This story seems a tad ironic considering this other recent article.
Here’s the Wikipedia article about her case.

Dying can be charged for using marijuana

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.”



  1. Improbus says:

    This, my friends, illustrates the difference between the LAW and JUSTICE.

  2. TJGeezer says:

    Even aside from rank injustice, this underscores the inability of congress to admit it is wrong about something. Until every congressfool who has ever voted for the DEA over science gets seriously attacked for it in an election that won’t change. If they did try to do the right thing, it would just put the usual authoritarian a**holes panties in a twist. No upside for a politician.

    Congress does not and never has had the best interests of the American people on its agenda. There’s too much big money being made in the black markets for congress to want to do the rational (and humane) thing for sick people, or stop attacking the personal freedom of U.S. citizens and rethink the drug war from the ground up.

    I would sure love to be proven wrong about that. Odds?

  3. JimR says:

    My sister has MS and uses marijuana to relieve pain. Thank justice that marijuana is legal for medical use in Canada.

  4. Mike says:

    Ha, if smoking homegrown pot isn’t the clearest example of interstate commerce, I don’t know what is. :-/

    Really though, progressives have nobody to blame but themselves where issues of perfectly valid state laws being trampled over by the federal government are concerned. Reconstruction played its part, but the FDRs of our past did the rest of the damage.

  5. Angel H. Wong says:

    Marihuana will become legal the day tobacco stops being profitable.

  6. TJGeezer says:

    6 – Actually, I think the original scare campaigns against marijuana, back in the days of “Reefer Madness,” were funded by the cotton industry trying to get rid of competition from hemp. Or so I’ve been told.

    5 – I wish you didn’t have a point, though it’s not exactly on-point to blame progressives for the misuse authoritarians have made of progressive precedents. I guess policies are like technology – if man can use it man can misuse it.

  7. TJGeezer says:

    Sorry – meant to addres 4, not 5. You’re right, though, Dennis. There’s a lot of money being made both inside and outside (but only because of) the black markets.

  8. The State says:

    1. The State has determined that marijuana is an illegal narcotic.
    2. The State has determined that illegal narcotic users are an enemy of The State.
    3. The State has determined that enemies of The State must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

    The State has spoken.

  9. Gig says:

    I heard this story on NPR this morning. Plenty of other doctors say that there are other ways to deal with the pain.

    If her Doctor said the only way she could live is to drink and drive, run stop signs or go out and shoot people should she get a by to the laws against that as well?

    Add to that if I had all those things wrong with me and I had to stay stoned all the time I’d choose to pull the plug.

    This is obviously a test case that the Legalized MJ groups wanted to push though the system. It will probably come out in the end that there were plenty of legal drugs that would have helped her.

    Folks, I could care less if MJ was legalized but right now it is against the law. I also think tobacco should be made illegal under current FDA guidelines. Obviously there isn’t enough support for either of those to things to happen so get the hell over it or do something about it.

  10. MikeN says:

    If only you guys would oppose more federal laws. But only if its drug laws do you start using words like death sentence. Every so often someone complains about health care and calls for socialized medicine. Well in Canada it’s a death sentence if you follow their health care in many cases. Or how about US air bag laws which can be a death sentence too. For that matter, the fuel mileage laws have killed thousands of people a year according to government estimates, as the (non-suv)gas guzzlers were safer.

  11. Dustin says:

    “For that matter, the fuel mileage laws have killed thousands of people a year according to government estimates, as the (non-suv)gas guzzlers were safer.”

    And we’d all be safer if we drove Sherman tanks too… give me a break.

  12. JimR says:

    #11, Well in Canada it’s a death sentence if you follow their health care in many cases.

    Can you give us an example?

  13. Fred Flint says:

    #11,

    If the Canadian health care system will kill you, what does that say about the American health care system, which doesn’t officially exist if you’re poor?

  14. Li says:

    #11 If Canada’s health system is a death sentence, then why is it that the World Factbook rates Canada as 12th in life expectancy, and the US as 48th? Oh yes, Jordan, Bermuda and Bosnia all have higher life expectancies than we do. This despite the fact that we spend more money per person than any other nation by a pretty wide margin. These United States are broken, and unfortunately a bunch of delusional cheerleaders are the biggest obstacle to fixing it.

  15. Heartless Bastard says:

    Just what we need — more life expectancy. So we can keep obese diabetics alive longer to cause an even greater drain on the social security system.

  16. Simple says:

    I do not understand the obsession some people have with pot.

    The pro-pot people seem more obsessed with the right to have pot than the average alcoholic believes in his right to alcohol (that’s an exaggerated, I don’t know any alcoholics).

    If the nation made broccoli illegal, would progressive broccoli eaters enact medical broccoli laws?

    Obviously I do not have experience with pot, so I do not understand its attraction.

  17. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #18 – You don’t need to understand its attraction. I don’t get American Idol, Nascar, or beer. It just isn’t for you. But it is safe, medically proven to be beneficial, and totally natural, and we all have the right to ingest into our bodies what we see fit.

    Marijuana in non-addictive, so the link you seem to make between it and alcoholism in your post doesn’t apply. Although it it horribly hypocritical to say alcohol and nicotine are okay but marijuana is not.

    Those of you who seem to be under the delusion that there is something seedy or dirty about marijuana culture are simply fooled by by the wildly inaccurate stereotypes and stigma around it, and possibly (I theorize) by the amazingly rigid stick up your … sorry… I should refrain from that…

    The bottom line is that making something illegal should not ever be arbitrary or malicious… and marijuana is illegal for both arbitrary and malicious reasons.

    I’ll concede that one innovation that could help lead to legalization is a rightful concern. There is no accurate marijuana test that can be applied by law enforcement for roadside sobriety tests.

  18. Mike says:

    #18, it’s mainly an issue of personal freedom. I’ve never even had the desire to smoke pot in my 29 years, yet I’ve never once thought it was any of the governments business to make it illegal either. It’s one thing for the government to tell you what you can do with your property, it’s another entirely when it tells you what you can do with your own body.

  19. OhForTheLoveOf says:

    #20 – and I think they cross the line quite often when it comes to property too…

  20. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    Many people fail to realize the kind of authoritarian, paramilitary personalities common in law enforcement today – nor do they comprehend the pathological obsession most have for their playtoys weapons: night-vision cameras, battering rams, helicopters – all these and more can be yours, courtesy of your federal government! Just incarcerate some nonviolent citizens, then tell us how you believe that your area has a “drug problem.” And voilá! Millions of dollars worth of taxpayer-purchased toys for your totalitarian amusement! Call now! 1-800-DEA-SCUM.

  21. Smartalix says:

    I would love to hear the anti-pot people explain the damage to society if pot were legal. There would be no dealer wars and tax money would flow like water.

  22. Kyle says:

    I agree completely Smartalix. Make it illegal to be high in public and to drive high. But let people do it in the privacy of their own homes. The states would profit and there would be less violence.

  23. Lauren the Ghoti says:

    As I said – the authorities have a vested interest in continuing the “war”. They are hooked on the ‘crack’ of billions in Federal money and state-of-the-art paramilitary hardware it gets them – which has turned police departments into small armies, with all the tools needed to repress the populace. And they will fight tooth and nail any efforts to shut down their gravy train.

    …and #24 – Kyle?

    Prithee tell, what is this nonsense?: “Make it illegal to be high in public…” What a statement!

    I get the idea that you may be unfamiliar with one or another basic precept of American freedom, such as, if you’re minding your own business, not interfering with the rights of other citizens, you have the right to be left alone. Yet that phrase you used lends an unmistakable impression that you feel that simply being in a given state of mind in public – not while simultaneously doing something else that entails possible risk to others, but simply, in your own words, “being high” – should be the government’s – or anyone else’s – business.

    And to that anti-freedom, anti-progressive, anti-American approval of government thought control, sir, I must say this: bullshit!

    (If I were inclined to burst your bubble, I might be tempted to point out that every day, unless you live in a highly isolated rural setting, you are, like most Americans, amid innumerable people who are “high in public.” They don’t exactly advertise, you know.

    The very fact that you are so blithely unaware of their presence all around you should give you an extremely strong hint as to exactly how much of a threat they actually present, to you or anyone else – and therefore how totally unnecessary – and even more importantly, totally unjust – any such law as you suggest would be.)

  24. Simple says:

    I still do not get the attraction of pot. However, I do hear some paranoia in some pro-pot posts. Interesting.

    Just because pot is natural doe not mean it is safe. Arsenic is completely natural.

    I think I’l keep eating broccoli though.

  25. Angel H. Wong says:

    #27

    It’s the same attraction some ppl have towards booze & tobacco.

  26. doug says:

    #23. Damn straight. Decriminalize it first. Public intox laws could be expanded to cover folks high enough in public to pose a danger to themselves or others – the real point of those laws now is to give the cops grounds to take in those so staggering drunk that they are likely to hurt themselves or vomit on someone.

    And as far as the dangers of pot to society? Friend of a friend used to bounce at a local bar. He always said he would rather deal with the stoned than the drunk, since they are not at all belligerent.

    It is a travesty that this woman should be prohibited from legally obtaining life-saving medicine. So much for a “culture of life,” eh?

  27. Simple says:

    #30 – Lauren the Ghoti

    Well said.

    Of the possible effects of pot: 20+ years ago a friend told me he knew heavy user(s) that experienced memory problems (their short term memory performed poorly, IMS).

    Because my income is derived from thinking, I try to limit my exposure to chemicals that affect the brain. I believe I would be better off today if I’d never consumed any alcohol.

  28. Jack says:

    Same old BS. These old fuck’s think that weed is worse than sending you off to Iraq.

  29. Mr. Fusion says:

    #33,
    1, Excellent point (theory). That never occurred to me and it is entirely rational.

    2, I understand your second point but respectfully disagree. Reasonably, we should be able to assess the relative dangers in something. It should be obvious that C4 and heroin should not be sold through vending machines. It is equally obvious that bubble gum and Tylenol don’t need strict regulation. It is the products that fall in between these extremes that are problematic.

    While it is doubtful someone super hyped up on caffeine would cause an auto accident, I can’t say the same for pot. Shoot, I don’t know how many times I’ve been so mellowed (high for the straight dudes in the audience) I didn’t even want to drive let alone get behind the wheel. I knew I was in no shape to drive. But sure as shit there will be someone that does get behind the wheel and, …

    No way should pot be criminal. Damn, it should be the same as booze offenses, ie drinking in public. If you do smoke, then enjoy. I don’t condone it, but sure as shit, I won’t condemn it.

    And let the poor lady have some pot. Christ-on-a-stick, show some compassion.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4460 access attempts in the last 7 days.