Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life

R

Redworm

Moderator
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_re_us/medical_marijuana;_ylt=AqOrnCjGcRbwkXtqa5.91FsDW7oF

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer Wed Mar 14, 7:59 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO - A woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive can face federal prosecution on drug charges, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.


The ruling was the latest legal defeat for Angel Raich, a mother of two from Oakland suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments who sued the federal government pre-emptively to avoid being arrested for using the drug. On her doctor's advice, Raich eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite.

The latest legal twist once again highlighted the conflict between the federal government, which declares marijuana an illegal controlled substance with no medical value, and the 11 states allowing medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying 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 the gravely ill have a right to marijuana to keep them alive when legal drugs fail.

Raich, 41, began sobbing when she was told of the decision that she was not immune to prosecution and said she would continue using the drug.

"I'm sure not going to let them kill me," she said. "Oh, my God."

The three-judge appeals panel said that the United States has not yet reached the point where "the right to use medical marijuana is 'fundamental' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'"

However, the court left open the possibility that Raich, if she was arrested and prosecuted, might be able to argue that she possessed marijuana as a last resort to stay alive, in what is known as a "medical necessity defense."

"I have to get myself busted in order to try to save my life," Raich said.

One of her physicians, Frank Lucido, said in an interview last year that Raich would "probably be dead without marijuana." Lucido, of Berkeley, was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

Leaders in the medical marijuana movement said they would continue fighting.

"This is literally a matter of life and death for Angel and thousands of other patients, and we will keep fighting on both the legal and political fronts until every patient is safe," said Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project.

New Mexico is poised to become the 12th state to allow medical marijuana under a bill lawmakers approved Wednesday. Gov. Bill Richardson, a strong supporter of the measure, is expected to sign it.
Click to expand...

Reading the information about Gonzalez v. Raich is just sickening. The justification for using the commerce clause to give the government this authority in the drug war is absolutely absurd. So because homegrown marijuana in California used by Californians competes with the already illegal marijuana being traded among other states it falls within the government's authority to tell a state how to let its people live and to tell a physician how to treat his patient.

Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous that the government is saying it has the authority to regulate a black market that it has no control over in the first place? :confused:
 
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.
 
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.
Click to expand...

1. Why? It's already beneficial in plant form where it works as a fast acting inhalant.

2. There are numerous cannabinoids and other chemicals in marijuana than have their own effects, some of them working better in conjunction with the rest.

So far the only synthetic version is only an extract of THC and doesn't have all the beneficial qualities of this plant that has been used for thousands of years. Why should people have to wait for a new, expensive drug to hit the market when a very safe and very effective one already exists that won't drain the pocketbook?
 
I say they just let who ever wants to smoke it smoke it for whatever the reason. Let's treat it like beer or tylenol and move on to more important issues.
 
I'm amazed more and more all the time whenever any topic of pharmaceutical industries come up. I can't even turn on the TV at night anymore without seeing some new "miracle pill" to cure heartburn, acid reflux, or whatever--but with the side effects you'll need to wear Depends, a drool bib, and will probably have a stroke or heart attack in less than six months... and that's just A-Okay. But if grandma gets caught burning a medicinal doobie, she'll land in the pen--not the old folks home.

And why is that? Because grandma can grow her own right between the lilac tree and her favorite rose bush. That means the Feds don't get their cut, the state doesn't get it's cut, the doctor looses his piece of the pie, the lawyers miss out, the pharmaceutical companies get short-changed, and the list goes on... and heaven forbid--grandma can spent some of her pathetic SS check on something else she might need.
The simple fact is that the monetary value of MJ is much better for too many decision-influencing entities so long as it's kept completely illegal, regardless of how beneficial it might be to the individual were it to be legalized. As with so many other things, when you cut passed all the propaganda, it still comes down to a dollar sign in the end.
 
The politicos cannot afford to allow pot to become legal. That's because what they are doing only makes sense if you are stoned. If everybody gets wasted and figures out the reasoning and methods being used to control them, there will be a revolution.

Now, that may seem like silly rationale, but I say that only something so convoluted and ridiculous can be the reason for stubbornly refusing to allow the relief of an innocent old lady's illness through the use of a substance that has been widely used and has caused ZERO deaths of record. Paraphrased, it's the perfect example of the phrase "safe and effective".
 
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.
 
I say they figure out WHAT in the marijuana is the medicine and just extract it. Pharmaceutical companies can buy a permit to produce it and sell it or produce for study and/or it can be synthesized in a lab.
Click to expand...

Then the price will be ridiculous for a bottle of pills.
 
Does she have a donation website? I don't have alot of money, but I sure as heck can donate $20.

It is good to see that the states are passing their own laws in defiance of bad Federal law. Hopefully more states will follow.
 
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but the point you actually support is that it DOES do the job.

"On her doctor's advice, Raich eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster her appetite."

Fairly well accepted now that the argument that MJ has no medicinal value is busted.


The BEST anti-drug ad is the one that shows the kid saying "I tried pot. Nothing happened." then showed him and his buddies sitting on the couch eyes glazed while life passed them by.
 
Last edited:
The "drug" in pot has already been discovered and can be extracted and put in pills. Last I saw, it was something like 200% the price of just growing it. It is truly absurd to let drug companies rob the public for something that can be delivered well either by smoking or cooking it into baked goods. The fact that it is abused by some is a whole different issue. I would say tho, that it is much less dangerous than booze. You know the drunk cause he's going twice the speed limit and swerving; you know the stoner cause he's going 4 mph behind a garbage truck. (joke--for the record, I'm against anyone using any drugs and then driving. DUI is enforced for both booze and pot, so that's already covered under the law) I do think the government trying to use interstate commerce laws is ridiculous. 3/4 of our prisons are occupied by drug offenders, and a large portion of those are in for pot. This doesn't make us more safe, it makes us broke and unable to fight real crime. That's why so many judges have come out against harsh laws giving prison time for small time pot violations. They legalized medial pot in Colorado a few years ago, and last year the city of Denver legalized anyone possessing one oz or under. Our city is not falling apart and we still are very conservative on most issues. We are saving a ton of cash, and you still get popped big time if you smoke and drive, or try to distribute.
 
Its a false argument. Marijuana isn't "keeping her alive" and there are plenty of other legal drugs that will do the same job.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was waiting for this. :P

No two drugs are identical and her doctor has determined that there are no other perfectly legal drugs that will do the same job. In fact there is no legal drug on the market that has all the benefits of marijuana that she needs. Pain relief is usually done with narcotics that can be addicting while marijuana will not cause physical addiction. Appetite stimulation would require a separate drug that would not only introduce a host of other possible side effects but opens the door to negative drug interactions.

The bottom line remains that her doctors know her medical condition better than anyone here and are the ONLY ones that should be deciding what the best drug for her is.
 
Bottom line, pot is not keeping this lady alive. Pot is illegal. The fact that some folks want to tug on the heart strings isn't relevant. There ARE drugs which will medically do exactly the same thing as pot. The fact that she has a preference is irrelevant. I prefer to drive 90 on the freeway, but I don't have that luxury.
 
How about the notion it's keeping her life somewhat bearable without her entire financial support being handed over to the pharmaceutical industry.
I'm not a MJ advocate, but it doesn't take a lot of common sense to see that it's less harmful to society as a legal drug of choice like coffee or beer than it is a danger to the larger entities that make a nice bit of their profits by keeping it illegal.
 
I am not a doctor, so I will just have to take her doctor's word as to it's keeping her alive.
But what I can attest to is that there is some benefit for the use of MJ in the terminally ill. Five years ago last Christmas eve, my best friend's wife, a truly wonderful Lady, passed away from breast cancer. Her last six to eight months on the Earth were rough ones, and smoking pot helped her to maintain her appetite through the chemo therapy and the pain. the only way she could get it was through illegal purchases.
It is a damn shame when Government loses it's compassion for political "points"!
 
Bottom line, pot is not keeping this lady alive. Pot is illegal. The fact that some folks want to tug on the heart strings isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

There are very few drugs whose express purpose is keeping you alive. Will you die without Ibuprofen? Do you really need Claritin do control your hay fever?

The issue is not whether or not marijuana keeps her alive, it is that it DRAMATICALLY improves her QUALITY of life. It is just like being prescribed some percocet the next time you break your arm. Is the percocet keeping you alive? Absolutely not. But it makes your life much more bearable. I can never understand why anyone would want to take something away from someone else that only improves their quality of life.

There ARE drugs which will medically do exactly the same thing as pot.
Click to expand...
There are literally dozens of different agents in marijuana that all have some effect when it is used. Every strain of marijuana is different, and produces a different effect. Some strains make you more alert, others make you feel more relaxed and sedated. As far as I know, the only compound which has been extracted from marijuana is THC, which is only one part of the high that you get.

More importantly, everybody reacts differently to different drugs. That two drugs do "the same thing" does NOT automatically make them suitable for use by two different people, even for the same symptoms. Vicodin does the same thing as Percocet, yet many people are made nauseous by Vicodin. What possible benefit does society get by forcing someone to use Vicodin instead of a drug that works better for them?

Stage, which drug on the market (let's keep it singular, not a "cocktail") produces the same effects TO THIS LADY as the marijuana that she uses? How do you know it produces the same effect? Do you know what other medications she is taking? (I'm sure there are quite a few, given her ailments) What are the interactions of the drug(s) you are recommending with the drugs she is already taking? Are those interactions more or less harmful to her? Do those interactions improve or worsen her quality of life?

Most people fail to realize that even today, with all of our technology, Medicine remains an art, not a science. Are we pushing it closer to a science? Yes, every day. But it is naive at best and deadly at worst to make the sort of blanket, armchair judgments about which drugs should or should not be available to people with no knowledge of the patient's history, and probably no knowledge of medicine itself. Let Doctors do what they feel is in their patients' best interest. Their hands are already tied enough by nature, let's not make it any harder for them.

The fact that she has a preference is irrelevant. I prefer to drive 90 on the freeway, but I don't have that luxury.
Click to expand...

Stage, is this really an argument you want to make? Are you REALLY arguing that quality of life is a LUXURY? This woman is dying and in pain, and she has found a drug that eases that pain. Yes, that is technically a luxury, as she would probably live without using marijuana (*speculation* I don't know her medical history), but this affects her and ONLY HER. Driving 90 on the freeway can affect the lives of everyone around you. For that reason, your speed is regulated, and is a luxury you don't have. Remember my Vicodin/Percocet analogy above? Do you think a patient's preference is relevant in that scenario? It is no different than this lady's situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top