Courts deny Medical Marijuana to dying woman.

Post Reply New Topic

Dying woman rebuffed on medical marijuana
California appeals court rules against mother suffering brain tumor

SAN FRANCISCO - A California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor’s advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

Because of that ruling, the issue before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive.

Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision and said she would continue using the drug.

“I’m sure not going to let them kill me,” she said. “Oh my God.”
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. (and this copyright is unreasonable and unconstitutional)

-----------------------------------

why are we even still keeping up this BS farce about keeping marijuana illegal? it's a substance that has almost all positive effects. it's a lot safer than alcohol or tobacco for casual use and the medical uses are just completely amazing....but gotta keep up the BS song and dance. why?????????

the most negative effects from marijuana is that you can get lazy and unmotivated if you use it too much and never do anything else...but guess what happens if you're an alcoholic? you end up being worthless, lazy and unmotivated. at least marijuana doesn't have withdrawl symptoms like alcohol does so it's much easier to quit in the instances of abuse.


i'm sorry but this is just grating on my patience with people that the courts are THAT f*****g stupid.

and yes, i do smoke pot and would love for it to be legal and more easily accessible but it's more than just that. it's the medical research that can't be properly carried out due to the insane restrictions on marijuana testing.

It DOES mess up your brain and perception but it's nowhere near as bad as opiates or meth, there's no good justification for it being illegal.

umm...might i inquire what you mean by "mess up your brain and perception" ?


i mean i understand that when you smoke it, you are intoxicated....i probably understand that better than most here...but i've not noticed any changes in my perception while sober nor have i noticed any problems with my memory that i didn't have before i smoked. i've always had trouble pulling words at times...actually i got made fun of in school for being a stoner and messed up on drugs before i ever did any substance at all. but i'm always game if someone has some research or sources to back up the claims. not to mention being an aspie, i might experience things differently than those who are NT.


but back to the subject at hand.....that garbage is entirely messed up and wrong and i hope the police never disturb her or her attempts to get what she needs.

I really don't have the energy at the moment.

Why doesn't she take Marinol? I'm not saying that this is right, but using Marinol would be a good solution to her problems.

the article said it took care of pain and hunger...marinol(as best as i know) is an appetite stimulant....from what i see on wiki about it...


Marinol is known to produce side-effects similar to cannabis intoxication. Some have posited that Marinol lacks beneficial properties of cannabis, which contains more than 60 cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anti-convulsant that helps multiple sclerosis patients, and cannabichromene (CBC), an anti-inflammatory which may contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis.


so it's not everything....and we know how great our marijuana research goes.


i'd trust high times to give me better marijuana research than the FDA, to be honest.

just smoke it anyways who cares if its legal

Of course not. You sound all eager to talk about something you don't fully understand, so we'll look forward to it - I suggest the *.Gov websites. I also suggest ignoring the other half of the argument.

I think its great the government did this. They did it because they care. That, and they cant make too much profit off of it but the legal drugs is where its at now - they can score a ton there (and do, since legal drugs are abused MORE, now). I love "forbidding" people to do things (all sarcasm)

lol

i never said i let laws stop me....but i find it incredibly wrong that they would do that to a dying woman.

I'm sorry for the women although I have doubts about the general benefits (with key emphasis put on the word general) of medical marijuana. The court was correct according to current Supreme Court precedent I think. 5-4, liberals + Scalia (the Hamiltonian) in the majority, Thomas (closer to a Jeffersonian), the late Chief Justice Renquist, and a couple moderates (possibly former Justice O'Connor) in the minority decided that the commerce clauce applies to the states in regards to control of the drug. My guess it would apply the same here with that group, but it has, of course, changed with addition and subtraction. This will come up again in due time.

The law, gentleman, his majesty the law.

that's not the law....just the enforcement and interpretation of it. i think laws regarding marijuana need to be rewritten.


...and i need to get some marijuana tax stamps (they're still sold).

Well, federal law as well as the policy of the DEA as enacted prohibits the distribution of marijuanna in the United States. The question before the Supreme Court was whether that policy was, in fact, constitutional. It came down, if I recall, primarily to questions on the commerce clause, and the 9th Ammendment to the Constitution. If in fact the commerce clause did apply, then it would override the 9th amendment. If it did not, then the reverse would be true. In "originalist" perspective there is alot of range on the commerce clause, largely to the the fact is was debated by it's supporters both at the Convention Convention and afterwords. These supporters can be very roughly labeled as "Hamiltonians" on the one hand and "Jeffersonians" on the other hand.

EDIT: After the court made it's opinion known, even if it is wrong, then the lower courts, and authorities must proceed to legally abide by it. The alternative is anarchy, chaos, and possibly civil war. I say this as a strong critic of the court, and a believer that it is currently upholding decisions that are in as much error as that which is famed to be worst in the court's history (Dred Scott v. Sanford).

It is important to note that just because a particular judge or constitutional scholor is somewhere on the said scale it does not mean he actually endorses the law he is reviewing. As Justice Thomas wrote when he dissented on the Supreme Court overturning Texas' sodomy ban, you can believe a law to be "silly" yet still legally uphold it. Such is the price of living in a society where the constitutions, the people's legislatures, and petitions make the law, not some high feudal lords or priests like in olden days.

The man still makes a good chuck of change on illegal drugs too. This is why weed is illegal, because they bust someone with it, report a PORTION of what they find on the person, and either take the rest for themselves, or put it back on the street to make more money. They do this with bad drugs as well, evil things like crack, cocaine, heroine, pcp, etc.
As a matter of fact the governments will not touch high level international drug barons because the barons seem to have the politicos bought off. The politicos make more money off letting the drug trade persist than by stopping it. Politico's have two seperate drug-dealing agendas, legal drugs and illegal drugs. They profit on both of them.
I do think weed should be legalised, and I too smoke weed. I don't think hard drugs should be legalised, but weed should though. However, for the reasons I just stated, I don't really see this happening, unfortunately.

There is an argument that can be made against legalizing drugs from a logically perspective. Additionally, all-out legalization even of marijuanna is not generally politically popular. Attempts at legalizing it have met with failure after an earlier success.



Some high-level international drug lords have been apprehended and killed. Most have not. Unfortunately these drug lords have international connections (during the Cold War they were frequently allied to the Soviet Union, admittedly to a lesser extent the United States used them to further it's own agenda), as well as being involved in revolutionary activities that allow them to buy off loyalties (as well as doing so under threat, like the Mafia).



This is doubtful as the leading drug-lords as part of international movements have been allied to and part of movements to overthrow governments that we trade with and/or actively allied to for decades now. It is now unknown for political figures in Latin America to attempt to curry favor with the drug lords. This does not work to the advantage of the United States. The drug lords, and their armies are terrorists that should be combated. I support economic measures that work towards defeating them as well.

No matter what you or her think, marijuana doesn't "stop" people from dying.