at the barriers, 3 looking at increasing access for people who were 4 trying to deal with these problems, so the 5 administration could then formulate policy around 6 this area and say this is what we need to do and 7 this is where we need to drive our resources in 8 order to facilitate this particular problem. 9 Q And what kinds of barriers to people did 10 you find, people accessing treatment? 11 MS. CARPENTER: Can I just--a quick 12 objection? Still, I think this goes beyond the 13 scope of the direct examination. I think she 14 testified that was what she had focused on, but it 15 certainly was not anything more than that. I'm 16 happy to let it go forward. I'm a little concerned 17 about the time. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: It may be beyond the scope 19 of direct. It's not beyond the scope of the 20 prehearing statement. But I don't think the 21 witness testified about barriers to treatment. So 22 if you're willing to let that not be in. 0317 1 MS. CARPENTER: I think she mentioned that 2 that was some of the work that she had done as she 3 came into ONDCP. 4 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Then I'll overrule 5 the objection. 6 MS. CARPENTER: So, okay. That's fine. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Now would you repeat the 8 question, Ms. Parades? 9 MS. CARPENTER: Yes, sorry. 10 BY MS. PAREDES: 11 Q What kinds of barriers did you find that 12 prevented people from accessing treatment? 13 A There could be numerous barriers. It 14 could be lack of sufficient or a variety of 15 medications in terms to deal with a particular 16 problem. It could be insufficient numbers of 17 treatment programs to deal with a particular 18 problem. It could be in terms of reimbursement by 19 third-party payers, health care providers, to cover 20 the cost of treatment. It could be geographic in 21 terms of one being too far from a particular, just 22 due to where they lived, too far away to access 0318 1 treatment. 2 Q And what were your duties as the Interim 3 Associate Deputy Director? 4 A That was more in terms of the coordination 5 of the activities of the office, very much 6 administrative and in terms of driving the issues, 7 not just my own issues, but the issues of all of 8 the staff in the office there for the coordination 9 of the activities of the Deputy Director for that 10 office. 11 Q And did you then report directly to the 12 Deputy Director? 13 A That is correct. 14 Q And then who did the Deputy Director 15 report to? 16 A Deputy Director reported to the Director. 17 Q And at that time that would have been Mr. 18 McCaffrey? 19 A That would have been John Walters. 20 MS. CARPENTER: Just a clarification. At 21 what time? 22 BY MS. PAREDES: 0319 1 Q At the time that you were the Interim 2 Associate Director? 3 A That would have been John. Yes, you're 4 correct. That would have been John Walters, uh-huh. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: And this was from sometime 6 in late 2002 until August of 2003? 7 THE WITNESS: It would have been 2002 to 8 2003, yes, uh-huh. Mid-2002 to mid-2003. 9 BY MS. PAREDES: 10 Q Okay. You testified that during your time 11 at ONDCP, the issue--that ONDCP became involved 12 with medical marijuana issue because there were 13 people who wanted to use medical marijuana but had 14 problems accessing it; is that accurate? 15 A Would you repeat that, please? 16 Q That ONDCP became involved with the 17 medical marijuana issue-- 18 A Uh-huh. 19 Q --because there were people who wanted 20 access to it? 21 A Yes. 22 Q To use it for medical purposes? 0320 1 A Right. And also because of the 2 propositions in California and other states at the 3 time that were trying to legitimize that purpose. 4 Q Uh-huh. And what was your particular 5 involvement in terms of medical marijuana and 6 ONDCP? 7 A That's a good question. That we would 8 have tried to formulate positions for the Director 9 through the Office of Demand. That issue would 10 have come directly through the Office of Demand 11 Reduction, as it is an access issue, and so that we 12 would then, as the Director went out to speak, it 13 would be formulating his positions and also 14 crafting his speeches, his remarks for him. 15 Q And is that something that you personally 16 would have done? 17 A You know, I traveled with him on several 18 occasions and I may have written one or two of 19 those. I'd have to go back to try to clarify that. 20 And that also goes back to your issue about writing 21 on that, that there were a number of positions 0321 1 papers that I wrote in that office. I mean quite a 2 few, but on point, there may have been one or two 3 that I wrote with him about that. 4 My specific focus was on heroin and 5 cocaine, but in the course of traveling with him 6 and dealing with these issues, and as he would be 7 confronted with this by press corps, that I would 8 certainly have advised him on that. 9 Q And the "him" that you're referring to is 10 John Walters? 11 A Is General McCaffrey. 12 Q Oh. 13 A That's when that issue first came up. I 14 thought that's what you asked me, yeah, uh-huh. 15 Q Yes, that was my question. Would you have 16 had any other personal involvement aside from what 17 you've just said? 18 A No. But there was considerable discussion 19 in the office as he became more and more mired into 20 the issue and there were several lawsuits that were 21 filed against him, as I previously testified, as to 22 how he should best deal with that issue. 0322 1 Q And were you personally involved in 2 determining how he would deal with that issue? 3 A Yes, yes, with the Deputy Director at the 4 time. 5 Q And what was your involvement? 6 A He asked for, he being the Deputy Director 7 of the Office of Demand Reduction at the time, had 8 sought my advice about how best to deal with that 9 issue. 10 Q And did you provide advice? 11 A That's, I did. 12 Q Okay. And what was your advice? 13 A Is that we needed to have an objective 14 source to investigate the issue. 15 Q And is that on direct when you testified 16 that you recommended that ONDCP request the IOM to 17 study this issue? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q And you wrote a position paper or a formal 20 paper on this? 21 A You know I think it was, it was related 22 directly to the Deputy Director Fred Garcia at that 0323 1 time, and with that he went and talked with the 2 Director and the Director was immediately excited 3 about that prospect of having the Institute of 4 Medicine step in, and it removed him from the 5 firing line almost immediately. 6 Q And was that in a formal paper, your 7 recommendation, or was it informal? 8 A No, Fred Garcia then took that 9 recommendation directly to the Director. 10 Q Fred Garcia being the Deputy Director? 11 A For Demand Reduction. 12 Q Okay. And how did you convey your idea to 13 Fred Garcia? 14 A It was in a meeting with all the senior 15 policy analysts at the time. 16 Q Did you ever put that in writing? 17 A No, he took it from there. He took it. 18 Yeah. If he did, I don't recall that, but I think 19 he just took the information from there and he 20 liked the idea. He immediately grasped onto it, 21 and then the Director took it from that point. 22 Q Do you remember when this would have been? 0324 1 A It had to have been, I'm thinking in 1996. 2 Q And your position at that time would have 3 been Senior Policy Analyst? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q Before the IOM was written and produced, 6 were there any discussions at ONDCP about how they 7 would use a report, the report? 8 A That's really interesting. I don't think 9 that. I think what happened was is that the 10 interest was looking for a way out, not necessarily 11 about how it would be use, but a way out of--he had 12 become a--he being General McCaffrey--had become 13 too much of a lightning rod for that issue and the 14 lawsuits that were, you know, subsequently 15 following that, and so there really had not been--I 16 think it was is that my recollection at the time 17 is, is because of the high regard in which I think 18 all parties, from people who were interested in the 19 use for their own particular medical condition, 20 perceived use for their own particular medical 21 condition, to people who supported the use of 22 marijuana, to people who were opposed to marijuana 0325 1 for any kind of medicinal purposes, would have seen 2 the IOM as an honest broker. 3 Q So there were not any discussions on how 4 to use it? 5 A How to use the report? 6 Q Yes. 7 A I think the report was, is to, that our 8 office at that time was taking the position of let 9 us have the, you know, there may be benefits to it, 10 there may not be benefits to it, but what we want 11 to hear what the Institute of Medicine has to say 12 on point. 13 Q Okay. 14 A And I think every--and it was very well 15 received. 16 Q What was very well received? 17 A The fact that the Office was going to 18 subsidize this report, this study, by the IOM, 19 because it certainly did give us the appearance and 20 indeed and in fact that we were interested, at 21 least, in trying to gain more information about 22 whether it was efficacious or not, the study. 0326 1 Q And it was well received by whom? 2 A Well, that's what I'm saying. I think it 3 was well received by people who were looking for 4 the use of marijuana to deal with what they had, 5 medical conditions that they had, wasting 6 illnesses, HIV/AIDS, whether it was glaucoma, 7 whatever it was, that people would say, and people 8 who supported the use of medicinal marijuana and 9 people who were opposed to it all said, you know, 10 okay, we'll step back and we'll let the Institute 11 of Medicine study this point. I don't recall there 12 being any negative comments around the fact that 13 the Office said that they were going to have this 14 study. I just don't. 15 Q Referring you to Respondent's Exhibit 1, 16 page 22, the Bates stamp page 22, which is 17 recommendation two you discussed with Ms. Carpenter 18 earlier. 19 A Yes. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry. What page were 21 you on? 22 MS. PAREDES: Bates stamp 22. 0327 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Thank you. 2 BY MS. PAREDES: 3 Q You testified that recommendation two 4 received skepticism. Can you describe what you 5 mean by skepticism? 6 A Well, I don't--it's a hot button topic, 7 medicinal marijuana, and what we were looking for 8 at the time was a means to get off the hot spot 9 here and to have it studied. But was there going 10 to be a wholesale endorsement of the 11 recommendations that were set forth by the IOM such 12 as this one that you're asking about, number two, 13 recommendation number two, there wasn't. It had 14 been, I think if my memory serves me correctly two 15 years had passed since the study was initiated. 16 Q Well, you said that it was, this 17 particular recommendation was received with 18 skepticism. Could you explain what you mean by 19 skepticism? 20 A Well, perhaps if I said skepticism, that 21 was perhaps not the best choice of word. I think 22 it was a muted response. It was not skepticism 0328 1 that we doubt that this has application. It was 2 somewhat putting the agency, the Executive Office 3 on the spot of having to endorse it. So the 4 response was muted. 5 Q Was your section, the Demand Reduction 6 Section, tasked with reviewing the IOM? 7 A Yeah, I'm sure that it was. Yes, yes, 8 yes, yes, because that would have been the natural 9 office that it would fall to. 10 Q And did you in particular? 11 A I did review it, uh-huh, uh-huh. 12 Q Was that you by yourself or you with other 13 people? 14 A At that time, I probably had moved on to 15 doing other things, but it certainly would have, 16 and I certainly did review it at the time that it 17 came out, but I'm sure other people did as well, 18 and there was a project officer by that time that 19 had worked with them on that. So, and that person 20 probably would have had the direct responsibility 21 of providing a report about the study. 22 Q So did you review it? Did you review it 0329 1 for your own personal education or did you review 2 it for ONDCP? 3 A Well, my education, yes, but also for the 4 agency, but officially the report would have then 5 come from someone else. 6 Q Would have been reviewed by someone else 7 or? 8 A The actual report that was written, if 9 there was a report, would have been written by 10 someone else, the person who became the point 11 person to the IOM while they were going through the 12 investigation. 13 Q So then how do you know that this specific 14 recommendation, recommendation two, received a 15 muted reception? 16 A From the comments that were made about the 17 report. As I do not have the records, but I do not 18 recall. I mean there may have been a statement to 19 the effect that the ONDCP is in receipt of the 20 report and that we are, you know, having it in, you 21 know, looked into and looking at next steps, but I 22 do not recall that there was a panel that was put 0330 1 into place to look at implementation of the 2 recommendations. 3 Q Of any of the recommendations? 4 A I just don't recall that there were any, 5 there was any panel that did that. 6 Q And then referring you to page 234-- 7 A Uh-huh. 8 Q --of the same document. 9 A 234? 10 Q 234, yes. 11 A Uh-huh. 12 Q The second paragraph beginning "That 13 marijuana is smoked." You testified earlier that 14 there was discussion about vaporization devices at 15 ONDCP; do you recall that? 16 A Right. 17 Q Can you explain more fully what you mean 18 by discussion? 19 A There would have been discussions around 20 the report by the policy analysts in the Office who 21 were looking at that matter, and when the, as I 22 recall, when the point was made about looking at 0331 1 vaporization or smoking, there was, as opposed to 2 the inhalation that there may have been some 3 interest around that. 4 But once again, in terms of a formal 5 establishment of a panel to look at the 6 implementation of that, I just don't recall that 7 happening. 8 Q So was there a or more than one policy 9 analyst looking at this particular issue? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. Was that you? 12 A Who were the others? 13 Q Were you one of the policy analysts 14 looking at this particular issue? 15 A Looking at it, yes, uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh, but I 16 don't think I had the lead on it. I'm 17 pretty sure about that. At the time that as I 18 mentioned, that there was a person who was working 19 with the IOM while they were going through the 20 study, the investigation, and so that person may 21 have actually written something about it. 22 Q But to your knowledge, do you know if 0332 1 something was written about it? 2 A I just don't think there was. There could 3 have been, but I don't think that there was. 4 Q Okay. Do you know anything about the, how 5 marijuana is provided to researchers today? 6 MS. CARPENTER: Objection. Goes beyond 7 the scope of the direct. 8 MS. PAREDES: Dr. Roberts testified that 9 an alternative source of medical marijuana would 10 encourage competition. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: But I don't think she 12 actually testified to that. 13 MS. CARPENTER: She did testify to that, 14 an alternative source, but that's not-- 15 JUDGE BITTNER: And I'm sorry. And the 16 question was how is it provided today? 17 MS. CARPENTER: --distribution. 18 MS. PAREDES: How is it provided today? 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Overruled. 20 BY MS. PAREDES: 21 Q Do you know how medical marijuana is 22 provided to researchers today? 0333 1 A I know that it comes from crops that are 2 grown under supervision in Mississippi through the 3 University of Mississippi. 4 Q And do you know the process by which a 5 researcher would get marijuana from Mississippi? 6 A Well, it seems that they would first have 7 to have a protocol, a research protocol that was 8 approved, and it would have had to be approved, 9 reviewed and approved by NIDA, and once that 10 process was completed and it was deemed 11 appropriate, then they would be granted the amount, 12 whatever was required in order to study. 13 Q Well, do you know how it is that medical 14 marijuana comes from the University of Mississippi? 15 A How it comes from the University of 16 Mississippi? 17 Q By what mechanism? Why is it, why does 18 medical marijuana come from University of 19 Mississippi? 20 A I gather that was through--I mean I know 21 that that relationship, that contract has been in 22 place for some time. Why the University of 0334 1 Mississippi as opposed to some other facility I 2 have no idea. 3 Q So you're aware that there's a contract? 4 A It seems like I'm aware that there is a 5 contract that exists between the two, uh-huh, the 6 two being NIDA and the University of Mississippi. 7 Q Okay. Are you familiar with Dr. Craker? 8 A I've never met him before today. 9 Q Are you currently employed? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Excuse me? 12 A Yes. 13 Q And that's with the University of 14 Georgetown? 15 A That's correct, uh-huh. 16 Q Okay. And you testified earlier that you 17 left federal employment with ONDCP, you took early 18 retirement? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And at that point, didn't you file a 21 discrimination complaint against ONDCP? 22 A That was prior to leaving. 0335 1 Q Is that complaint still pending? 2 A Oh, yeah, yeah. 3 Q Just one second, please. What were the 4 circumstances of your early retirement? 5 A It was all-- 6 MS. CARPENTER: Objection as to relevance. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Ms. Paredes, what's the 8 relevance? 9 MS. PAREDES: Her motive, her bias against 10 ONDCP. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Overruled, but I don't 12 want to go real far with this. So, yes, would you 13 answer the question? 14 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat it? 15 BY MS. PAREDES: 16 Q What were the circumstances of your early 17 retirement? 18 A It was offered to a number of people who 19 were eligible to, who met the criteria for taking 20 it. I was not the only one. I was not the only 21 one who took it. There were several people who 22 took it. You had to meet the criteria. 0336 1 Q And the criteria is what would be commonly 2 referred to as a buy-out? 3 A Right. Absolutely. Uh-huh. 4 MS. PAREDES: Nothing further. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Redirect? 6 MS. CARPENTER: Just a few quick 7 questions, Your Honor. 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. CARPENTER: 10 Q Taking the last first, you testified that 11 you have an EEO claim pending against the ONDCP? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q And do you have any, are you here to 14 settle a claim, a grudge against the ONDCP? 15 A No. That work is very important that goes 16 on at ONDCP, I think, no, and the recommendation to 17 do the study, you know, I made in 1996. I'm a 18 behavioral scientist. This is dealing with the 19 merits of this situation and wouldn't have anything 20 to do with that, you know, uh-uh, with that EEO 21 complaint. That's spurious. 22 Q You testified on cross in response to a 0337 1 question about discussion at ONDCP about how they 2 would use the report. I think you testified that 3 basically ONDCP was looking for a way out of the 4 conflict that you described earlier. And I just 5 wanted to ask you to explain that a little bit 6 further. Were there positions taken by ONDP that 7 opposed medical marijuana? Is that what caused the 8 conflict or were there other issues? 9 A There is a medication on the market today, 10 Marinol, that can be given as a suppository, that 11 can be given to people who had nausea and other 12 complaints that might require its use and so that 13 was one issue. 14 The other one was that this certainly was, 15 I think at the time there was an awareness of the 16 fact that people were not, felt that there were 17 greater benefits to be gained from using different 18 portions of the plant directly, and that it was, I 19 think a matter on which the Director at the time 20 did not feel comfortable because marijuana carries 21 a lot of baggage with it. 22 And so that there was skepticism around 0338 1 the fact that certainly that, I think it was the 2 proposition in California that was passed at the 3 time, that now physicians could talk to their 4 patients about its use, and his concern, and I 5 think rightly so on this point, is that, well, 6 you're going to have people smoking a product that 7 has known carcinogens in it, and he didn't want 8 that to happen. 9 But what he was willing to do, 10 particularly because I think he was very dogmatic 11 on point, and he was looking for a way to try to 12 have some reasonable approach out of this, was to 13 look at the Institute of Medicine studying it. And 14 it would have been interesting to see had he--I 15 think about the time the report came out, he was 16 also thinking about leaving--had he remained there, 17 kind of what he would have done with that 18 information. 19 But it wasn't just an effort to say, oh, 20 well, let me slide out of this by having the 21 Institute of Medicine do it. I think he had a lot 22 of regard--McCaffrey had a great deal of regard for 0339 1 the Institute of Medicine. He felt justified in 2 his positions, but he was certainly I think willing 3 to have the Institute of Medicine, a legitimate 4 body, investigate this whole area. 5 Q Do you know if when the results came back, 6 whether it was ONDC policy to continue oppose the 7 use of marijuana as medicine or whether the policy 8 changed as a consequence IOM report which suggested 9 there were therapeutic uses? 10 A The policy really didn't change. Policy 11 really didn't change, no, uh-uh. 12 Q So the policy was still to oppose the use 13 of marijuana-- 14 A Right. 15 Q --as medicine? 16 A Absolutely. Absolutely. 17 Q Okay. And if you know, and I don't know 18 if you do, but what about NIDA's policy at that 19 time? Do you know if that changed at all in 20 response to the Institute of Medicine's report? 21 A NIDA was one of the 55 or is one of the 55 22 agencies that reports status of their work in that 0340 1 area to ONDCP. So to the extent, they would have 2 looked for ONDCP's guidance, and it also being the 3 part of the Executive Office to take its lead on 4 what to do next. 5 Q So it would have been top down, whatever 6 ONDCP's policy would flow down to NIDA? 7 A It would have been top down. It would 8 have been top down. 9 Q So if ONDCP opposed the medical use of 10 marijuana, so would NIDA? 11 A You're not going to find NIDA is going to 12 jump out there and make a statement, no. 13 Q Okay. Let me just ask one other point to 14 clear up. You mentioned that there were some 15 lawsuits that were filed against Director McCaffrey 16 about this issue. Can you just briefly explain 17 what those lawsuits were about? 18 A Those, I think the fact that he was 19 impeding the privilege afforded by the proposition 20 in California to physicians to talk to patients 21 about the use of--I think they couldn't prescribe 22 it, but they would recommend its use, and he was 0341 1 opposed to that. And I think that there were 2 groups that were opposed to General McCaffrey's 3 position, so-- 4 Q Okay. So-- 5 A And those were the lawsuits. 6 Q Do you know whether there was any action 7 the government took to keep doctors from talking to 8 their patients about the benefits of marijuana? 9 A I think it would have been only through 10 the comments, that that was something that we did 11 not, we at the time, you know, the government did 12 not support. 13 Q Okay. 14 A In terms of an actual, you mean a 15 statement or through an Executive Order? 16 Q A rule. 17 A I don't think there was--there was no 18 Executive Order. Yeah. 19 MS. CARPENTER: All right. I have nothing 20 further. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Recross? 22 MS. PAREDES: Yes, briefly, please. 0342 1 RECROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MS. PAREDES: 3 Q Dr. Roberts, you testified that ONDCP and 4 NIDA were opposed to--had a policy in opposition to 5 medical marijuana. Is that accurate? 6 A Let me hear that again, please. 7 Q That the policy from ONDCP and NIDA was 8 they opposed medical marijuana? 9 A No, I said that in terms of the report, 10 that when it came out, that there was no position 11 really taken by ONDCP, and because they did not 12 take a position, you would not have expected to see 13 NIDA then to come out and take a position on the 14 IOM report. 15 Q So there was no position? 16 A No position what? 17 Q There was no position expressed on medical 18 marijuana? 19 A In terms of medical marijuana by ONDCP? 20 Q Yes. 21 A No. I think they would have said that, 22 you know, that they would have gone on record 0343 1 saying that they support the use of Marinol. 2 Q Okay. Well, has either ONDCP or NIDA, to 3 your knowledge, ever opposed medical marijuana 4 research? 5 A I don't think NIDA would oppose medical 6 marijuana research. It would not oppose it. But 7 in terms of--I don't recall a statement from NIDA 8 saying that we have reviewed the Institute of 9 Medicine report and we stand fully behind the 10 recommendations. I just don't recall ever seeing a 11 report like that. 12 MS. PAREDES: Nothing further. 13 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Anything else? 14 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I 15 just want to clear up this point because it's an 16 important one. 17 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. CARPENTER: 19 Q This issue of the policy, I think you 20 indicated that the ONDCP said they would support 21 Marinol. But the conflict that you talked about 22 that led to ONDCP being on the spot, as it were, am 0344 1 I correct that that resulted from opposition from 2 people who wanted to use marijuana for medical 3 purposes and ONDCP who did not want people to use 4 marijuana, smoke marijuana--let's be clear about 5 that--for medical purposes? 6 A That there was no efficacy for its use. 7 That is correct. 8 Q Okay. So that was what created the 9 conflict? ONDCP did not want people to use smoked 10 marijuana for medical purposes? 11 A That is correct. 12 MS. CARPENTER: Okay. 13 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Anything else, Ms. 15 Paredes? 16 MS. PAREDES: Yes. 17 FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. PAREDES: 19 Q To your knowledge, is using smoking 20 marijuana for medical purposes, is that a legal 21 activity? 22 A Is smoking marijuana for? 0345 1 Q For any purpose. 2 A Is it a legal activity? 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Is it a legal, the 4 article, not illegal? Okay. 5 MS. PAREDES: Correct. Is it a? 6 JUDGE BITTNER: Is it legal to smoke 7 marijuana for treatment of a disorder? 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. I think if it's, 9 once again, I would stand on the science. If it 10 has been deemed medically indicated and it was 11 buttressed by research. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: No, I think the question 13 is, well, Ms. Paredes, I'll ask you to phrase the 14 question. 15 BY MS. PAREDES: 16 Q Can you repeat your answer, please? 17 A I said if it has been deemed medically 18 efficacious and buttressed by research, then I 19 would support it. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: I think the question 21 wasn't what you would support, but what it is? 22 What's the-- 0346 1 BY MS. PAREDES: 2 Q Do you know the state of the law today 3 with regard to the use of marijuana? 4 A It's illegal. 5 Q Are you certain that ONDCP has a policy, a 6 stated policy, that they're opposed to medical 7 marijuana? 8 A You mean is there a written policy? 9 Q Yes. 10 A Oh, no. No. 11 MS. PAREDES: Nothing further. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 13 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry to do this, 14 Judge, but one more question. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: That's all right. I'm 16 here all day. 17 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. CARPENTER: 19 Q If there was an FDA approved protocol-- 20 A Uh-huh. 21 Q --for smoking marijuana as part of 22 clinical research, would that be a legal use? 0347 1 JUDGE BITTNER: The problem is the word "a 2 legal," the two words "a legal," and the one word 3 "illegal." 4 MS. CARPENTER: Would that be a--would it 5 be legal--right. Exactly. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Which do you mean? 7 BY MS. CARPENTER: 8 Q Would it be legal to smoke marijuana in an 9 FDA approved protocol testing medical marijuana? 10 A Absolutely, yes, yes, yes. That's the 11 only way you're going to make the determination 12 about its efficacy. 13 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. Are you done? 15 MS. CARPENTER: I am. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Ms. Paredes, are you? 17 Yes, no? Okay. Then, Dr. Roberts, so are you. 18 Thank you for coming. 19 Would you all like to take a lunch break? 20 Let's go off the record. 21 [Discussion held off the record.] 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Back on the record. We 0348 1 will take a luncheon recess until a quarter to two. 2 Off the record. 3 [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing 4 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:45 p.m., this same 5 day.] 0349 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 [1:50 p.m.] 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Are we ready for the 4 cross-examination of Dr. Craker? 5 MS. CARPENTER: The redirect examination, 6 Your Honor. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry? 8 MS. CARPENTER: For the redirect 9 examination, I believe. We finished cross this 10 morning. 11 MR. BAYLY: Of Dr. Craker. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Did we? 13 MS. CARPENTER: Of Dr. Craker. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Good grief! 15 [Laughter.] 16 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry; yes, let's call 17 it redirect. 18 MS. CARPENTER: It's all been interrupted. 19 [Laughter.] 20 JUDGE BITTNER: That is okay. I do better 21 when I'm reading the transcript. 22 [Laughter.] 0350 1 MS. CARPENTER: That's perfectly all 2 right. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: All right; Dr. Craker, 4 would you resume the stand, please? Have you 5 developed anything for early onset Alzheimer's? 6 [Laughter.] 7 Whereupon, 8 LYLE CRAKER 9 was recalled as a witness herein and, having been 10 previously duly sworn, was examined and testified 11 further as follows: 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Would you repeat your name 13 for the reporter, since we have a new reporter? 14 THE WITNESS: My name is Lyle Craker. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 16 MS. CARPENTER: All right? 17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. CARPENTER: 19 Q Dr. Craker, if you would turn first to 20 Government's Exhibit No. 3, which I'm not sure is 21 up there or not, and actually, could we get 22 Government's Exhibit No. 2 at the same time to save 0351 1 some steps? 2 A Thank you. 3 Q Now, you were asked a lot of questions 4 about Government's Exhibit No. 2 and 3, in 5 particular with regard to Government's Exhibit No. 6 3 and some of the information that you produced. 7 And I just wanted to talk a little bit about how 8 all this happened. 9 You indicated first, just a little 10 background, but Dr. Doblin had approached you and 11 talked about developing a place to grow marijuana. 12 Did Dr. Doblin assist you in drafting this? Did 13 you talk with him in consultation about drafting 14 the application or the answers to the questions? 15 A On Exhibit No. 2? 16 Q Exhibit No. 2 and Exhibit No. 3. 17 A And Exhibit No. 3? 18 Q Right. 19 A Certainly, Dr. Doblin told me about the 20 need for the application. I do not remember; we 21 did not sit down together and go through this. 22 Q When the questions came in from the DEA, 0352 1 did you have a conversation with him about those 2 questions? 3 A Yes, I did have a conversation with Dr. 4 Doblin, and he assisted in the response to the bulk 5 manufacturer's questions. 6 Q Okay; and so, question number one, for 7 example, I think some of the questions that Mr. 8 Bayly asked you, for example; he asked you if you 9 knew that there was--if you knew that there was 10 just one cultivator, and I think you said yes, and 11 then asked the rationale for why you needed more 12 cultivators. Did you receive information from Dr. 13 Doblin that led you to that conclusion? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And had you talked with Dr. Doblin about 16 the issue of availability of medical marijuana? 17 A Yes, we covered lots of talks about those 18 types of issues, yes. 19 Q Okay; and did you think or have reason to 20 believe at the time that he had talked to other 21 researchers about these issues? 22 A Well, yes, I felt that that--in a way, I 0353 1 don't remember him telling me exactly that he had 2 talked to other researchers, but certainly, I 3 understood that. 4 Q Okay; did he indicate to you that he had, 5 you know, gotten information about quality issues 6 from dealing with other researchers? 7 A Yes. 8 MR. BAYLY: Your Honor, excuse me, but 9 we're getting into the leading area here. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Yes, I think it is a 11 little leading. 12 MS. CARPENTER: I will try and refrain. I 13 was trying to cut through a little bit of-- 14 MR. BAYLY: If we could strike that answer 15 and then start again, please. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, let's just go to the 17 question to which there was an objection, so let's 18 rephrase that one. 19 MS. CARPENTER: All right. 20 BY MS. CARPENTER: 21 Q What sort of issues did he talk with you 22 about? 0354 1 A Well, Dr. Doblin talked with me about--when we 2 initially talked about this thing, the need 3 for an alternative source to the NIDA material, and 4 at that time, he indicated to me that there were 5 reports of quality problems and that there was only 6 the one source. 7 Q Okay; and so, when Mr. Bayly asked you 8 about your individual contacts with particular 9 researchers, you indicated that you hadn't had at 10 least specific ones that you recalled. But what 11 contacts did you rely on when you wrote the answers 12 in Government Exhibit No. 3? 13 A Well, primarily, I relied on the material-- 14 discussions with Dr. Doblin. 15 Q Okay; now, you were asked a series of 16 questions about security requirements. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And the cost of that. 19 A Yes. 20 Q And I think you indicated in your direct 21 that there were several visits from DEA agents to 22 the facility. In those discussions, were there 0355 1 general talks about the need for security? 2 A Well, from the Federal Government, I think 3 I've said what they required and that they were 4 looking for a facility that was protected by the-- 5 essentially partly underground--but they came and 6 looked at the room we had proposed growing the 7 material in, and from all indications I had, they 8 thought that was satisfactory. 9 Q Okay; and has the DEA said when they'll 10 let you know about what other specific requirements 11 for security, what they might be? 12 A No. 13 Q You were also asked a series of questions 14 about how, should you be issued the registration, 15 how marijuana that you would grow would be 16 distributed, would be provided. And I guess my 17 first question to you is what's the first thing you 18 had to do in order to start this whole process? 19 A The first thing I had to do to what? 20 Q To start this whole process; that is, did 21 you have a full blown plan in place before you ever 22 applied for the license, or did you see applying 0356 1 for the license as the first step? 2 A No, I did not have a full blown plan when 3 we applied for the license, because everything 4 after that depended on getting the license. 5 Q Did you expect to develop it-- 6 A Time is valuable. 7 Q Okay; and by that, what do you mean? 8 A Well, I mean that unless we get the 9 license, it doesn't pay to plan much further ahead, 10 and that would essentially be a waste of time. 11 Q Okay; so, do you think--how do you think 12 these issues will be worked out once the license is 13 granted, assuming-- 14 A Well, I think that once the license is 15 granted and funding is secured, we will move ahead 16 very rapidly. 17 Q You were also asked a series of questions, 18 I think, about who the potential researchers might 19 be. Is it your understanding--well, let me just 20 ask you this: do you currently have a contract 21 with MAPS? 22 A No, I don't. 0357 1 Q Is there one being negotiated or worked 2 on? 3 A I had supplied Dr. Doblin with the general 4 contract that the university uses. 5 Q Okay; and you expect that that will sort 6 of define the relationship between the two parties? 7 A I think it will define the relationship as 8 far as the university is concerned. The 9 university, of course, does negotiate contracts, 10 and so, there may be changes in the contract. 11 Q Okay; you were also asked some questions 12 about whether you had had any correspondence or 13 talks with pharmaceutical drug companies. Do you 14 remember those questions? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And I think the answer was no. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And is it your understanding that although 19 MAPS may not be a pharmaceutical drug company, is 20 it your understanding that they are looking to 21 marijuana into FDA-approved medicine? 22 MR. BAYLY: Objection, leading. 0358 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Yes. 2 MS. CARPENTER: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Let's rephrase that one. 4 It's okay. 5 MS. CARPENTER: I'll rephrase. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: You can go slow. We're 7 here. 8 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: We're not going anywhere. 10 [Laughter.] 11 BY MS. CARPENTER: 12 Q What is your understanding of what MAPS is 13 trying to do through its work in sponsoring 14 researchers and in sponsoring your work? 15 A Well, in conversations with Dr. Doblin, my 16 understanding is that my role would be to produce 17 the plant material and that MAPS would do the 18 contact with the investigators and would then--the 19 exact details are not worked out, but essentially 20 route them to us for the supply of the material. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: And when you say 22 investigators, are you referring to investigators 0359 1 who are using in research? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Not enforcement 4 investigators. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 BY MS. CARPENTER: 7 Q Medical investigators. 8 A Medical investigators, yes. 9 Q And a similar question with regard to--we 10 talked earlier about the vaporizer. 11 A Yes. 12 Q And what is your understanding of--what 13 would your role in that be in terms of vaporization 14 development? 15 A Having a supply available. 16 Q And to whom would it go? 17 A My understanding is that I know that MAPS 18 has been doing research related to the vaporizer, 19 and I understand that they need a source of 20 marijuana for testing this vaporizer is my 21 understanding and that part of the material that we 22 produced would go towards this. 0360 1 Q Okay; and who would you look to to tell 2 you what's necessary for that research? 3 A Well, I would initially-- 4 Q For that material, not for the research. 5 A Right. 6 Q But who would you look toward for to-- 7 A Well, I would suspect that the first 8 indication of what would be needed would come 9 through MAPS. 10 Q Okay; now, you were asked some questions 11 about whether since, as Mr. Bayly said, there were 12 no pharmaceutical companies or researchers that 13 you, yourself, knew of, that he asked you whether 14 you would commence to grow the marijuana, and you 15 indicated, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that 16 you would sort of check the system to sort of make 17 sure that everything worked; is that accurate? 18 MR. BAYLY: Objection; leading. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Sustained. 20 BY MS. CARPENTER: 21 Q You were asked some questions on cross-examination 22 about whether you would start to grow 0361 1 the marijuana when you got the license. Do you 2 recall that question? 3 A Yes, I do. 4 Q Would part of your determination about 5 when to grow that marijuana, what would go into 6 that determination? 7 A Well, as I've indicated, the facility 8 would need to be tested to see if everything 9 worked, and we would certainly want to do that 10 before we started to produce any for possible 11 clinical trials or testing in any way. After that, 12 it would depend upon whether we had any firm orders 13 for the marijuana. I can see no use in growing it 14 if there wasn't some. 15 Q And if MAPS made a firm order, would that 16 be sufficient? 17 A That would be sufficient. 18 Q Okay; and what's your understanding of the 19 process that any particular marijuana you would 20 raise--I'm not talking about the technical process, 21 but would there be testing involved with marijuana 22 that you would raise that would be needed to be 0362 1 done before it could be used for clinical purposes? 2 A You mean testing for the constituents? 3 Q Could be, or for any other-- 4 A There may be a need for that, but I think 5 that would depend upon who was the--and I think we 6 discussed that earlier. It depends on the--I guess 7 we could call them the customer for the material. 8 Q And if the customer was a Federal agency 9 that was going to approve or disapprove use of a 10 particular project, that would be-- 11 A We could do that then, yes. 12 Q You were also asked a series of questions 13 about whether you knew particular researchers who 14 would need marijuana in a particular potency range, 15 and let me draw your attention to Government's 16 Exhibit No. 3, page 3. Do you see at the top of 17 the page, to ensure researchers a range of potency 18 from about 7 to 15 percent THC? 19 A On page 1? 20 Q Page 3; I'm sorry. 21 A Page 3? And where are you looking? 22 Q The first sentence there. 0363 1 A Okay; to all material? 2 Q No, it starts to ensure researchers. 3 MR. BAYLY: It starts at the bottom of 4 page 2. 5 BY MS. CARPENTER: 6 Q Right; it starts at the bottom of page 2; 7 I apologize. This amount would be from several 8 different strains to ensure researchers a range of 9 potency from-- 10 A Yes. 11 Q Sorry, from about 7 to 15 percent THC. 12 And then, it goes on to say all material will go on 13 to be distributed to Federally-approved 14 researchers. And again, did some of this 15 information come from Dr. Doblin? 16 A This information came from Dr. Doblin. 17 Q You were asked a series of questions about 18 smoked versus nonsmoked. 19 A Yes. 20 Q And I think you indicated a personal 21 preference for nonsmoked. Is your understanding of 22 your agreement with MAPS that you will provide 0364 1 marijuana for FDA-approved research or for 2 something else? 3 A No, only for FDA-approved research. I was 4 going to say, in reference to the--and I understand 5 that this would not be smoked, but we have to leave 6 in the smoked, I think, in case there needs to be 7 comparisons made between smoked and nonsmoked 8 material. So I don't think we can eliminate--I 9 would be afraid to eliminate it entirely. 10 Q And if the FDA-approved protocol called 11 for smoked marijuana, is that what you would 12 provide? 13 A Yes. 14 Q I think you were asked some questions 15 about whether you had heard of complaints from 16 particular researchers, and you indicated that Dr. 17 Russo had done a seminar. 18 A Yes. 19 Q At the University of Massachusetts. 20 A Yes. 21 Q Do you recall the subject of that seminar? 22 A It had to do with--I recall the subject 0365 1 had to do with marijuana and the need for research. 2 I guess his struggles to do research, but that's 3 only in general. I cannot remember the exact 4 details other than that. 5 Q And when you say marijuana, are you 6 talking about medical marijuana? 7 A Medical marijuana, yes. 8 Q All right. 9 A Please. 10 Q And based on that, did you understand him 11 to be a researcher? 12 A My understanding was that he was 13 interested in researching this, yes. 14 Q You were also asked a series of questions 15 on cross-examination about the bid for the next 16 NIDA contract. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Was it your intent when you filed this 19 application to replace NIDA as a supplier? 20 A No, not at all. 21 Q What was your intent? 22 A Our intent was to have an alternative 0366 1 supply available. 2 Q All right; and why would you want to 3 provide an alternative supply? 4 A Well, I think an alternative supply was 5 necessary in my mind because the current research 6 was being--a couple of reasons, I think. The 7 current research was being controlled by the 8 Government, because they can choose who they gave 9 the material to to influence the research, and 10 secondly, in science, we don't go by one thing. We 11 have replicated by different investigators whether 12 things work or not, and that's certainly a 13 principle I adhere to. 14 Q Okay; I think you were also asked some 15 questions about your experience in providing 16 security for plants. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And you indicated that your work when you 19 were at Fort Dietrich, Maryland-- 20 A Yes. 21 Q --was secret; was that classified work? 22 A Yes, classified. 0367 1 Q And were there restrictions on what you 2 could do while at the laboratory? Were security 3 systems in place while you were at the laboratory? 4 A There were security systems in place 5 similar to the security you have in this building. 6 Q Okay; so you're familiar with how those 7 work? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you recognize the importance of that 10 sort of security in a situation like this 11 registration application? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Now, the Government, if I could ask you to 14 turn to Government's Exhibit No. 30. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay; and I think you were asked a series 17 of questions about particularly an article 18 involving Dr. Israelski. 19 A Yes. 20 Q Well, let me just, before I get there, 21 with regard to this letter, did you also consult 22 with Dr. Doblin as you worked on the response to 0368 1 the DEA's questions? 2 A To be honest with you, I cannot recall 3 whether I did or not. 4 Q Do you think it's likely that you did? 5 Were you consulting with-- 6 A Well, yes, I think it is likely that I 7 probably did consult with him. I have generally 8 tried to keep him informed of all material. 9 Q Okay; so in paragraph number two, the 10 references to private conversations that I think 11 you had some questions about on cross-examination, 12 is it possible that information came from Dr. 13 Doblin? I'm sorry; let me just be a little bit 14 more clear about that. You had been asked some 15 questions about the first sentence of that 16 statement. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Of that paragraph, and while I recognize 19 that the primary researchers receiving plant 20 material may openly state to you that they are 21 satisfied with the current source, I am sure that 22 you appreciate that in private conversations, these 0369 1 same researchers indicate a fear of having the 2 current supply eliminated if they complain about 3 the available source. Is it likely or possible 4 that information came-- 5 A Well, certainly, some of that came from 6 Dr. Doblin. 7 Q As well as other sources? 8 A As well as other sources, and I heard that 9 at a conference I attended. 10 MS. CARPENTER: Okay; Your Honor, there 11 was some discussion about whether the letter 12 attached, the Government's Exhibit that was shown 13 was the letter that was actually attached. I think 14 that we have ascertained that it is, and I would 15 offer it to make this letter record complete, if 16 that is helpful for sort of completeness of the 17 record. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Although there is also 19 another attachment. 20 MS. CARPENTER: There is, which we don't 21 have, and the Government-- 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 0370 1 MS. CARPENTER: --doesn't have either. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Mr. Bayly? 3 MR. BAYLY: That's fine; absolutely. Let 4 it in. 5 MS. CARPENTER: So it's not numbered. 6 Should we make it a Respondent's Exhibit? 7 MR. BAYLY: Could we just append it to 8 Government's Exhibit No. 30 as-- 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Let's call it 30A. 10 MS. CARPENTER: 30A? 11 MR. BAYLY: 30A? 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Yes. 13 MR. BAYLY: Okay. Now, I don't have a 14 copy of it. 15 [Laughter.] 16 JUDGE BITTNER: I don't, either. We need 17 to make copies. Do you happen to have a copy for 18 me for any chance? I think our photocopying 19 machine is up to making one copy. 20 MR. BAYLY: Did I give you one, Judge 21 Bittner? 22 JUDGE BITTNER: I gave it back to you. 0371 1 MR. BAYLY: Uh-oh. That was your mistake. 2 [Laughter.] 3 MR. BAYLY: It went into my black hole 4 here. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; why don't we make a 6 copy of it? 7 MR. BAYLY: No, I take it back. 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 9 MR. BAYLY: I pulled it out of a black 10 hole. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: It can go into my memory 12 instead. 13 [Laughter.] 14 MR. BAYLY: I'll give you the one with the 15 yellow stick-em, and we can just mark that. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Oh, no, that will confuse 17 the issue. Then, I'll think I can't write on it. 18 Okay; so that's the official copy, and that's 30A. 19 And now, do you have a copy for me? 20 MR. BAYLY: Oh, you need a copy? 21 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 22 MR. BAYLY: No. 0372 1 [Laughter.] 2 JUDGE BITTNER: We'll make a copy. We can 3 make a copy of it. But let me just take a look at 4 it. 5 Do I correctly assume that this should be 6 offered without the underlinings? 7 MS. CARPENTER: I assume so. 8 JUDGE BITTNER: I assume that they weren't 9 in whatever was received by Mr. Sapienza? 10 MR. BAYLY: Yes, that is correct, Judge. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 12 MR. BAYLY: Is your clerk's copy also-- 13 JUDGE BITTNER: Yes, I'm not worried about 14 the underlinings. I just want to know whether 15 they're--okay, they're not. 16 MR. BAYLY: Well, can we say for the 17 record that they shouldn't be there? 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 19 MR. BAYLY: That they should-- 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; yes; 30A is 21 received. 22 [Government's Exhibit No. 30A 0373 1 was marked for identification 2 and received in evidence.] 3 BY MS. CARPENTER: 4 Q Do you have a copy, Dr. Craker? 5 A No. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: How about I give you--oh, 7 okay. 8 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 9 BY MS. CARPENTER: 10 Q And I'll give you just a minute to look at 11 that, although you certainly looked at it earlier 12 today. 13 A Yes. 14 Q And again, looking at Government's Exhibit 15 No. 30 and the third paragraph, the first sentence, 16 to illustrate the problem of quality-- 17 A Yes. 18 Q --I have enclosed copies of two documents 19 for your review, both of which I know you are 20 familiar, parentheses, the letter you received from 21 Dr. Russo and an article from the San Mateo County 22 Times, et cetera. The article that was attached, 0374 1 that we have all now agreed is Government's Exhibit 2 No. 30A without the underlinings, does that article 3 illustrate the problem of quality with regard to 4 cigarettes from NIDA? 5 MR. BAYLY: Objection, leading. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: I'll allow it. 7 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you, Your Honor. 8 THE WITNESS: The article certainly 9 represented to me the problem with quality. 10 BY MS. CARPENTER: 11 Q And did you intend--do you think your 12 letter to Mr. Sapienza indicates that Dr. Israelski 13 in particular was concerned about the quality, or 14 was he just quoted in the article? 15 A I did not understand the last part of your 16 question. 17 Q I don't blame you. It was a complicated 18 question. In your letter-- 19 A Yes. 20 Q --to Mr. Frank Sapienza, when you noted in 21 parentheses that Dr. Israelski was quoted-- 22 A Yes. 0375 1 Q --were you representing there that he was 2 quoted as specifically condemning NIDA marijuana or 3 just that the article was about the quality of it? 4 A Well, we can immediately see that there is 5 no direct quote from him, so I think that there are 6 a couple of things here. First, we have the 7 general tone of the article is very titled: 8 doctors want better marijuana for study. Dr. 9 Israelski was, I suspected, picked on or cited in 10 my letter because of his association. He is the 11 first one listed there. 12 It probably should have been--maybe 13 quoting was wrong; should have been about; I don't 14 know. 15 Q Well let me just point your attention to 16 the very last paragraph of the article. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Is there not a quote there from Dr. 19 Israelski? 20 A There is, I guess. Also a need for a 21 nonsmokable form of marijuana for pain relief from 22 chronic disease. 0376 1 Q Well, I was talking about the very last 2 paragraph, which begins Israelski, medical director 3 of this study. Oh, yes, that's exactly the one you 4 just read, yes. And then it says the county is 5 well positioned to lead in this effort. 6 A I'm sorry. 7 Q So just to be clear, there is a quote from 8 Dr. Israelski in the article. 9 A Yes, there is a quote from him there, yes. 10 MS. CARPENTER: Okay; that's all. 11 Your Honor, we don't have, or I guess we 12 do have a copy of the Russo letter, but only on the 13 computer. And I was wondering for completeness 14 sake if we could also include--get a copy of the 15 Russo letter and attach it to the letter as well so 16 that it will be complete as a-- 17 JUDGE BITTNER: As long as you can reach 18 agreement that that's what it is. 19 MS. CARPENTER: Yes. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: But I guess Mr. Bayly 21 can't do that until he can see it. 22 MS. CARPENTER: Right. 0377 1 MR. BAYLY: No, I can't answer that right 2 now. I don't think we have a copy available and-- 3 MS. CARPENTER: I'm happy to do that at a 4 later date. I don't want to ask questions. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 6 MS. CARPENTER: I just want to make that-- 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 8 MS. CARPENTER: --document complete. 9 MR. BAYLY: If someone would like to 10 remind me about this issue, we can look at it at a 11 later time. 12 MS. CARPENTER: Right. 13 MR. BAYLY: But right now-- 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 15 MR. BAYLY: --I don't have it. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Sure. 17 MS. CARPENTER: All right; I think that's 18 all we have, Your Honor. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; redirect. 20 MR. BAYLY: Yes, thanks, Judge Bittner. 21 RECROSS EXAMINATION 22 BY MR. BAYLY: 0378 1 Q Dr. Craker-- 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Recross. 3 BY MR. BAYLY: 4 Q You've still got both these exhibits, 5 Government 3 and 30 up there. 6 A I have Government 30 and 30A. 7 Q You don't have the questions in Exhibit 8 No. 3? 9 A No, I do not. 10 Q Thank you. 11 A Now, I have Government Document 3. 12 Q You've indicated, Dr. Craker, that Dr. 13 Doblin helped you fill these questions out on 14 Exhibit No. 3, the response to bulk manufacturing 15 questions. 16 A Yes. 17 Q What I want to try to find out is the 18 extent that helped you with these questions. Did 19 he supply a rough draft for you to answer these 20 questions? 21 A That could well be. Again, we're talking 22 about something that's quite old, and I can't 0379 1 remember everything, but he may very well have 2 supplied a rough draft for me. Certainly, this, as 3 I recall, was probably done by email. I think that 4 I, as I recall, indicated to him that I had gotten 5 a question from the DEA, and I probably sent those 6 to him at that time, and I suspect knowing Dr. 7 Doblin, he probably sent me back his proposed 8 answer for each of the questions. 9 Q All right; and then, do you recall if you 10 made any substantial changes to the email drafts 11 that you received from Dr. Doblin? 12 A I teach a class in editing, and there is 13 no paper that passes my desk without some red ink 14 changes on it. Substantial, I don't know what we 15 can call substantial but-- 16 Q Well, I understand, Dr. Craker, so let's 17 maybe look at this in a little bit more detail-- 18 A Sure. 19 Q --so I can give you some more specifics. 20 Under paragraph one, question one, paragraph two, 21 it says MAPS is seeking to develop the marijuana 22 plant into an FDA-approved prescription medicine. 0380 1 I imagine that is something that Dr. Doblin 2 indicated that he would want in this response? 3 A That may very well be. 4 Q And MAPS will sponsor research at other 5 institutions using smoked marijuana and marijuana 6 delivered through a vaporizer. That's the last 7 sentence there. 8 A Yes, I see the sentence. 9 Q That one was supplied by Dr. Doblin. 10 A I have no idea--I could not define the 11 authorship of that sentence. It may be. 12 Q I'm sorry, Dr. Craker. Go ahead and 13 finish. 14 A I said it may be, and it may not be. And 15 it may be partially his. I cannot identify the 16 author of each sentence or the wording of each 17 sentence. 18 Q Well, would it be safe to say that Dr. 19 Doblin supplied this sentence to you because 20 without him, you would have had no knowledge that 21 there was a vaporizer device that would heat up the 22 marijuana for use? 0381 1 A Well, we had talked about the--he had 2 talked about marijuana research with me before this 3 memorandum was written. 4 Q All right; Dr. Craker, let me just 5 digress: are you aware of the company that's doing 6 this vaporizer research? Do you know the company's 7 name? 8 A No. 9 MS. CARPENTER: Objection, asked and 10 answered several times. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Not quite that way, 12 actually. Overruled. 13 THE WITNESS: No, I do not. 14 BY MR. BAYLY: 15 Q So nobody--Dr. Doblin or no one from MAPS 16 has ever told you who this company is? 17 A If they have, I haven't paid any 18 attention. It was of little relevance to me at the 19 time. If it was discussed, there was little 20 relevance. I do not recall ever having it 21 discussed with me. 22 Q Okay; then, you would have no idea of the 0382 1 legal status of this company, whether it is 2 entitled to receive marijuana under Federal law. 3 A That's true; that's true. 4 MS. CARPENTER: If I could just--I have 5 some objection to characterizing the notion that 6 they're talking about a specific company here. I 7 mean, as I read it, it says will sponsor research 8 at other institutions. I don't think it makes 9 reference to a particular company. I could have 10 missed something. 11 MR. BAYLY: Yes, I think that can be 12 picked up on redirect, Judge Bittner. 13 MS. CARPENTER: Sorry. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, no, but if the 15 question assumes a fact not in evidence, it's a 16 proper objection, so we'll just leave it right 17 there. 18 BY MR. BAYLY: 19 Q Dr. Craker, let's drop down to question 20 number two on these-- 21 A Certainly. 22 Q --Government Exhibit No. 3. It talks 0383 1 about--it asks please describe the production 2 process for these controlled substances from start 3 to finish. 4 A Yes. 5 Q Would you say that answer is yours or Dr. 6 Doblin's? 7 A Well, I would say that it probably is 8 predominantly mine. 9 Q Let's go all the way to question number 10 six. 11 A Yes. 12 Q Okay; you say the goal for the first year 13 is a maximum of 25 pounds dry weight. Do you know 14 whose answer that would be? Would that be yours? 15 A That would be Dr. Doblin's. He would give 16 me that number. 17 Q Okay; and do you know on what basis he 18 came up with that number? 19 A Well, I assume he has contact with--I 20 mean, that was my assumption that he had contact 21 with potential customers, if we can use that term 22 again and would have some idea of what would be 0384 1 needed. 2 Q Okay; but you've never found out who those 3 potential customers were. 4 A I did not, no. 5 Q Now, you indicated in your conversations 6 with Dr. Doblin that he had some--he related some 7 quality problems to you about the University of 8 Mississippi's marijuana; is that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Did he tell you what kind of quality 11 problems? 12 A Ones that I've indicated before, that the 13 material contained extraneous material. 14 Q I'm sorry? 15 A It contained extraneous material. 16 Q And you don't know if that's been 17 addressed or not by the University of Mississippi. 18 A I have no idea. 19 Q Any other kind of quality problems? 20 A Quality, if we're referring to the level 21 of constituents, then, it had a low constituent 22 level. 0385 1 Q When you say low constituent level, are 2 you talking about THC? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Okay; and did he tell you who had these 5 problems? 6 A Not that I recall. 7 Q And can you tell us roughly, and I 8 certainly am not going to hold you to any dates, 9 when you had this conversation with Dr. Doblin? 10 A I suspect that some of the initial 11 conversations were held when I first met with Dr. 12 Doblin. How much they were discussed in detail, I 13 have no idea. But certainly, at the time, I would 14 have had to have been convinced of the necessity of 15 doing this. 16 Q Dr. Craker, when was the last time that 17 you can recall that Dr. Doblin related any kinds of 18 problems with the quality of the University of 19 Mississippi marijuana? 20 A I have no idea. I do not think we have 21 talked about it this year. 22 Q All right; so it hasn't been recent, then? 0386 1 A Well, I don't know what recent is; we've 2 been talking about five years here. 3 Q Within the last year. 4 A I don't believe we have. But January was 5 a long time ago also. 6 Q Now, MAPS itself is not a registered DEA 7 entity, right? 8 A I have no idea. 9 Q Do you know if MAPS is authorized to 10 physically take marijuana, say, from you if you 11 were registered, to a researcher? 12 A I do not believe so, and that was not the 13 intention. The intention is I would ship the 14 material directly to the investigator, using the 15 term again. 16 Q I think Ms. Carpenter asked you if you 17 attended a conference with Dr. Russo. Would you be 18 able to tell us when that conference occurred? 19 A Conferences meld together with me because 20 I attend so many, but I think it was in 2004. 21 Q And would it be your intent to pursue this 22 application even if you knew that the University of 0387 1 Mississippi supplied an adequate quantity and 2 quality of marijuana to researchers? 3 A Well, the answer to that is yes, because 4 we're talking, we're still talking about a 5 government control of who gets to do the research 6 as far as I can see. And secondly, with only that 7 source, we're eliminating any secondary source that 8 could be used for comparison purposes. 9 Q Well, you say government control, but, I 10 mean, if you're registered, you will be government 11 controlled as well. 12 A Yes, you're right, to a certain extent. 13 Maybe to a large extent. 14 Q But are you saying, then, you want--what 15 difference would it be, then, between the 16 government controls if you're both registered, if 17 you know? 18 A Well, my understanding is that Mississippi 19 is under a government contract. Our work would 20 certainly not be under a government contract. With 21 a government contract, they can supply to who the 22 government decided what experiments were relevant 0388 1 to various investigators. In our case, we would 2 offer a competitive source and could be supplied to 3 investigators that were licensed to do the studies. 4 Q So you say a government contract. A 5 government contract; let's define government here-- 6 A Yes. 7 Q --is with NIDA, right? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And that's a division or branch of HHS. 10 A Yes, I guess. 11 Q So DEA would have nothing to do with this 12 contract, to the best of your knowledge? 13 A I have no idea what the flow chart looks 14 like for NIDA or DEA. 15 Q If we could take a look at Government 16 Exhibit No. 30, Dr. Craker. 17 A Sure. 18 Q Did Dr. Doblin supply you with the article 19 from the San Mateo County Times that we have now 20 marked as Government Exhibit No. 30A? 21 A I honestly do not recall. 22 Q Don't know where that came from? 0389 1 A I have no idea where that came from 2 currently, no. 3 Q And the same response for the letter from 4 Dr. Russo that's referenced in this letter? 5 A Whether that was supplied by Dr. Doblin or 6 by Dr. Russo to me, I do not know. 7 Q But the information in paragraph two, and 8 it starts out-- 9 A Yes. 10 Q --while I recognize, that whole paragraph 11 there is not something you came up with, but that 12 was information supplied by Dr. Doblin? 13 A Well, certainly, the initial conversations 14 along this line came from Dr. Doblin. But as I 15 indicated to you also earlier, that once we 16 applied, and this got into the public domain 17 through various newspapers and radio stations, I 18 received emails along this line indicating a 19 similar type of things. 20 Q Now, Dr. Craker, then, I take it that 21 you're going to rely on Dr. Doblin to find 22 customers if and when you get your registration as 0390 1 a DEA manufacturer of marijuana. 2 A That would be the initial work in this 3 area, yes. 4 MR. BAYLY: That's all on recross. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; re-redirect? 6 MS. CARPENTER: Just bear with me, Your 7 Honor. 8 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. CARPENTER: 10 Q Dr. Craker, you indicated that you had 11 talked with Dr. Doblin a lot about the information 12 that you got in the paragraph one of Government's 13 Exhibit No. 3, and that paragraph was what's the 14 purpose of the bulk manufacturer. 15 A Yes. 16 Q And why did you talk to Dr. Doblin about 17 the purpose of the bulk manufacturer? 18 A Well, because Dr. Doblin was my primary 19 contact at the time, and I guess I needed someone 20 to discuss with, and he was handy. 21 Q And were you guys doing this together? 22 When I say this, I mean this whole project of 0391 1 developing marijuana and-- 2 A Yes, that was the initial thought there, 3 yes, that we were working on this collectively, 4 yes. 5 Q As a joint effort? 6 A A joint effort, yes, I would say it could 7 be considered a joint effort. 8 Q And then, question number two, I think you 9 said you provided that information. 10 Would you look at question number three? 11 Is that information relating primarily to the 12 growing or supplying? 13 A Yes, it has to do with the growing of the 14 material. 15 Q Okay; and the same thing about question 16 number four. 17 A That has to do with the growing the 18 material also, yes. 19 Q Okay; and question number five? 20 A Has to do with growing the material except 21 for the seed supply. 22 Q Okay; so, would it be fair to say that 0392 1 with regard to how the stuff would be grown, you 2 would provide the information? 3 A Yes, definitely. 4 Q And with regard to the uses in research, 5 Dr. Doblin essentially provided the information? 6 A Yes. 7 MS. CARPENTER: One moment, Your Honor. 8 I think that's all, Your Honor. 9 MR. BAYLY: Finally, that's all. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: You may step down, Doctor. 11 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 12 [Witness excused.] 13 JUDGE BITTNER: Dr. Craker, you have 14 decided you don't want to stay and watch the rest 15 of this? 16 DR. CRAKER: I would love to, but my wife 17 said I have to come home a day before I went to 18 Atlanta, so-- 19 JUDGE BITTNER: I see. 20 DR. CRAKER: It will give me a chance to 21 go home and see what she looks like briefly. 22 [Laughter.] 0393 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; have a good trip. 2 Ms. Carpenter. 3 MS. CARPENTER: Yes, Your Honor, we would 4 call Former Senator John Vasconcellos. 5 Whereupon, 6 JOHN VASCONCELLOS 7 was called as a witness herein and, after being 8 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 9 DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MS. CARPENTER: 11 Q Would you state your name for the record, 12 please? 13 A Certainly, John Vasconcellos. 14 Q Would you spell it for the record, please? 15 A Certainly; V-as in Victor-A-S-as in Sam-C-O-N as 16 in nickel-C-E-L-L-O-S as in Sam. 17 JUDGE BITTNER: O-S or A-S? I'm sorry. 18 THE WITNESS: O-S. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: All right. 20 BY MS. CARPENTER: 21 Q And what's your address, Mr. Vasconcellos? 22 A My home address is 1915 Bellomy Street B-E-L-L-O-M 0394 1 as in Michael-Y Street in Santa Clara, 2 California 95050. 3 Q Mr. Vasconcellos, what do you do? 4 A I'm retired as of November 30, 2004. 5 Q And what did you retire from? 6 A I retired from 38 years of service in the 7 California Legislature, representing the heart of 8 Silicon Valley. 9 Q Okay; were you a Senator? An Assemblyman? 10 A I was in the Assembly from 1967, January, 11 to 1996 and in the Senate from 1996 until 2004; 30 12 and then eight and then left because of term 13 limits, not because of any other decision. 14 [Laughter.] 15 THE WITNESS: They took it out of my 16 hands, my voters' as well. 17 BY MS. CARPENTER: 18 Q Rather than the alternative. 19 A Because my voters--I'm sorry. 20 [Laughter.] 21 Q At some point during your service to 22 California, did you get involved in setting up 0395 1 research relating to medical marijuana? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Can you tell us how that came about? 4 A Most immediately in 1996, the people of 5 California passed Proposition 215, which called for 6 the decriminalization of marijuana for medical uses 7 upon certain prescribed conditions. And I had 8 earlier carried legislation that would have 9 decriminalized medical marijuana for only four 10 conditions: glaucoma, sclerosis, I think cancer 11 and AIDS, and that was passed and vetoed by the 12 Governor. 13 And then, people took it to the ballot, 14 and it was put on the ballot, and I did not partake 15 in the drafting of it, but I did support it. It 16 was enacted by a heavy vote of the people in 1996. 17 And I then felt we ought to honor the vote of the 18 people, the will of the people, and proceed to put 19 together what it would take to have the people's 20 will carried forward in terms of its not being 21 illegal in California under the California people's 22 enacted law to partake of marijuana for medical 0396 1 purposes under those same conditions. 2 At the same time, a curious thing 3 developed: we had a governor's race that year, and 4 the one candidate had fiercely opposed--the June 5 ballot was the Initiative 215. One guy had 6 severely, staunchly, avidly opposed it. As soon as 7 it passed, he declared we don't enough about it; we 8 should do some research and find out what the truth 9 is about the use of marijuana for medical purposes. 10 I thought great idea and great 11 opportunity. So I introduced legislation to create 12 the University of California Medical Cannabis 13 Research Center, after discussing with the 14 university, with my colleagues, and with the 15 attorney general, who is now in the Congress from 16 California. I think he would call himself a 17 conservative Republican. 18 And he and I together wrote the 19 legislation. And every word, every word was 20 negotiated by his chief of staff and mine to make 21 the legislation absolutely above reproach about 22 objective research. 0397 1 Q And let me just stop you there for a 2 minute and ask you what did the legislation do? 3 A It created, within the University of 4 California, the university concurring, a research 5 center, and it provided funding. It began at $1 6 million a year for three years. We went to $3 7 million a year for three years, a total of $9 8 million, to conduct research by all of the rigorous 9 protocols could be properly called upon to find out 10 whether in fact marijuana has medical value for 11 illnesses or whether it doesn't. And if it does, 12 what up sides, what down sides, what risks, what 13 benefits and what methodologies might be entailed. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: And what is the name of 15 this research center? 16 THE WITNESS: It is the University of 17 California Center for Medical Cannabis Research. 18 The university, the president of the university, 19 Richard Atkinson, by executive order created it; 20 the Regents approved it, I believe, and it was 21 chosen to have the University of California at San 22 Diego be the major host and the University of 0398 1 California at San Francisco be a secondary host but 2 the entire system be involved in the protocols, the 3 proposals, and the operation of the center. 4 BY MS. CARPENTER: 5 Q And is that what's also come to be known 6 as CMCR? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q Okay; so did that research occur? 9 A The research was begun, and it took awhile 10 to get it going, because they were so careful to 11 work with the Federal, you know, all the agencies, 12 so the DEA, and NIDA--I don't know, because I was 13 not involved in that at the ground level, to get 14 everything done particularly strictly by scientific 15 protocols and to, before they went out public for 16 the grant proposals to be sure everything was 17 okayed by the Federal Government for this process. 18 And to my understanding, and I've been on 19 an advisory group, and I've followed it closely, 20 and one of my friends, in fact, has been involved 21 in helping to direct it, carefully--it took awhile. 22 Money was made available, and they put out the 0399 1 research proposals, and there have been 15 2 proposals funded over the course of these--I guess 3 it's about five years now since the center was 4 created. And each of them, I mean, there were more 5 proposals that they could fund. 6 Each of them was--the statute required 7 that they create a scientific advisory committee to 8 be sure it was done appropriately. Upon the 9 proposals they had selected, they were each 10 submitted to three members of the Committee, 11 scientists, who would first vet it and then say 12 these ones should go forward to the full Committee, 13 these ones shouldn't. And those that did went to 14 the full Committee, which vetted all of them, I 15 think through Internet conversations, and 15 have 16 been selected and funded, and the others were not. 17 Q Okay; do you know if NIDA provided the 18 marijuana for that research? 19 A I believe so. 20 Q And the researchers were all licensed by 21 DEA, I think you said? 22 A I believe every proposal was approved by 0400 1 whoever--HHS, DEA; I mean, I don't know the Federal 2 Government. I was fully occupied with California 3 in my tenure, but they were all approved here 4 individually and en masse eventually to obtain the 5 marijuana and then to proceed with the research. 6 Q Okay; and is that research over? 7 A No, it's still going on. In fact, not one 8 of the studies have been fully completed and 9 reported on yet, although I am advised that there 10 are two of them that have been completed, and the 11 results are now being written up and hopefully will 12 be published in a medical journal as appropriate. 13 And-- 14 Q Sorry; is there further funding for 15 additional research to be carried out by that 16 group? 17 A There is not. And there is not--well, two 18 things on that question, if I may. The first 19 legislation created a four-year program, at which 20 point the center dissolved, sunsetted is the term 21 they used. After three years, it was clear that 22 this research takes longer than, you know, a year 0401 1 or two years or three years to do it properly and 2 find a result that is, whichever way, legitimate 3 and convincing, hopefully to all people who are 4 attending to it. 5 So the sunset was removed I guess two 6 years ago. The funding, we got $3 million a year 7 for three years, and then, California fell upon 8 what you must have known about here, the dot-com 9 collapse, and our state budget was $40 billion 10 short, and there was no way to get more money for 11 medical marijuana research, much less keep the 12 universities open without doubling the fees and 13 tuition so there was no more money. 14 And sad to say, in the three years since, 15 there has been no successful effort accomplished by 16 the government sector to rewrite, to recorrect 17 California's fiscal imbalance. So there has been 18 no more money, and I can't predict the future, but 19 there is nothing on the horizon that would indicate 20 that California is going to be back in the black 21 very soon. 22 Q So is it likely that that research is 0402 1 pretty much done when it's done? 2 A It's likely that that research is done 3 when it's done. Whether that center will be able 4 to obtain other funding sources for additional 5 research remains to be seen. Certainly, they have 6 made themselves credible, I think, across all 7 boundaries, and they're looking for that but so far 8 have not found any of that that I know of and, you 9 know-- 10 Q Was the center designed, since you drafted 11 the legislation, was it designed to develop 12 marijuana into a medical drug that would be 13 approved by the FDA? 14 A No, no, it was on my mind, and it would 15 not have ever gotten the attorney general's 16 approval and the bill passed. I mean, to pass a 17 bill in our legislature, unlike all but one other 18 state, requires a two-thirds vote in both houses 19 and the governor to sign. 20 That meant I had to get in my house like 21 four Republicans, and I finally got four of the 22 most conservative, by their own self definition, no 0403 1 one of which wanted to be the 27th vote. So I said 2 how about all four of you standing at once and 3 saying aye? And it was the first and only chorus 4 in the history of our legislature; the bill was 5 passed and stood, and it was simply worded to find 6 out whether in fact the claims about marijuana 7 being medically of value had substance 8 scientifically or did not. 9 And if, insofar is there is some substance 10 or value, are there benefits, and are there risks 11 like in smoking or whatever, and if so, how much of 12 which, and are there other ways with respect to 13 marijuana--FDA was not talked about in terms of 14 approval; it was not calculated to look for 15 approval. It was calculated to demystify the 16 roaring contentions of contrary viewpoints and to 17 find out by science carefully designed and 18 commissioned and arbitrated by the protocols to 19 find out whether, in fact, it's of any use. 20 Q And when you're talking about medical 21 marijuana, are you talking about the medical 22 marijuana plant, or are you talking about isolated 0404 1 pieces of it? 2 A The best answer is the legislation itself, 3 since it was so carefully drafted. And I'm sure 4 it's available to the Court. I would--certainly, 5 we can have it, you know, faxed back to you, and 6 you can read that. 7 Q It's in the California Statutes. 8 A Your question again? 9 Q Was the CMCR designed to test smoked 10 marijuana or vaporized marijuana? 11 A At that point, vaporized marijuana had 12 barely been mentioned, in my recollection. And 13 smoked was the usual delivery system that seemed to 14 be operating, if sub rosa then. 15 And you may know also that the legislation 16 also directed the legislature and the governor to 17 put together a system for distribution so that 18 those people who could now use it without criminal 19 sanction could get it and that those who helped 20 provide that would also--but it was all about that 21 process. But at that point, as I recall, smoked 22 was the more likely. Other things were only being 0405 1 talked about or proposed, but they were not on the 2 table particularly. 3 Q And I think you said that the money had 4 run out. Do you know if California, the state, 5 plans to continue this research some other way or-- 6 A Well, you know, the votes are probably 7 there to do it except that there is no money there 8 to do that, and I left only in November, at which 9 point the state was terribly short of funds for 10 that last fiscal year and had a budget deadlock 11 that went almost until September. And I'm not 12 there now, but this year, I read about the budget 13 fight; it went on again, and they passed it again 14 together without any money, without even paying the 15 bills that we should. 16 So California is still in the red by 17 several billion dollars. 18 Q Do you think it would be appropriate for 19 private research organizations to take the results 20 of this and build on it if it looks promising? 21 A Well, if it looks promising, if it looks 22 promising, it seems to me that people have a right 0406 1 to know more about what might help them in their 2 suffering and pain or illness, whatever it might 3 be; whatever it might be and that the more 4 research, the better, provided it's rigorous and 5 according to protocol and objective and careful and 6 approved by everybody who has to approve it. 7 I don't think 15 studies are likely to be 8 sufficient to resolve this matter, and I would 9 guess if they come in with some show of efficacy, 10 then, it would seem in the public interest smart 11 and to me appropriate to find out more about it. 12 MS. CARPENTER: I think that's all we 13 have, Your Honor. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; cross? 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MS. PAREDES: 17 Q Mr. Vasconcellos-- 18 A Vasconcellos, please. 19 Q Vasconcellos; sorry. Are you familiar 20 with an author by the name of Bernard Goldberg? 21 A Bernard Goldberg, no. 22 Q Are you familiar with a book called 100 0407 1 People Who are Screwing Up America? 2 A I've had emails from friends about the 3 book. 4 Q So, I'm sorry, I didn't hear your 5 response. 6 A I have had friends email me about the book 7 and congratulate me on making it. 8 MS. CARPENTER: Your Honor--never mind. 9 BY MS. PAREDES: 10 Q So you haven't actually read it? 11 A I haven't read it, nor have I seen what it 12 has to say. 13 Q Well, you testified on direct that you 14 supported the CMCR bill. 15 A I authored the bill. 16 Q You authored the bill. 17 A Yes; I thought it up; I created it; I 18 authored it; and I support it, of course. 19 Q To determine whether marijuana has value 20 as a medicine. 21 A Yes. 22 Q Is that accurate? 0408 1 A Yes. 2 Q Now, when these studies, when the results 3 from the CMCR are finally published, I assume--are 4 there any published now? 5 A No. 6 Q Okay; when they are published, will you 7 take their recommendations and conclusions as 8 valid? 9 A I expect so. You know, I never know what 10 I'll do until I see something, so I don't predict 11 my own behavior. I always try to act with 12 integrity in the moment. 13 Q So hasn't there been a time in the past 14 when scientific studies disproved a bill that you 15 sponsored or a movement in California that you 16 sponsored, and your response was all the research 17 in the world won't change my mind about it? 18 A Do you want to be specific what you're 19 talking about? 20 Q Yes, do you recall sponsoring legislation 21 called or creating a task force called the 22 California Task Force to Promote Self Esteem and 0409 1 Personal and Social Responsibility? 2 A Yes, I do; my proudest work in 38 years; I 3 do. 4 Q I'm sorry? 5 A It's my proudest work in 38 years. 6 Q And that task force issued a report 7 declaring self esteem a vaccine that would attack 8 academic failure, drug use, and juvenile crime. 9 A If I may, that's inaccurate. 10 Q Excuse me? 11 A That's inaccurate. 12 Q What report did it issue? 13 A It issued a report in January--the bill 14 was passed and finally signed by George Deukmejian, 15 a very conservative Republican Governor, in 1986. 16 It created a task force whose challenge was to find 17 out whether, in fact, self esteem is important in 18 issues of violence, educational failure, drug 19 abuse, child abuse, welfare dependency, and a sixth 20 field. 21 The task force was created; the Governor 22 and I negotiated this. He named the chair. He 0410 1 named nine of the 25 members. The majority were 2 Republican of the 25, 13 to 12, and they included 3 everybody from cops, the attorney general to gay 4 therapists and housewives, and I served ex officio 5 on the task force. 6 It worked for three years. We had 400 7 applicants for the task force, the most history for 8 anything in California. And they had, like, 18 9 hearings, and they had 15 meetings, and the average 10 attendance was 21. They produced a report in 11 January 1990 called Toward a State of Esteem. And 12 in that report, they said the research is at this 13 point still scanty, but it looks as though, it 14 didn't declare; it said it looks as though self 15 esteem is probably helpful. 16 And then, it quotes Dr. Jonas Salk of the 17 Salk vaccine fame as saying it looks like it 18 amounts to a social vaccine. And I thought Jonas 19 Salk was a pretty good authority for me to quote in 20 the report. I didn't write it; the task force 21 wrote it. It didn't declare. It just said looks 22 like--it was indicative; that's the task force and 0411 1 its report. 2 Q And as a result of the task force and the 3 report, were self esteem programs placed in 4 elementary schools in thousands of districts in the 5 State of California? 6 A As a result of the report, self esteem 7 became widely known throughout the world, including 8 some satire by Doonesbury you might have seen, 9 maybe not. And it became popular in many places, 10 in prisons, for prison reform, rehabilitation, in 11 some schools, not because of the report; the report 12 dictated nothing. The report just said it looks 13 like it's valuable. From my granddaughter's 14 experience, it looks like it's really valuable 15 anyway. 16 A lot of schools, because of their own 17 teachers and their own administrators and their own 18 trustees adopted programs to attempt to prepare 19 children with healthier self esteem to face the 20 world in mature ways. I think the most model was 21 the Moreland District of West San Jose, and Bob 22 Riesner was Superintendent of Schools there, we're 0412 1 still in touch as friends. 2 His district, after self esteem for the 3 parents, the kids, the teachers, the trustees left 4 with no truancy. They all went on to school; there 5 were no drop-outs, no truancy, and no graffiti. It 6 was a remarkable result in that school. That's the 7 most prominent one. There weren't thousands, but 8 there were a lot. 9 Q Well, since the institution of those 10 programs in schools, haven't research studies shown 11 that in academic terms, self esteem curricula are 12 worse than useless? 13 A No, they haven't. You're quoting the 14 Baumeister study, obviously, from Roy Baumeister 15 from Pennsylvania. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry; I missed that. 17 THE WITNESS: A man named Roy Baumeister, 18 B-A-U-M-E-I-S-T-E-R. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 20 THE WITNESS: He's from Pennsylvania, I 21 believe--who has made a career out of ragging on 22 self esteem. Says a little about him, I think. 0413 1 And if you read the report and his studies, he 2 misdefines it, to start with. He misdefines this 3 thing. You get obviously a result that isn't worth 4 two cents. 5 The task force that I authored, after 6 weeks of argument with two fundamentalist Christian 7 ministers and the gay therapist and people of all 8 race, color, orientation--I mean, it was California 9 as you all think about it, and they negotiated, 10 they argued, and they put a definition together 11 about self esteem being that which holds me 12 accountable for myself and responsible to others. 13 And that-- 14 BY MS. PAREDES: 15 Q Well, sir, but that's not my question. My 16 question is have there been research studies that 17 have shown that self esteem curricula is [sic] 18 useless. 19 A Not that I know of. 20 Q There are tens of thousands of research 21 studies have--you haven't seen tens of thousands of 22 research studies that-- 0414 1 A No, I haven't seen one that I think is 2 credible. 3 Q Were you ever interviewed concerning these 4 self curricula? 5 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry; what was the 6 question? 7 BY MS. PAREDES: 8 Q Were you ever interviewed concerning the 9 introduction of self esteem curricula in the 10 schools? 11 A You know, I don't recall, but I'm sure I 12 must have been, because I was well noted for being 13 a major champion in the field. I undoubtedly was 14 interviewed. 15 Q Do you recall ever being confronted with 16 the these research studies that show that self 17 esteem curricula is not useful? 18 A Not a one that had any valid definition as 19 a basis for the research. 20 Q And do you recall saying all the research 21 in the world won't change my mind about it? 22 A That's true, because my granddaughters are 0415 1 10 and 15; they have self esteem, and there 2 couldn't be healthier kids in the whole world than 3 those two. They're more powerful than any 4 research. 5 Q So assuming that there were research 6 studies that showed self esteem curricula were not 7 useful, those studies would not change your mind? 8 A Probably not, but I haven't seen any. I 9 bet you haven't either, but that's gratuitous. I'm 10 sorry. 11 Q Now, you testified that there were 15 12 proposals funded over the past five years by CMCR. 13 A Yes. 14 Q How many proposals were put to CMCR for 15 approval? 16 A There were--I don't know the answer to 17 that question. 18 Q Were there more than 15? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Can you estimate how many were sent to-- 21 A No, I don't want to guess under oath. Not 22 appropriate. 0416 1 Q So would it be your testimony that some 2 proposals were refused? 3 A Yes; I talked last night with one of the 4 principals there, and he said yes, some were 5 refused, because the money only would support 15. 6 Q Is that the only reason some were refused? 7 A That's the only reason some were refused. 8 And some were refused because they didn't measure 9 up scientifically. This was a very serious 10 operation. 11 Q You mean because they lacked scientific 12 merit? 13 A Pardon? 14 Q Because they lacked scientific merit? 15 A Some were refused because they didn't have 16 sufficient scientific merit, yes, and those that 17 were approved were then all approved by the FDA, 18 some after further change, but all of them-- 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Do you know--I don't 20 remember, Mr. Vasconcellos, if you testified--you 21 were not involved in the selection process for this 22 project; correct? 0417 1 THE WITNESS: Not at all. I went to the 2 first meeting of the group to kick it off, and I 3 went back to visit. But I was not involved, no. 4 JUDGE BITTNER: Do you know whether all 5 the projects that were considered for funding 6 already had appropriate Federal approvals to use 7 marijuana? In other words, do you know which was 8 the chicken and which was the egg? 9 THE WITNESS: I think the chicken was the 10 submission to the center, and after vetting it, 11 three persons and then the whole scientific group, 12 they selected the ones that would be chosen with 13 the funds that were available. Those were all then 14 forwarded to the Federal Government, FDA or HHS; 15 I'm not quite sure which agency back here does 16 what, and every one of them was then reviewed by a 17 totally different set of scientists unknown to the 18 center staff, and every one of them was, though 19 some with comments and edits, all 15 of those then 20 were approved by the Feds and are in operation now. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: I guess what I was trying 22 to get at is depending on which came first, if 0418 1 there were sort of eccentric proposals, let's call 2 them, then, they wouldn't have been vetted--they 3 wouldn't have received the requisite Federal 4 approvals before going to the center; in other 5 words, the screening out would have been by the 6 center first. 7 THE WITNESS: I think it was the center 8 first, and I think they screened out the eccentric 9 ones first. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; thanks. 11 THE WITNESS: The ones that they approved 12 were all approved, each approved back here. 13 BY MS. PAREDES: 14 Q With regarding to funding, looking for 15 more funding for research. 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know where CMCR has been looking 18 for funding? 19 A Well, they've been hoping the Federal 20 Government might come through with some, but I 21 don't know a lot about that. I just heard that. 22 Q So are you personally involved in looking 0419 1 for more funding? 2 A No, I'm retired. 3 Q Have you heard, then, of anywhere else 4 that CMCR might be trying to look for funding aside 5 from the Federal Government? 6 A I don't think I have. 7 Q Of the 15 studies that were approved by 8 CMCR, were any discontinued before they were 9 completed? 10 A Yes. 11 Q How many? 12 A I don't know. 13 Q Do you know the reasons why they were 14 discontinued? 15 A The main reason why was because some of 16 the studies couldn't get enough subjects to have a 17 legitimate sufficient number for a study, so the 18 center said we're not going to do it. In other 19 words, you have to 24 or--you have to have some 20 number of subjects to have a research project. 21 Some couldn't find enough. One of them was about, 22 I think, some form of cancer, and they couldn't get 0420 1 more than half a dozen, so it was canceled. 2 Q Are you aware of any other reasons they 3 would have been discontinued? 4 A I'm not aware of any other reasons. 5 MS. PAREDES: Nothing further. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: Redirect. 7 MS. CARPENTER: Just one second. 8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 9 BY MS. CARPENTER: 10 Q Let me just ask you real quick, Senator: 11 have you heard of anybody else who's made it into 12 this book, 100 People Screwing Up America? 13 A You know, the first guy who came through 14 mentioned a couple others, but I forgot who they 15 were. 16 Q Do you want me to refresh your 17 recollection? Jimmy Carter? 18 A Might be. 19 Q Barbara Walters? 20 A I think it--yes; as I said, I'm proud to 21 have made that list. 22 MS. CARPENTER: Norman Mailer--I think 0421 1 that's all I have. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; any recross? 3 MS. PAREDES: No. 4 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; thank you very much, 5 Mr. Vasconcellos. 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Have a good trip back. 8 THE WITNESS: I will. 9 [Witness excused.] 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Would you like a short 11 break before your next witness. 12 MS. CARPENTER: That would be good. 13 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; 10 minutes? 14 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you, Your Honor. 15 [Recess.] 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; Ms. Carpenter. 17 MS. CARPENTER: Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Allen 18 Hopper is going to be conducting the next 19 examination. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 21 MR. HOPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 Respondent calls Dr. Dale Gieringer. 0422 1 Whereupon, 2 DALE GIERINGER 3 was called as a witness herein and, after being 4 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. HOPPER: 7 Q Can you please state and spell your first 8 and last name? 9 A Dale Gieringer, that's G-I-E-R-I-N-G-E-R. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: G-A-E-- 11 THE WITNESS: G-I-E-- 12 JUDGE BITTNER: I've already messed up; 13 okay. I-N-G-- 14 THE WITNESS: G-I-E-R-I-N-G-E-R. 15 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; and your first name? 16 THE WITNESS: Dale, D-A-L-E. 17 BY MR. HOPPER: 18 Q And I'm going to apologize in advance, 19 because I've been in my head calling you Dr. 20 Gieringer. I'm going to try to call you Dr. 21 Gieringer, because that's how you just pronounced 22 it, but I'm sure I'm going to mess that up, so 0423 1 please forgive me. 2 And where do you reside? 3 A 3514 Dwight Way--D-W-I-G-H-T--in Oakland, 4 California. 5 Q And Dr. Gieringer, can you please tell us 6 about your education? Do you hold an undergraduate 7 degree? 8 A Yes, A.B. from Harvard in mathematics. 9 Q And when you say A.B., I'm sorry; that's 10 a-- 11 A That's a B.A. to other people who don't 12 speak Latin. 13 Q That's a B.A. in Harvardspeak. 14 A Yes, right. 15 Q And, I'm sorry; in what field of study? 16 A Math. 17 Q And do you also hold an advanced degree? 18 A Yes, a Ph.D. from Stanford Department of 19 Engineering Economic Systems. 20 Q And can you please tell us a little bit 21 about that program, engineering economic systems? 22 That's something that I'm familiar with. 0424 1 A That was a cross-disciplinary program that 2 involved economics, policy analysis, and decision 3 analysis. 4 Q And what specifically did your studies 5 focus upon in that program? 6 A I focused on FDA drug regulation. I wrote 7 my Ph.D. dissertation specifically on that subject. 8 Q Excuse me; and the topic of your 9 dissertation was? 10 A Consumer choice and FDA drug regulation. 11 Q And what year did you obtain that degree? 12 A 1984. 13 Q And how many years did you work on 14 researching and writing that dissertation? 15 A Four or five. 16 Q And in the course of that work, did you 17 conduct extensive work into the FDA regulatory 18 process for developing and approving new drugs for 19 use by patients in the United States? 20 A You bet. 21 Q And are you affiliated with any 22 organizations that are concerned with medical 0425 1 marijuana? 2 A Yes. 3 Q And can you tell us what those 4 organizations are? And I know that one of them is 5 going to be CMCR, and I'd like you to save that one 6 for last, please. Tell us about the others first. 7 A Well, to begin with, I'm the California 8 coordinator for NORML, the National Organization 9 for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which is devoted 10 to general marijuana reform, as you know, and as a 11 subset of that or corollary of that, of course, we 12 also support medical marijuana and have from the 13 very beginning. 14 Q And I'm sorry; you said you're the 15 California-- 16 A Coordinator for NORML. 17 Q Coordinator. 18 A Yes. 19 Q And is that a full-time job? 20 A Yes. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: And what does it entail? 22 THE WITNESS: It entails legal aid, press 0426 1 releases, research, lobbying, the gamut, answering 2 phone calls. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: And are you like the 4 executive director for NORML in California? 5 THE WITNESS: The coordinator, yes, I head 6 the home office, out of which I work, yes. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: So you're the 8 administrative head of-- 9 THE WITNESS: Yes, representative of NORML 10 in California. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 12 BY MR. HOPPER: 13 Q Okay; and are there other organizations 14 that you're affiliated with that are also concerned 15 with medical marijuana? 16 A Yes, there's the IACM, International 17 Association for Cannabis Medicine. 18 Q And can you tell us just briefly what that 19 organization is? 20 A Yes, that's a collection of scholars and 21 researchers interested specifically in medicinal 22 cannabis, which they do publications and 0427 1 conferences that I've participated in. 2 Q And I'm sorry; your affiliation with them 3 is as a-- 4 A I'm an affiliate. I'm a member. 5 Q It's a membership organization? 6 A Yes, for researchers. 7 Q And you said something about presenting at 8 conferences. 9 A Yes, they have a conference coming up in a 10 couple of weeks that I'll be presenting at. And 11 they also have a journal, the Journal of Cannabis 12 Therapeutics, and I was on the editorial board of 13 that. 14 Q And the upcoming conference, what's your 15 presentation going to-- 16 A On medicinal use of marijuana in 17 California. 18 Q Other organizations? 19 A Let's see: Drug Policy Forum of 20 California, sort of an email list, basically; I 21 mean, I'm a member of most of the drug reform 22 organizations one way or another. 0428 1 Q I'm sorry; you mentioned the Drug Policy 2 Reform Coalition? 3 A Yes--Drug Policy Forum of California. 4 That's just an email list, basically. 5 Q An email list; okay; what about an 6 organization called Californians for Compassionate 7 Use. 8 A Yes, I was involved with Californians for 9 Compassionate Use. 10 Q And can you tell us about that 11 organization? 12 A Yes, well, they were involved in 13 establishing the California Compassionate Use Act, 14 Proposition 215 back in 1996. I haven't really 15 been affiliated with them since Proposition 215 16 passed. 17 Q And what was the nature of your 18 affiliation with that organization or your 19 participation? 20 A I was the treasurer. 21 Q And then, the one I asked you to save for 22 last; you're also affiliated with the Center for-- 0429 1 A Medicinal Cannabis Research; yes, I'm on 2 the National Advisory Council. 3 Q And that's the organization--I'm sorry; 4 you were present for Senator John Vasconcellos' 5 testimony just a moment ago. 6 A Yes. 7 Q That's the organization that he was 8 testifying-- 9 A Same one. 10 Q And that is also known by the acronym 11 CMCR. 12 A Right. 13 Q And again, I apologize. I'm sure I'm 14 going to mess up that acronym at some point during 15 the day. 16 Have you reviewed the proposed testimony 17 from you that was submitted to the administrative 18 law judge on behalf of Respondent in this matter? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did you and I sit down and look at that? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And did you see that it included an 0430 1 assertion that you are on the advisory board of 2 MAPS? 3 A Yes, that's in error. I don't know where 4 that came from. I've never said such a thing, and 5 it's not on my CV. So that's an error. 6 Q That's just incorrect. 7 A Yes. 8 Q A mistake that was made by your lawyers or 9 by lawyers. 10 A I guess so. 11 MS. CARPENTER: Just leave it. 12 [Laughter.] 13 BY MR. HOPPER: 14 Q I like that better. 15 Okay; let's talk about the Center for 16 Medicinal Cannabis Research, CMCR. Tell us about 17 your affiliation with them. You said you were on a 18 council? 19 A The National Advisory Council, it's 20 called. 21 Q And how did you come to be on the National 22 Advisory Council? 0431 1 A The legislation that established the CMCR 2 calls for an advisory council, and I was appointed 3 to it as a public interest member, representative. 4 Q Okay; have you reviewed recently the 5 statute that you just mentioned? 6 A Yes. 7 Q The enabling statute? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And is that California Health and Safety 10 Code Section 11-362.9? 11 A So it is. 12 Q So can you tell us, then, what is CMCR? I 13 know we heard some testimony about it from Senator 14 Vasconcellos. But can you tell us just briefly-- 15 A Well, it's a research center headquartered 16 at the University of California-San Diego that 17 coordinates and conducts studies on medical use of 18 cannabis. It's funded them and shepherds them 19 through the regulatory process and the whole works. 20 Q Okay; and can you tell us just a little 21 bit about your duties as a member of the National 22 Advisory Council? 0432 1 A Well, The national Advisory Council is 2 supposed to oversee the center and make sure it 3 adheres to its basic legislative mandate base. 4 Q And the Center is, I think, did you say it 5 was affiliated with the University of California? 6 A Yes, and located specifically--their 7 physical headquarters is at San Diego. 8 Q Okay; but the research that they 9 undertake, does that all happen in-- 10 A That's around the state; various 11 University of California campuses are conducting 12 the research. 13 Q So the research is conducted, just to make 14 sure I understand it, at campuses throughout the 15 State of California. It's coordinated from an 16 office at the University of California-San Diego. 17 Were you--and I think you told us you were involved 18 in the drafting. I guess you referred to this 19 legislation, the CMCR enabling legislation. 20 A Yes. 21 Q Were you involved in some way in the 22 drafting of that legislation? 0433 1 A Yes, I was. 2 Q And can you tell us what your involvement 3 was? 4 A Well, there was sort of a committee of 5 people who had been involved in the medical 6 cannabis issue who worked with legislative staff, 7 Senator Vasconcellos' staff in particular, in 8 developing the legislation. 9 Q Dr. Gieringer, you told us earlier that 10 the work you did writing and researching your 11 doctoral thesis at Stanford required you to conduct 12 extensive research regarding the regulatory 13 process, the FDA regulatory process; is that 14 correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And does the FDA approval process involve 17 or require specific types of research that are 18 distinct from the sorts of research that has been 19 undertaken by CMCR? 20 A Yes. 21 Q And can you give us a brief overview--again, we've 22 had extensive testimony from earlier 0434 1 witnesses about the regulatory process, and I don't 2 need you to get into that kind of detail, but if 3 you can just give us enough of an overview so we 4 can understand the distinction between the research 5 that is undertaken at CMCR and the research that 6 would be required to take a drug through the FDA 7 approval process. 8 A Okay; well, CMCR is just doing pure 9 research studies with no aim of actually developing 10 a drug or bringing it to market. If they wanted to 11 bring a drug like marijuana to market, they would 12 have to go through an involved process called 13 filing--where they have to file an apologize for 14 new drug approval, or an NDA, as it's called, with 15 the FDA. 16 And in order to get through the new drug 17 approval process and win approval of their drug, 18 they would have to file an exhaustive amount of 19 information about studies showing the drug was safe 20 and effective. And this would include animal 21 toxicity studies, it would include human toxicity 22 studies, so-called phase one studies; phase two 0435 1 studies, which generally involve, you know, a few 2 dozen subjects that are aimed at demonstrating 3 efficacy in certain populations of patients with 4 certain indications; and then, phase three studies, 5 which are large-scale clinical studies, usually 6 involving hundreds of patients, which are sort of 7 the acid test for showing that the drug is really 8 effective and safe in clinical use, and the FDA 9 usually likes to see one or two of those phase 10 three studies plus anything else before they will 11 grant a new drug approval. 12 Q So let me just ask you hypothetically, if 13 I wanted, if I were a researcher, and I wanted to 14 take marijuana through the FDA approval process to 15 make it into a prescription medicine, would I be 16 able to rely upon the research, the specific 17 research that's been done at CMCR? Would I be able 18 to use that research as part of my own application 19 for an IND or an NDA? 20 A Well, you might be able to cite the 21 literature in your new drug application, but there 22 would be other, more important things that you 0436 1 would have to do, like, to begin with, you would 2 have to get a drug master file. You would have to 3 get the product. 4 You would have to have a drug to present 5 to the FDA, which involves, you know, having a 6 production process, an manufacturing process, and 7 explaining all that to the FDA in the first place 8 so you have something to present to them for 9 approval. So that would be the first step that you 10 would have to do, and then, you would have to 11 conduct studies with that drug. 12 You might possibly be able to cite to the 13 California studies as part of the phase two 14 evidence, but you would also need some phase three 15 work done, you would definitely need some work done 16 with your specific product, because the product 17 that they're using at University of California 18 would be the NIDA marijuana, and if you had your 19 own marijuana, that would be different. So there 20 would be issues there that the FDA would have to 21 deal with. 22 Q Well, let me just ask you about that for a 0437 1 minute. If I were going to try to conduct these 2 studies that we're talking about to move a drug, 3 marijuana, through the FDA approval process, I 4 mean, and let's say that I were able to convince 5 NIDA to supply the marijuana to me to do the 6 research studies: then, would I be able to--you 7 were saying I needed my own product. 8 A Yes. 9 Q Why couldn't I just use NIDA's marijuana 10 as my product? 11 A Well, that makes no sense. First of all, 12 as I say, you need sort of a drug master file to 13 work off of. You have to have--you're presenting a 14 product; I mean, it's like can I take out an NDA 15 for Bayer aspirin? I mean, that makes no sense. 16 Bayer already has the aspirin. I can't sell 17 Bayer's aspirin. I have to sell my own aspirin, so 18 I would have to start a whole new manufacturing 19 process myself for aspirin, and the same thing 20 would go for marijuana. 21 Q So I would need--why wouldn't I be able to 22 use NIDA's marijuana? Is the reason I wouldn't be 0438 1 able to use NIDA's marijuana for these studies is 2 that I wouldn't have the guaranteed ability to 3 access that marijuana? 4 MR. PAREDES: Objection. 5 THE WITNESS: Yes, you have no right to 6 control it. You couldn't distribute it afterwards. 7 You-- 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; stop a minute. 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: We have an objection 11 pending. I think we need a rephrasing of the 12 question. 13 MR. HOPPER: Okay. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: As opposed to is the 15 reason-- 16 BY MR. HOPPER: 17 Q What is the reason, Dr. Gieringer, that I 18 would not be able to use NIDA's marijuana to go 19 through the FDA approval process with the ultimate 20 goal of gaining approval? 21 A Well, you don't have the master file to 22 begin with. That is the property of, I guess, NIDA 0439 1 or its contractor, actually, and it's confidential 2 information. You don't even have that. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, excuse me. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Do you know if NIDA has a 6 drug master file? 7 THE WITNESS: Either NIDA or the 8 contractor does. I forgot how it works; yes, there 9 is one. I asked once to see it, and I was told 10 that that's proprietary information. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; I'm showing my 12 ignorance of FDA requirements. Why do they need a 13 drug master file if there's no FDA product here? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, there is a 15 pharmaceutical product here, all right? Every 16 pharmaceutical product that is administered to 17 humans has to have some sort of a master file 18 describing it, you know, its properties to show 19 that it has what it has; that it is, you know, it's 20 manufactured safely and consistently and all of 21 these things. 22 JUDGE BITTNER: So NIDA would have to have 0440 1 that. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: NIDA would have it. 4 THE WITNESS: Yes, they do have it. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 6 BY MR. HOPPER: 7 Q Was CMCR ever intended to go through the 8 process of applying to the FDA for a new drug 9 application-- 10 A No. 11 Q --for medical uses of marijuana? 12 A No. 13 Q Have any of the researchers funded or 14 supported by CMCR sought to apply for an NDA for 15 medical uses of marijuana? 16 A No. 17 Q Has the CMCR advisory council that you sit 18 upon ever proposed or discussed the idea of 19 applying for an NDA or undertaking the research 20 necessary to move marijuana through the FDA process 21 for approval as a prescription medicine? 22 A Never. 0441 1 Q Are you aware of the funding that was 2 provided for CMCR? 3 A Yes. 4 Q How much funding was provided? 5 A Three years of $3 million each, a total of 6 $9 million. 7 Q And to your knowledge, is any additional 8 funding contemplated from the legislature or any 9 other source at this time? 10 A No. 11 Q And do you know if anything remains from 12 that $9 million that was appropriated? 13 A No, it's all been committed to ongoing 14 studies. 15 Q So there are still some CMCR studies that 16 are underway now. 17 A They're almost all underway, really. 18 Q And so, those projects are underway; 19 they're funded, but there's no funding remaining 20 for additional new research projects beyond those 21 that are currently-- 22 A That's right. 0442 1 Q --underway? Okay. 2 Based upon your knowledge of the FDA new 3 drug approval process and the CMCR, had the CMCR 4 desired to undertake that necessary research that 5 we were talking about to move marijuana through the 6 approval process, could it have done that? 7 A Well, it would have had to have 8 established its own garden, its own supply, to have 9 done that. 10 Q And was that idea ever discussed by CMCR? 11 A Yes; well, not by CMCR, but the idea was 12 discussed when we were working on the legislation 13 that was to become CMCR. 14 Q And what was the nature of those 15 discussions? 16 A Well, the idea was that we were going to 17 propose that California establish its own medical 18 marijuana garden to do research for CMCR. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: You mean to grow plants 20 for it. 21 THE WITNESS: To grow plants, yes, in 22 California with all the requisite permits that 0443 1 would be required to do that, yes. 2 BY MR. HOPPER: 3 Q And what was decided in that regard? 4 A In the end, that was turned down. 5 Q And instead, what was the source of 6 marijuana, then, that was to be used for all of the 7 CMCR studies? 8 A NIDA; well, actually, it says NIDA or if 9 NIDA doesn't supply the marijuana within six 10 months, then, the Attorney General of California 11 can supply confiscated marijuana or something like 12 that. But it was always intended that it would be 13 NIDA marijuana. 14 Q But there was a provision in the enabling 15 statute that sort of a fallback that there was 16 provision for using marijuana seized by law 17 enforcement in California?; 18 A Yes. 19 Q If NIDA didn't provide marijuana in a 20 timely fashion? 21 A Right. 22 Q And to your knowledge, were the CMCR 0444 1 researchers able to get marijuana from NIDA for 2 their research? 3 A Yes. 4 Q If CMCR's purpose was never to develop 5 marijuana into an FDA-approved medicine, which is, 6 it sounds like, what it would take in order to make 7 it available by prescription, then, what was the 8 purpose of the research? Why was CMCR established? 9 What was the purpose, and why-- 10 A The purpose was to find whether marijuana 11 did indeed have medical uses; what those medical 12 uses might be; you know, what was its efficacy, in 13 other words, what safety drawbacks it might have 14 and the best way of administering it medically. 15 Pure knowledge quest. 16 MR. HOPPER: I have nothing further. 17 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; cross. 18 CROSS-EXAMINATION 19 BY MS. PAREDES: 20 Q Yes, sir, Dr. Gieringer, has CMCR come out 21 with a solution for why they exist? In other 22 words, have they found out whether or not marijuana 0445 1 has medical uses? 2 A Well, as I say, there's about 15 studies 3 going on. Two of them, I am informed, are pretty 4 much complete and are waiting for publication, but 5 nobody is going to discuss the results of those 6 until they are published. Everything in due 7 course. 8 Q Okay; the National Advisory Council that 9 you are a member of for CMCR, what exactly is your 10 role on that council? 11 A Well, everybody pretty much has the same 12 role; you know, we have occasional meetings and 13 discuss ongoing research with the directors of the 14 center and give them advice on, you know, 15 appropriate course and what we think of what's 16 going on now. 17 Q And is the council's recommendations or 18 advice, is that by consensus, or do individual 19 members give their advice? 20 A Various people--there is no formal 21 decision making mechanism. 22 Q Doctor, are you aware if CMCR has pursued 0446 1 alternate funding? 2 A Yes, there has been some attempt to scare 3 up some alternate funding. In specific, I know 4 that last year, there was a conference at the 5 International Cannabinoid Research Society meeting 6 in Italy, there was a seminar that was put on by 7 CMCR with money from private pharmaceutical 8 companies concerning specifically cannabinoid 9 research as opposed to cannabis for marijuana 10 research; this was cannabinoid research. 11 And that came from private drug 12 developers, and I know there has been some interest 13 in CMCR in getting some outside funding from 14 pharmaceutical companies, specifically because I 15 don't think they see any more money coming from the 16 state anytime soon. 17 Q And to your knowledge, is there anything 18 concrete? 19 A No. 20 Q Doctor, were you part of or did you take 21 part in the litigation--well, are you familiar with 22 the Gonzales v. Raich litigation? 0447 1 A Yes. 2 Q And did you take part in that litigation 3 as California NORML? 4 A Not specifically. I think NORML filed an 5 amicus brief in that case. 6 Q And you personally, did you have any role? 7 A Not as--I'm not an attorney. I mean, I 8 helped with research. I helped the attorneys with 9 research on certain issues. They consulted me. 10 Q What kind of research? 11 A Oh, just background of marijuana and drug 12 regulation, regulatory issues, things like that. 13 Q And were you, yourself involved in the--are you 14 familiar with the Oakland Cannabis Supreme 15 Court case? 16 A I had pretty much the same relationship to 17 those litigants. 18 Q And was your role via NORML, or was that 19 in your personal capacity. 20 A I would say in my personal capacity? 21 MS. PAREDES: Nothing further. 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Could I just--before we 0448 1 have redirect, back on this drug master file issue. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Could you explain to me 4 what a drug master file is? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, it's the paperwork you 6 present to the FDA explaining your process for 7 producing the drug: the source of the drug, the 8 manufacturing process, you know, evidence of its 9 purity and quality control, proprietary 10 information, the kind of stuff that you might be 11 patenting, for example, if this is your own process 12 for producing aspirin or whatever, marijuana, 13 whatever it is, that sort of information. This is 14 how you make our drug and this is how we make our 15 drug. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: And that is considered 17 very proprietary by most drug companies, right? 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: So, and you started to say 20 something about you had asked to see the drug 21 master file for the NIDA marijuana-- 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. 0449 1 JUDGE BITTNER: --and couldn't see it. 2 THE WITNESS: Right. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: So for a botanical--I 4 think you were here yesterday, weren't you? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 JUDGE BITTNER: And we had a little 7 discussion about what's a botanical. So for a 8 botanical product like marijuana, does the drug 9 master file include information like where the 10 seeds come from and how they're grown and how long 11 they're grown and-- 12 THE WITNESS: How it's harvested, dried 13 afterwards, and yes, how it's rolled up into 14 cigarettes if that's what they're going to do with 15 it. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: So then, if NIDA changes 17 anything about how the marijuana is grown or 18 University of Mississippi changes it, then, that 19 file has to be updated. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 JUDGE BITTNER: So, then, could you--my 22 notes are unclear here--could you explain again 0450 1 why, if someone were to, say, purchase NIDA's 2 marijuana-- 3 THE WITNESS: Right, we could purchase 4 their marijuana. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: --and wanted to develop a 6 drug product out of it. 7 THE WITNESS: Right. 8 JUDGE BITTNER: Leaving out all of the 9 other issues. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: But assume that a 12 pharmaceutical company concludes-- 13 THE WITNESS: Right. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: --that there is money to 15 be made here for whatever reason. So why couldn't 16 it use, because there is a drug master file on the 17 NIDA marijuana, why couldn't it use NIDA as its 18 source for the material and then develop its dosage 19 form? 20 THE WITNESS: They would have to make some 21 sort of an agreement with NIDA to do that, I 22 suppose. Since NIDA really controls the product, 0451 1 it would have to be NIDA's decision to do that. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 3 THE WITNESS: And then, you would sort of 4 be serving as the distributor for NIDA or something 5 like that. I suppose something like that would be 6 feasible, but it doesn't make any economic sense to 7 me, because it would depend on the foibles of NIDA, 8 you know. Selling somebody else's product, you 9 know, you can't control how much of it you'll get 10 or the price or anything else like that. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: But I guess what I'm 12 trying to get with is why, in theory--I can 13 understand practical problems, but why in theory 14 couldn't NIDA be the raw material supplier just 15 like any of the active pharmaceutical ingredient 16 manufacturers are? 17 THE WITNESS: In theory, if NIDA wanted to 18 do that, if NIDA were disposed to go along with 19 that, that might be doable. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: Convoluted way of doing it. 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Right; but I keep going 0452 1 back to there is a drug master file. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Which would include the 4 protocol for growing the stuff. 5 THE WITNESS: Right, and it belongs to 6 NIDA or to El-Sohly Labs. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: Their contractor. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; redirect. 10 MR. HOPPER: Thank you, Your Honor. 11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. HOPPER: 13 Q And just a couple of questions, and I 14 think I'd like to start with where Your Honor left 15 off. Dr. Gieringer, do you have the exhibits 16 there, the DEA Respondent's exhibits in the binder? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Can you turn and look at Exhibit No. 13? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Do you see that? It's a letter dated June 21 9th. 22 A I have seen this one before; yes. 0453 1 Q You're familiar with that letter. 2 A Mm-hmm. 3 Q And who's that addressed to? 4 A To Dr. Doblin. 5 Q And can you just--I'd like to draw your 6 attention to the second paragraph of that letter, 7 the fourth line, the first sentence that begins on 8 that fourth line, so after the end of that partial 9 sentence there. It begins it is not-- 10 A It is not NIDA's role to set policy in 11 this area or to contribute to the DEA licensing 12 procedures. 13 Q The next sentence. 14 A Moreover, it is also not NIDA's mission to 15 study the medicinal-- 16 MS. PAREDES: Objection. 17 THE WITNESS: --uses of marijuana or to 18 advocate for the establishment of facilities to 19 support this research. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: I'm sorry; wait a minute. 21 Do we have an objection? 22 Ms. PAREDES: Yes. 0454 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 2 MS. PAREDES: We're objecting on the basis 3 that it's outside the scope of the prehearing 4 supplement. 5 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, this is a little 6 awkward, since I started it. 7 [Laughter.] 8 MR. HOPPER: And I'm not going to go into 9 this in great detail, Your Honor. And this is an 10 exhibit that we're clearly going to be able to move 11 in later with Dr. Doblin's testimony, but I do 12 believe it is directly relevant to the question you 13 just asked Dr. Gieringer. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; well, actually, I 15 was only trying to get to the theoretical issue, 16 not the practical one. So I think we should leave 17 it right there. 18 MR. HOPPER: Very good. We'll talk about 19 that with the other testimony. 20 Just give me one moment, please. 21 [Pause.] 22 BY MR. HOPPER: 0455 1 Q All right; sorry for the delay. 2 Excuse me. Dr. Gieringer, you responded 3 to questions on cross-examination about the pursuit 4 of alternative funding, CMCR pursuing alternate 5 funding since it looks like they're not getting any 6 more money from the California legislature. 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you indicated that something about a 9 conference and that private pharmaceutical 10 companies were interested in the pursuit or 11 research involving cannabinoids. 12 A Correct. 13 Q Can you just explain a little bit for us 14 the distinction between researching cannabinoids 15 versus the whole plant as a medicine? I'm not sure 16 I understood the-- 17 A Yes, well, the cannabinoids are the 18 chemical--they're chemical constituents of 19 marijuana. There's 62 cannabinoids known in 20 marijuana, and then, there's artificial 21 cannabinoids as well, and as they have been doing 22 research with the newly discovered cannabinoid 0456 1 receptors in the human brain, they're starting to 2 discover natural cannabinoids. 3 So there's this whole host of chemicals 4 known as cannabinoids now that are out there and 5 drug companies are developing products based on 6 these as pure chemicals, so they are synthesizing 7 one way or another these various cannabinoids and 8 trying to develop products that are chemical 9 products, pure chemical products, unlike marijuana 10 itself, the plant, the whole plant. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: So is everything that's a 12 chemical that's in marijuana considered a 13 cannabinoid? Or is it--I'm trying to get at what 14 is the definition of a cannabinoid? 15 THE WITNESS: Well, I can't give you the 16 exact chemical definition, but the basic--the 17 active, the primary, unique active elements in 18 cannabis are known as cannabinoids, the primary one 19 being delta-9-THC, and then, there's a whole bunch 20 of relatives and spinoffs of this-- 21 JUDGE BITTNER: And they may or may not be 22 present in something else as well. 0457 1 THE WITNESS: Absolutely. 2 JUDGE BITTNER: Or chemically 3 synthesizable. 4 THE WITNESS: Every sample has its own 5 unique mix. Like the NIDA marijuana has only its 6 own unique profile of these cannabinoids. 7 JUDGE BITTNER: Right. 8 THE WITNESS: And so, many other kinds of 9 marijuana would have other mixtures of these 10 cannabinoids. 11 JUDGE BITTNER: But a cannabinoid could 12 happen to be present in something else as well. 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 15 BY MR. HOPPER: 16 Q So is Marinol a synthetic-- 17 A Yes. 18 Q --derivative of marijuana that is, as you 19 were just saying, it's synthesized, a cannabinoid 20 or mixture of cannabinoids? 21 A Yes, they tried to synthesize the major 22 psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, the delta-9-THC is the 0458 1 primary ingredient that was in Marinol, 2 and it's synthesized rather than extracted from the 3 plant. 4 Q And Marinol is a drug that is now 5 available by prescription. 6 A That's right. 7 Q And a private company markets Marinol; is 8 that correct? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And that private company apparently went 11 through the FDA approval process necessary to get a 12 new drug to market. 13 A Right. 14 Q And so, why didn't that private company 15 have the same problem that we've been talking about 16 in terms of having to have your own source of 17 marijuana? 18 A Because they could-- 19 MS. PAREDES: Objection, foundation. 20 JUDGE BITTNER: Sustained. 21 Would you backtrack, please? Foundation 22 issue. 0459 1 MR. HOPPER: Sure. 2 BY MR. HOPPER: 3 Q Do you have some familiarity with how 4 Marinol is produced? 5 A Yes; vaguely, I'm not a chemist. 6 Q Well, basically that it's synthesized. 7 A Yes, it's synthesized, right. 8 Q And do you know whether the marijuana that 9 was synthesized or from which--back up a minute. 10 Was THC created in a laboratory rather than derived 11 from existing marijuana? 12 A Yes, for Marinol, that's true. 13 Q For Marinol. So Marinol was created 14 basically in a test tube. It wasn't pulled out of 15 existing marijuana. 16 A That's true. 17 Q So the company that put Marinol on the 18 market-- 19 JUDGE BITTNER: You're getting leading. 20 You're heading right in that direction. 21 [Laughter.] 22 BY MR. HOPPER: 0460 1 Q Would the company that put Marinol on the 2 market have needed to obtain marijuana from NIDA in 3 order to do that? 4 A No, I don't think they ever did obtain any 5 marijuana from NIDA. 6 Q Because it was-- 7 A They synthesized it--they had a patented 8 process for synthesizing THC. 9 Q So there is a distinct line of research in 10 production of medicine possible that is-- 11 MS. PAREDES: Objection, leading. 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Yes, it is. 13 BY MR. HOPPER: 14 Q Is there-- 15 A Is there what? 16 Q Based on what you've just told us, is 17 there a distinct line of research and production of 18 drugs possible that are based on cannabinoids and 19 other constituents of marijuana that don't require 20 extraction from a marijuana plant? 21 A Yes, there are other products under 22 investigation right now that are of that 0461 1 description, and they are not THC; they are other 2 kinds of cannabinoids that are being developed. 3 Actually, there's at least another one that's on 4 the market in England, anyhow, Nabilone, which is 5 sort of a pseudo-cannabinoid, artificial one. 6 Q So a pharmaceutical company wishing to 7 develop one of these into a drug like Marinol and 8 get it to market doesn't have to have a source of 9 marijuana. 10 A No, it does not, if it can synthesize it. 11 Q And you said that CMCR was exploring the 12 possibility of this type of research, cannabinoid 13 research. 14 A That would be privately funded. It would 15 have to be privately funded, because the mandate 16 for CMCR in the legislation only allows it to look 17 at marijuana. So with the state funding, it should 18 and could only look at natural marijuana, but if 19 they want to continue research in other areas with 20 private funding, they could look in this area of 21 general cannabinoid research. 22 Q So there is a financial motivation then 0462 1 for-- 2 MS. PAREDES: Objection, leading. 3 JUDGE BITTNER: Sustained. 4 BY MR. HOPPER: 5 Q Is there, then, would there be a financial 6 motivation for CMCR to move to this type of 7 research as opposed to researching the whole plant? 8 A Oh, absolutely, yes. 9 MR. HOPPER: Okay; I have nothing further. 10 JUDGE BITTNER: Dr. Gieringer, before we 11 go into recross, are you in a position to describe 12 for me synthesis versus extraction? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. 14 JUDGE BITTNER: Would you, please? 15 THE WITNESS: Well, yes, extraction: you 16 take some marijuana. You need some marijuana, 17 okay? And I only know of one place in the country 18 that you could get it but-- 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, marijuana is not the 20 only plant that-- 21 THE WITNESS: To get cannabinoids, to get 22 cannabinoids-- 0463 1 JUDGE BITTNER: Well, I'm not talking 2 about cannabinoids. I'm talking about in general. 3 THE WITNESS: Well, okay, to take the 4 example of marijuana, you can process marijuana to 5 extract, say, the cannabinoids that you're 6 interested in, you know, by alcohol extraction or 7 any other number of chemicals, and you eventually 8 just take out the active constituents that you want 9 as some sort of extract from that plant, that 10 natural source. 11 With the synthesis, you start with a bunch 12 of chemicals that really have no relation to the 13 plant itself, and you put them together in a way 14 that you assemble them in a way so that you end up 15 with a product similar to what the plant produces. 16 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay. 17 THE WITNESS: Usually a more expensive way 18 of doing things. 19 JUDGE BITTNER: Recross. 20 RECROSS EXAMINATION 21 BY MS. PAREDES: 22 Q Doctor, would you agree that Marinol is a 0464 1 Schedule 3 controlled substance? 2 A Yes, it is. 3 Q And would you agree that the leafy plant 4 marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance? 5 A So it is. 6 Q Okay; going back to the drug master files, 7 how familiar are you with pharmaceutical companies 8 filing drug master files? 9 A Well, I know it is done. I have not been 10 in the pharmaceutical industry myself. 11 Q Have you, yourself, ever filed one. 12 A No. 13 Q Have you ever otherwise worked on one? 14 A No. 15 Q Contributed? 16 A No, no. 17 Q Then, do you know if a drug master file 18 would include proprietary information? 19 A Yes. 20 Q You are familiar or-- 21 A I know it contains proprietary 22 information, yes; that's the nature of it. People 0465 1 file these with the FDA in the hopes that 2 eventually, once it gets approved, they will have a 3 patent on it, and they want to keep it a secret, of 4 course, while-- 5 MS. PAREDES: Nothing further. 6 MS. CARPENTER: We have nothing--sorry; 7 speaking out of turn. 8 MR. HOPPER: We have nothing further. 9 JUDGE BITTNER: Okay; thank you very much, 10 Doctor. 11 [Witness excused.] 12 JUDGE BITTNER: Do you want to quit for 13 the night? 14 MS. CARPENTER: Oh, Your Honor, we would 15 be delighted. 16 MR. HOPPER: I think that would be a 17 wonderful idea. 18 JUDGE BITTNER: Mr. Bayly, how is that 19 with you? 20 MR. BAYLY: Yes, that sounds like a good 21 idea, Judge. 22 JUDGE BITTNER: Oh, I always like to get 0466 1 the parties to agree on something. You're very 2 good at getting agreement quickly. 3 Okay; 9:00 is good for tomorrow morning? 4 [Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the hearing 5 recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, 6 August 24, 2005.] 7 - - -