Appeals Court Says No To Medical Marijuana

[Kadie]

Mar 14, 2007 10:15 am US/Pacific

Appeals Court Says No To Medical Marijuana
DEA Cracks Down On Medical Marijuana Clinics
Health Officials Abandon Costly Pot ID Cards Plan

(AP) SAN FRANCISCO A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges.

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.

more...
http://cbs13.com/topstories/local_story_073132045.html

[ThomCat]

1. So they're condemning her to death

and condemning her to a painful horrible death.
x(

These bullshit laws have to go.

[Deep13]

3. The law recognizes a big distinction...

...between killing someone and allowing someone to die by doing nothing.

If I figure out the basis of that distinction, I'll let you know because it doesn't make any fucking sense to me.

[ThomCat]

4. Except in this case they're actively preventing her from

saving her own life. That, at least in my mind, makes this state sanctioned murder.

[Deep13]

7. Yup.

Text book case:

A hypothetical person, George, sees someone drowning that he can easily save but doesn't. Verdict: no liability, no duty to act.

George accidentally pushes someone into the water and then declines to rescue her from drowning. Verdict for the plaintiff-George caused the danger.

THIS CASE:
George sees someone in danger of drowning but for a pool floatation toy. Observing that the toy is not a Coast Guard approved life preserver, he takes it away from the victim fearing that it will be a bad example others. The victim drowns.

[Deep13]

2. No big surprise. SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

The pro-federalism court ruled that states have no power to protect their own citizens if a paranoid law to the contrary exists at the federal level.

[shadowknows69]

5. This continued travesty is a crime against nature, literally.

Shunning our Mother Gaia's own amazing pharmacy for things "MAN" has ceated. If there is sin this is truly it.

[indepat]

6. Insanity multiplied to infinity: sheer stupidity and utter madness