March 15, 200718 yr 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 sad and pathetic. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
March 15, 200718 yr She should move to British Columbia, Canada. http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/
March 15, 200718 yr For godsakes she is a dying woman and they won't let her take a drug for medicinal purposes to ease her suffering? ****ing bastards! Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand"
March 15, 200718 yr Completely riddiculous legal outcome for the situation. Still gaming with my 9900k/2080ti/32 ram. One day I suppose a game may inspire me to finally upgrade. Maybe.
March 15, 200718 yr I'm anti-drug and have no qualm against anti-drug laws. But, Federal anti-drug laws trumping state legalization is silly and this is just plain outrageous. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
March 15, 200718 yr Could someone explain whether this is the last route in the US Appeal system? If so, that is most sad. The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161)
March 15, 200718 yr Could someone explain whether this is the last route in the US Appeal system? If so, that is most sad. Good question. I took this; "The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago" to mean the US Supreme Court but I suppose it could have meant the State Supreme Court. If so, and now she just got smaked down by a Federal Court, she could probobaly take it the the US Supreme Court which is of course the highest law in the US.
March 15, 200718 yr http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070314/hl_nm/...NEjdTu3IPxH2ocA It was the U.S. Supreme Court. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
March 15, 200718 yr Author Like this ruling will make her, stop, though. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
March 15, 200718 yr http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070314/hl_nm/...NEjdTu3IPxH2ocA It was the U.S. Supreme Court. Interesting. I didnt know you could appeal a US Supreme Court decision.
March 15, 200718 yr Basically, the equivalent of being prosecuted for staying alive. Only in America.
March 15, 200718 yr Must be one whack job doctor if you ask me. Marijuana is not something that is keeping her alive. Edit: Ok i didn't actually read the article but still it seems a tad bit far fetched. Edited March 15, 200718 yr by theslug There was a time when I questioned the ability for the schizoid to ever experience genuine happiness, at the very least for a prolonged segment of time. I am no closer to finding the answer, however, it has become apparent that contentment is certainly a realizable goal. I find these results to be adequate, if not pleasing. Unfortunately, connection is another subject entirely. When one has sufficiently examined the mind and their emotional constructs, connection can be easily imitated. More data must be gleaned and further collated before a sufficient judgment can be reached.
March 15, 200718 yr http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070314/hl_nm/...NEjdTu3IPxH2ocA It was the U.S. Supreme Court. Interesting. I didnt know you could appeal a US Supreme Court decision. they didn't. this was NOT a US Supreme Court decision. it was the 9th circuit, a federal appeals court. they appealed a state ruling in a federal appeals court, which upheld a previous US Supreme Court decision (not that they could overturn it anyway). they could appeal to the US Supreme Court now, and then the US Supreme Court could overturn its previous decision, but there's not a lot you can do beyond that without different evidence. taks comrade taks... just because.
March 15, 200718 yr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich It was a US Supreme Court ruling. Google for Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et al. if wikipedia isn't enough. Edited March 15, 200718 yr by Tale "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Create an account or sign in to comment