Court: Dying can be charged for using marijuana - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Flash Walken · 03-14-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- 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.

Link To The Madness

Now, personally I'm of the opinion that the 'medical marijuana' as a focal point is actually doing a disservice to the greater issue at hand, namely the right to control what one puts in one's own body, but seriously, what kind of heartless jerk wouldn't be willing to forgo a dying woman whatever makes her feel better, whether it's smoking pot or eating dustmites?

I should be outraged on multiple levels, but this garbage doesn't shock or surprise me anymore.

Canada 02 · 03-14-2007, 05:00 PM

I think you hit it on the head when you said "whether it's smoking pot or eating dustmites". what if you take that to the extreme and a mentally, physically or emotionally challenged individual decides it feels good to consume lethal substance XXXXX?

If marijuana really has medicinal value, then advocates should have no problem with this drug going thru all the proper channels of drug discovery, pre-clinical trials, clinical dosages, clinical efficacy and clinical safety, just like any other drug on the market.

Anecdotal evidence (ie. users saying it helps) is not proof of concept. That could very easily be a placebo effect, and does not replace controlled blind studies

jar_e · 03-14-2007, 05:03 PM

Just cause your dying doesn't mean your above the law...

corporatejay · 03-14-2007, 05:23 PM

she'll be prosecuted but no judge will send her to jail.

Crazy Flamer · 03-14-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jar_e

Just cause your dying doesn't mean your above the law...

It's not like shes looking to get away with murder here. She's dying and simply wants to ease her pain. Where is the greater good in letting her suffer?

RougeUnderoos · 03-14-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I think you hit it on the head when you said "whether it's smoking pot or eating dustmites". what if you take that to the extreme and a mentally, physically or emotionally challenged individual decides it feels good to consume lethal substance XXXXX?

We are "at that extreme". This ruling isn't preventing her from going home and drinking a bottle of bleach, but it is preventing her from taking the only medicine that she and apparently her doctor believe helps her. If she is in agony without the stuff, chances are much better that she will indeed decide to consume lethal substance XXXXX.

Then are we happy?

jar_e · 03-14-2007, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

It's not like shes looking to get away with murder here. She's dying and simply wants to ease her pain. Where is the greater good in letting her suffer?

It's simply the principle of it all. It's a crime by the criminal code and should be prosecuted as one. Do I think it's wrong that she'll have to suffer? Yes, of course. But do I think she should be given an "exemption" from the law that everyone else abides from? Not at all.

Azure · 03-14-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

It's not like shes looking to get away with murder here. She's dying and simply wants to ease her pain. Where is the greater good in letting her suffer?

So you start making exceptions to Federal Law?

Flash Walken · 03-14-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada 02

I think you hit it on the head when you said "whether it's smoking pot or eating dustmites". what if you take that to the extreme and a mentally, physically or emotionally challenged individual decides it feels good to consume lethal substance XXXXX?

If marijuana really has medicinal value, then advocates should have no problem with this drug going thru all the proper channels of drug discovery, pre-clinical trials, clinical dosages, clinical efficacy and clinical safety, just like any other drug on the market.

Anecdotal evidence (ie. users saying it helps) is not proof of concept. That could very easily be a placebo effect, and does not replace controlled blind studies

If someone decided to consume lethal substance xxxxx, and they know what the consequences are, I say let them. Who am i to tell someone their pain is not sufficient enough for them to seek whatever treatment they believe most beneficial? How much more righteously indignant can you be?

Secondly, you act as if there's no evidence other than anecdotal evidence which I find to be incredibly humorous. Perhaps you might want to read up on something prior to discussing it in such concrete opinions.

Here is some of the 'anecdotal evidence':
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...cal/ctptoc.htm
http://jul.2006.med-bib.com/16849753.htm
http://oct.1975.med-bib.com/1099449.htm
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/...me-science.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/.../IOMReport.htm
http://www.maps.org/sys/nq.pl?id=1182
http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=6849915

Flash Walken · 03-14-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jar_e

It's simply the principle of it all. It's a crime by the criminal code and should be prosecuted as one. Do I think it's wrong that she'll have to suffer? Yes, of course. But do I think she should be given an "exemption" from the law that everyone else abides from? Not at all.

Rosa Parks should've gotten her ass to the back of the bus. Rules is rules afterall.

Azure · 03-14-2007, 05:36 PM

All fine and dandy Flash, but it is not the court's right to decide whether or not anything is wrong with taking pot.

The lady was breaking the law, therefore she should be charged accordingly.

jar_e · 03-14-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Rosa Parks should've gotten her ass to the back of the bus. Rules is rules afterall.

Fair enough, but I'm not arguing the moral, ethical aspect. I'm arguing that by the book, she committed a crime...is it ethically wrong to not allow a person to control her pain? Maybe, but that's a whole other discussion. We're discussing the article about a lady who's being charged.

Flash Walken · 03-14-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

All fine and dandy Flash, but it is not the court's right to decide whether or not anything is wrong with taking pot.

The lady was breaking the law, therefore she should be charged accordingly.

Were one interested, one might argue that the federal government is violating her 8th amendment rights.

Crazy Flamer · 03-14-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

So you start making exceptions to Federal Law?

So you CHALLENGE the federal law. Where does it say that will stand for eternity. In this particular case, there would be a very compelling case to make an exception, don't you think?

Azure · 03-14-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Were one interested, one might argue that the federal government is violating her 8th amendment rights.

Or not.

Quote:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

What does that have to do with arresting someone for breaking a federal law?

Or did you mean the tenth amendment?

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

You might have a point there.

RougeUnderoos · 03-14-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

All fine and dandy Flash, but it is not the court's right to decide whether or not anything is wrong with taking pot.

The lady was breaking the law, therefore she should be charged accordingly.

If ever there was a case for "looking the other way", this is it. They do it all the time. Go have a spin on Deerfoot and tell me I'm wrong. Hell, I'm sure you can buy weed (or anything else) on the streets of San Francisco and the cops know exactly who is selling what and where.

The thing is this woman was, I'm sure, smoking the stuff in the privacy of her own home. Somebody must have had to investigate or something, put a case together. Don't they have better things to do?

jar_e · 03-14-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Or not.

What does that have to do with arresting someone for breaking a federal law?

Azure,

I think he was referring to the "cruel" part as in that removing the marijuana could result in her death. But, that is just what I'm presuming.

Azure · 03-14-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

So you CHALLENGE the federal law. Where does it say that will stand for eternity. In this particular case, there would be a very compelling case to make an exception, don't you think?

Take it to court and challenge it then?

Call your representatives and pressure them to pen a bill that would legalize marijuana for medical use. Or recreational use.

But no one should be an exception from federal law.

Azure · 03-14-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jar_e

Azure,

I think he was referring to the "cruel" part as in that removing the marijuana could result in her death. But, that is just what I'm presuming.

There are other pain killers she can use. Its not like marijuana is the only drug that takes away pain.

Flash Walken · 03-14-2007, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure

Or not.

What does that have to do with arresting someone for breaking a federal law?

Or did you mean the tenth amendment?

You might have a point there.

No, I mean the 8th amendment.

Use your brain for a second here. We're talking about treatment for a multitude of painful medical conditions and her being refused access upon penalty of imprisonment to said treatment. Do you think I'm refering to:

A) Bail
B) Fines
or
C) CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT