Court: Dying can be charged for using marijuana

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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?

Still doesn't make it right though.

She broke the law, plain and simple. Sure the cops could look the other way, but whats the point of having the law in the first place? And who starts deciding when to look the other way, and when to pay attention?

[Ozy_Flame]

I think there should be exemptions to Federal Law when a panel of qualified practioniers deems marijuana neccessary to improve the life of a suffering patient. Why it hasn't been legalized as a medicinal treatment is beyond me.

Then again, I was against marijuana and was a non-smoker until I went to New Zealand, where their bud is EXTREMELY GOOD. I came back a reformed man; marijuana is one of the best de-stressers and relaxants available in the world, and comparatively speaking, has harmless side effects. I promised myself I wouldn't smoke any back here in Canada, but I am now a staunch pro-marijuana supporter.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

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

Nice. Maybe you should use YOUR brain for a second. Since when is marijuana the only painkiller that can be prescribed?

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5975

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I think there should be exemptions to Federal Law when a panel of qualified practioniers deems marijuana neccessary to improve the life of a suffering patient. Why it hasn't been legalized as a medicinal treatment is beyond me.

Then again, I was against marijuana and was a non-smoker until I went to New Zealand, where their bud is EXTREMELY GOOD. I came back a reformed man; marijuana is one of the best de-stressers and relaxants available in the world, and comparatively speaking, has harmless side effects. I promised myself I wouldn't smoke any back here in Canada, but I am now a staunch pro-marijuana supporter.

I support legalizing it too, for anyone to use.

But I do not support breaking the law.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

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

Actually, had you bothered to read the article (I know, it's longer than 2 paragraphs, I had a tough time with it too), you may or may not have noticed that she uses the marijuana on directions from her doctor because other treatments FAILED.

It's not like I didn't paste that information in the first place for all to read. It's in the second freakin' paragraph. Here you go...again.

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.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Actually, had you bothered to read the article (I know, it's longer than 2 paragraphs, I had a tough time with it too), you may or may not have noticed that she uses the marijuana on directions from her doctor because other treatments FAILED.

It's not like I didn't paste that information in the first place for all to read. It's in the second freakin' paragraph. Here you go...again.

[/size][/b][/i][/color]

Then take that evidence, along with her doctor who said that to court and fight the charges against her.

If it is indeed that way, why wouldn't the court let her smoke pot every 2 hours until she dies?

Simple, really.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Azure

Then take that evidence, along with her doctor who said that to court and fight the charges against her.

If it is indeed that way, why wouldn't the court let her smoke pot every 2 hours until she dies?

Simple, really.

I'm...speechless.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Azure

I support legalizing it too, for anyone to use.

But I do not support breaking the law.

Neither do I. However, I do beleive in formal exemptions, where a lawful pardon is granted under a federally-supported panel of medical practitioners.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sure the cops could look the other way, but whats the point of having the law in the first place?

I don't know. What's the point of having speed limits when everyone goes above them? What's the point of having prostitution laws when hookers are walking the streets? What's the point of having drug laws when drug sellers stand on the streetcorner selling drugs? All of these things are going on in San Francisco right now.

Who decides when to look the other way? I don't know. Whoever decides to look the other way right now I guess. Is it a cop or some assistant DA? I'm not sure how it works, but in this ridiculous case, the person who looks the other way should look the other way. Go spend that time catching a criminal who is actually harming society instead of bothering with this dying woman who is not harming anybody and will in fact be harmed by this ruling.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Neither do I. However, I do beleive in formal exemptions, where a lawful pardon is granted under a federally-supported panel of medical practitioners.

Which could possibly happen by going to court and fighting this.

If there are no other conventional drugs, I don't see why here doctor couldn't testify and help her get immunity from Federal law.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know. What's the point of having speed limits when everyone goes above them? What's the point of having prostitution laws when hookers are walking the streets? What's the point of having drug laws when drug sellers stand on the streetcorner selling drugs? All of these things are going on in San Francisco right now.

Who decides when to look the other way? I don't know. Whoever decides to look the other way right now I guess. Is it a cop or some assistant DA? I'm not sure how it works, but in this ridiculous case, the person who looks the other way should look the other way. Go spend that time catching a criminal who is actually harming society instead of bothering with this dying woman who is not harming anybody and will in fact be harmed by this ruling.

I agree 100% with your last statement.

Which is why I want marijuana legalized.

But until then...well...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Which could possibly happen by going to court and fighting this.

If there are no other conventional drugs, I don't see why here doctor couldn't testify and help her get immunity from Federal law.

You've obviously never been involved in a court battle and don't realize the huge stress involved. This could be the final nail in the coffin for this woman. Let someone else fight this point of law.

I think Jesus said the law was made for man, not man was made for the law. This is ridiculous.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You've obviously never been involved in a court battle and don't realize the huge stress involved. This could be the final nail in the coffin for this woman. Let someone else fight this point of law.

I think Jesus said the law was made for man, not man was made for the law. This is ridiculous.

I know, I know.

I agree that it is ridiculous, but seriously, outside of taking it to court and fighting the charge, what else can she do?

[housejunk]

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.

Judicial Advocacy is a touchy subject, but currently, the court has every right in the world to decide whether or not smoking pot is illegal in the given circumstances. Frequently, the federal government will turn to "judicial review" to determine if a law will be deemed legal before it is even passed.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Azure

Still doesn't make it right though.

She broke the law, plain and simple.

Ah, see, this is the mistake, if it were really that plain and simple.

This is in California. In California medicinal marjuana is legal.
This lady is in FEDERAL court, because the Feds decided that even though
medicinal marjuana is legal in CA, it is illegal federally, thus they will
prosecute her.

The Feds maintain that their anti-pot law overrides any pro-pot law
in any state.

FTFA:
"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."

ers

[Azure]

Originally Posted by housejunk

Judicial Advocacy is a touchy subject, but currently, the court has every right in the world to decide whether or not smoking pot is illegal in the given circumstances. Frequently, the federal government will turn to "judicial review" to determine if a law will be deemed legal before it is even passed.

Well there you go. Obviously the judicial review deemed smoking pot illegal, even though the California state law suggest otherwise.

Raises a few eyebrows if you look at the 10th amendment.

[Daradon]

I'd be of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with challenging this law in this circumstance. That actually it is the RIGHT thing to do.

As others have mentioned other people have broken laws and rules to change their society for the better. In many circumstances this is the only way this will happen.

The 'slipery slope' argument lovers will point out that if you condone breaking one law, where does it stop?

But I think in this circumstance it is pretty obvious that she is harming no one and in fact she is helping herself.

It's a far cry from murder, stealing, kicking a puppy.

As well, one poster argued 'then let the drug get approved through the proper channels'.

Two things wrong with that.

1. This woman doesn't have the time for that. If this didn't seem to have such a common sense aspect to it, then I'd agree, it's not worth challenging the law. But as I've already stated, she's not doing any harm.

2. The government doesn't have any plans to put marijuanna into drug testing because that would conflict with it's drug policies, and probably with the huge drug conglomerates making money on the other painkillers.

And I think #2 is the real issue to the government here. Which is sad.

P.S. I think the title of this thread would make a lot more sense if it had the word 'woman' after the word 'dying' in it.

[Temporary_User]

If there was ever a time I wish I had tivo, it would have been tonight.
I was watching CNN and they had a segment on this women. The segment, concluded with the reporter restating that typical drugs didn't work, and that she may no longer be able to use the marijuana even though it may be the only thing keeping her alive.
The very next segment that they went into was about certain prescription pain killers (might have been sleeping pills, but prescription drugs is the point) that are being recalled because of bizarre side effects that have been associated with these pills.

I couldn't help but think... something is wrong with that system!
I'm hoping someone else has a tivo system and is able to youtube that for everyone to see. This needs more exposure.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

If there was ever a time I wish I had tivo, it would have been tonight.
I was watching CNN and they had a segment on this women. The segment, concluded with the reporter restating that typical drugs didn't work, and that she may no longer be able to use the marijuana even though it may be the only thing keeping her alive.
The very next segment that they went into was about certain prescription pain killers (might have been sleeping pills, but prescription drugs is the point) that are being recalled because of bizarre side effects that have been associated with these pills.

I couldn't help but think... something is wrong with that system!
I'm hoping someone else has a tivo system and is able to youtube that for everyone to see. This needs more exposure.

'That' system is our system as well, and it stinks to high (har) heaven.

And to the poster who commented on the title, this ruling has ramifications that are larger than just this one specific case. It's legal precdedent that's been established.

Also, to the other poster who commented on the pharmaceutical industry's involvement in the politics of this issue, there's no question in my mind their lobby groups are the #1 reason why these laws will not change.

Think of the profit loss to merck if people no longer bought tylenol or midol or the thousands of other drugs that don't work as well as marijuana.

Why smoke a harmless natural plant when you can kill yourself with vioxx?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

'That' system is our system as well, and it stinks to high (har) heaven.

And to the poster who commented on the title, this ruling has ramifications that are larger than just this one specific case. It's legal precdedent that's been established.

Well it's not exactly our system, they did put that one Calgary man (with MS or something?) in jail very briefly a few years back who had been an advocate and supplier of it for years, but I haven't really heard of any stories like that since the decriminalization went through. Plus I am pretty sure you can't be sent to jail for it now as it's been decriminalized. Just fined and have it (the herb) taken away

Re thread title: Oh I agree, I just thought it was a misprint or accidental ommision because it referenced this specific story.