Arkan Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astr0creep Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 She should move to British Columbia, Canada. http://entertainmentandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 She should the supreme court for emotional and physical pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyCrimson Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Completely riddiculous legal outcome for the situation. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I dont understand how the Feds keep trumping the State laws. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionavar Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 then there is no further appeal possible. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkan Posted March 15, 2007 Author Share Posted March 15, 2007 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Basically, the equivalent of being prosecuted for staying alive. Only in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theslug Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) 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, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 (edited) 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, 2007 by Tale "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now