Dying Woman Loses Marijuana Appeal

[R. Richard]

Once again, the courts have decided to interfere in a matter that should be be between a patient and her doctor. Comment?

Dying woman loses marijuana appeal

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."

 

[S-Des]

Once again, the courts have decided to interfere in a matter that should be be between a patient and her doctor. Comment?

Dying woman loses marijuana appeal

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."

This is one of those stupid things that crosses all party lines. I still remember when several states legalized the medical usage, only to be told (by the Clinton administration) that there would be federal prosecutions of anyone caught following the new law (so much for state's rights). Sometimes we are reminded that our country is very young. *shakes head*

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

From a humantarian stand point this is reprehensible. From a legal stand point it is correct for the court to rule against this woman as it did.

This case really comes about because the Federal Law supersedes State Law. In order for this to change congress will have to revise the Federal Statutes to allow States to determine the correctness on their own.

Another issue here is the fact that California is having a problem with a number of Doctors and Clinics in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles handing out MJ cards for nearly everything. Right now there is a federal crack down in progress. I'm certain that didn't help her case at all.

From the article, this woman suffers from "...scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments." Scoliosis is a congenital deformity of the spine that affects 10% of the population. There would be no reason to treat her with MJ for that. "Brain tumor", maybe, assuming it is inoperable and causing other unidentifiable problems. "Chronic nausea" treated with MJ almost seems like malpractice because she is being treated for the symptom, not the affliction. And "other ailments" is a generic term that tells me nothing. It could be anything from a hang-nail to heart desease or cancer. There isn't enough information to even comment on that.

I might feel sorry for this woman, but I doubt the Feds will actually prosecute her. That could lead to a whole 'nother round in the Supreme Court.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

The Federal Imperial Government has no business sticking it's big nose in this type of relationship between a doctor and patient. The FIG also has no business constructing a law that takes rights away from state government.

 

[R. Richard]

From a humantarian stand point this is reprehensible. From a legal stand point it is correct for the court to rule against this woman as it did.

This case really comes about because the Federal Law supersedes State Law. In order for this to change congress will have to revise the Federal Statutes to allow States to determine the correctness on their own.

Another issue here is the fact that California is having a problem with a number of Doctors and Clinics in San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles handing out MJ cards for nearly everything. Right now there is a federal crack down in progress. I'm certain that didn't help her case at all.

I might feel sorry for this woman, but I doubt the Feds will actually prosecute her. That could lead to a whole 'nother round in the Supreme Court.

From what you state it would seem that you feel that the woman should be punished for the acts of doctors and clinics with who she has no connection. I must disagree.

That the scumbags might decline to prosecute is possible. The failure to prosecute would allow said scumbags to continue to, in effect, make their own laws by engforcing only the laws they like and failing to enforce other laws.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

From what you state it would seem that you feel that the woman should be punished for the acts of doctors and clinics with who she has no connection. I must disagree.

That the scumbags might decline to prosecute is possible. The failure to prosecute would allow said scumbags to continue to, in effect, make their own laws by engforcing only the laws they like and failing to enforce other laws.

No. I didn't say that, RRichard. I am dubious of this woman's illness because of the lack of information. The Federal Court ruled in accordance with the law. That's clear.

Whether this woman deserves to be on MJ or not has nothing to do with Federal Law at all. What's at point here is the news article is flawed because it does not say why she needs medical MJ. "Other Afflictions" is a general term that could mean anything. If that's what she went to court with, it's not surprising she lost. It's like telling the court, "I have an ingrown toenail, so I need this controlled substance." Is that her fault or a fault with the article? I would guess it's the fault of the writer of the article who had no idea what Scoliolis is.

However, the possibility that this is a "test case" meant to challenge the law exists. I say that especially, because it was brought in San Francisco, which is one of the places in California that is being targeted by the DEA for fraudulant medical MJ cards.

On the other hand, I am not ruling out the possibility that this woman is a victim. That could be the case in this instance. But the fact is, the medical profession is far more regulated than most people believe. There are laws that determine what a doctor can prescribe and for what ailments. I don't entirely agree with these regulations. But they are in place and have been for a very long time.

Is this situation a tragidy for this woman? Probably. Will the DEA go after her for using MJ? Chances are, no, because the medical users are not the point of the DEA's investigation.

Never once in my post did I use the term "Scumbags." Do I believe that the issuance of a medical MJ card is wrong for such minor afflictions as the flu, as I have seen done? Yes, I do. Using your term, I believe the doctors and clinics who have done so do fit your term, because they endanger the entire program in persuit of money. Is this the situation in this case? I don't know and, from the information given, neither do you.

 

[Liar]

I don't get this. The medical benefits from this particular drug is fairly well documented. But it's classified as an illegal narcotic. So she can't have it.

Ok fair enough. So are opiates. Many which are used in prescribed medicine. So people can have that.

What's the damn difference?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I don't get this. The medical benefits from this particular drug is fairly well documented. But it's classified as an illegal narcotic. So she can't have it.

Ok fair enough. So are opiates. Many which are used in prescribed medicine. So people can have that.

What's the damn difference?

The difference, Liar, is in regulation. A licensed physican is allowed to perscribe opiates for the relief of specific ailments when other, non-regulated drugs would either not work or be substantially less effective.

The point of this article is that California, Oregon and several other states have enacted laws that make "Medical Marijuana" legal for specific ailments. The laws are well defined, as are the ailments. However, these state laws contradict the federal law which makes any use or sale of Marijuana illegal.

Who's right? The State or the Federal Government? In this case, because of the way laws in the U.S. are prioritized, the Federal Government is.

 

[Tom Collins]

Yeah, this is a good, Christian land. Ain't it? There's no other way to discribe a place where it's illegal to take your own life, even if there's no hope of surviving and you're living in agony, and it's also illegal to medicate yourself so that you can live without the constant pain and are capable of eating so that you don't starve to death. No, you're just supposed to lie there in a sweaty Hell, and politely wait to die.

 

[Liar]

The difference, Liar, is in regulation. A licensed physican is allowed to perscribe opiates for the relief of specific ailments when other, non-regulated drugs would either not work or be substantially less effective.

The point of this article is that California, Oregon and several other states have enacted laws that make "Medical Marijuana" legal for specific ailments. The laws are well defined, as are the ailments. However, these state laws contradict the federal law which makes any use or sale of Marijuana illegal.

Who's right? The State or the Federal Government? In this case, because of the way laws in the U.S. are prioritized, the Federal Government is.

So opium is federally legal? That's the only conclusion I can make of this.

 

[R. Richard]

Is this situation a tragidy for this woman? Probably. Will the DEA go after her for using MJ? Chances are, no, because the medical users are not the point of the DEA's investigation.

Never once in my post did I use the term "Scumbags." Do I believe that the issuance of a medical MJ card is wrong for such minor afflictions as the flu, as I have seen done? Yes, I do. Using your term, I believe the doctors and clinics who have done so do fit your term, because they endanger the entire program in persuit of money. Is this the situation in this case? I don't know and, from the information given, neither do you.

If there are physicians who are issuing marijuana cards for reasons outside the law [either state or federal law,] then said physicians should be punished under the law. There are establshed procedures in place to allow such punishment.

However, if the badged scumbags are not enforcing the law, then I have even more of a problem with the scumbags than I already have. The Congress or a state legistature passes laws. It is the responsibility of the scumbags to enforce said laws. Instead the scumbags choose to spend the majority of their time protecting establishments that sell doughnuts. [I did not mean to refer to physicians as scumbags. [A scumbag is an 'enforcement officer' who seems to spend most of his/her/its time munching doughnuts instead of enforcing the laws.]

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

So opium is federally legal? That's the only conclusion I can make of this.

No. Opiates such as Morphine and Demerol are legal to be used appropriately by licensed physicians. I can think of no occasion when raw opium could be used legally.

Furthermore, Morphine is/was commonly issued to battlefield medics for use with the wounded, even though there are/were no physicians present. This, however, was tightly controlled by knowing the number of doses issued to each medic and tracking the number of doses used or returned.

 

[SeaCat]

Okay there are medications made from Mary Jane and used legally. One of these is Marinol, whch is used to increase apetite(sp).

Cat

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Okay there are medications made from Mary Jane and used legally. One of these is Marinol, whch is used to increase apetite(sp).

Cat

True, Cat. But they are not dispensed in a "lid" and chewed or smoked as this woman was doing every couple hours. It's interesting that now the by-line on this story has changed. It now reads:

California appeals court rules against mother suffering brain tumor

She was NOT in front of a federal court, but the California State Court of Appeals. Medical MJ is legal in California, so there is more to be known about this case, as I thought from the beginning.