Dying Woman Loses Medical Marijuana Case

Dying Woman Loses Medical Marijuana Case

www.cbsnews.com

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. Conventional drugs did not work, she said.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Thats sad. If it's life or death I say let her keep doing it. It's doing way more good then harm.

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14/3/2007 by enjoies05]

Has she tried Marinol?

That should be just as effective as long as she not so nauseated she can't keep a pill down.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by djohnsto77]

Im not slamming on you djohnsto, as you have a very good suggestion.
My only problem is that BIG PHARMA would even create and patent a drug that already exists in natural form.
It beyond absurd that she should be jailed for consuming a plant, be it tomatoes or tobacco or marijuana, expecially if she gets some health benifits/pain relief from it.
Marinol is an expensive (to purchase) cheap man made knock off of marijuana, and not nearly as effective Im sure.

I'm sorry, but priorities are so out of line.
First, let it be known that I think that marijuana should be legalized anyway. Controlled in the same fashion that alcohol is. Alcohol in my opinion is far worse that pot. That's another debate for another thread.
That being said - this woman is DYING. According to the article, Marijuana is what's keeping her going. Where is the issue here?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Has she tried Marinol?

That should be just as effective as long as she not so nauseated she can't keep a pill down.

[edit on 3/14/2007 by djohnsto77]

djohnsto77, I'd like to, perhaps, explain that there is also a quality of life issue at stake as well. Yes, Marinol would probably be an effective substitute for using medical marijuana through inhalation or ingestion. However, the use of Marinol tend to make the user sleep excessively. Smoking or eating 'medical marijuana' enables the experienced user to tailor his/her dosage. One needn't sleep the day away. At least the patient would be able to function at some level; conversing, reading, watching television or listening to music etc. It may not be much of a life but at least it is something. Additionally, smoking or eating marijuana might an increase a patients sense of well being. What could be wrong about feeling emotionally better or even euphoric when you are dying?

Marinol is dronabinol one of numerous cannibinoids found in marijuana. I repeat, it is only ONE of many different cannibinoids that might be found in any particular strain of the cannabis plant. It has often been anecdotally reported that the varying strains and the combinations thereof can be even more therapeutic than dronabinol alone.

Yes, it's a complicated issue but only because cannabis has been demonized. Cannabis has been used for millenia as medicine, among a myriad of other uses, without causing a single death. Cannabis has no known toxic level in humans and it has been found to be beneficial, as medicine, in a number of diseases and disorders. Marinol is really nothing more than an effort to make this simple, natural substance into a pharmaceutical to create profit. The difficulty in obtaining patents on naturally occuring plant substance, incidentally, is one of the cited reasons why marijuana is not legal.

I completely agree, I think marijuana should be legal both for medicinal and recreational use.

I just mentioned Marinol since that's the closest legal product available.

I agree MJ, should be legal, kick the patents to the curb. Personnel growth,
limit it if you want to 4 plants or a qp (1/4 pound) Im so tired of the topic of legalize. that dogs been beat. you'd in most cases eliminate the middle man. ie drug dealer. eliminate the risk involved for both parties. regulate the sh*# like tobacco and spirits. get on with life. the gov just makes way to much cashola off the illegal drug trade and the war against it. not to mention all the jobs that could Potentially be lost due to legalization.
apologies for off topic rant. btw marinol can cost up to 15k a yr.
free the weed

thanks for the heads up DJ!

Well since I already wrote my opinion, like people here don't already know what it is, well if you don't...

California Court: Woman Who Is Kept Alive by Marijauna Can Face Federal Drug Charges

This is yet another article that discusses how the Feds will take a dying woman to court to keep her from smoking marijuana while at the same time turning their back to 20 million illegal citizens running a muck in our country. Seriously what is the greater threat?

What motivates the FED to pursue these cases when they know damn well that marijuana is not that harmful.

What this comes down to is taxation and which formula makes big business/US Government(they are 1 and the same) more money. The answer of course is

Millions of cheap/illegal labor + heavy offenses on soft crimes/drugs = cheap/controllable work force.

The less rights for the individual worker/legal American the better!

@#$% the FED!

I already said I'm against this law, but let me make the following points:

It appears that she initiated this lawsuit, as far as I can see she was never threatened personally for federal drug crimes.

If she ever was, I don't think any jury would convict her given this information, so I really doubt the Feds would ever try to prosecute her. They would be scared to death by the precedent of jury nullification of drug laws that could arise from this case.

I think this appears to be more of a movement lawsuit meant to change the law through the courts rather than the legislature, not the redress of grievences by this individual.

Please correct me if I have any of the facts wrong.


[edit on 3/14/2007 by djohnsto77]

I do not believe that Marijuana should be legalized, so I wish to clear that up immediately. Many do, but I do not. However, I do support the substance being decriminalized. But this story really concerns me. When I think of crime, I look for culpability. Where is the intent here? We have an elder lady suffering from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments who leave her in constant pain. The drug allows her to ease the pain and boost her appetite. Them munchies are coming in handy by the looks of it.

Either way, I hardly see the need to pursue a case of this sort. Honestly though, what are they going to do to her? Waste of time and tax dollars.

Leave this woman live out the last of her life with a smile on her face. She is not hurting anyone else.

There is more than one thread running on this news article. So please forgive me for repeating myself here. But I think it's pertanent.

Around 1982 when I lived in London, my wife was a film producer working for a company called Falkman Film and Video. It was in many respects a satellite office of the BBC.

The company was commissioned by the British American Tobacco company to train its executives on interview techniques to minimise the damage being done to their industry by the anti-smoking lobby.

During that time she was taken to a manufacturing facility somewhere in the midlands, if I remember correctly. She was shown - as part of her background research in understanding her clients aims - The equipement and branding that was going to be used for the legal manufacture and packaging of marijuana.

The governmantal approval to do this was being dangled infront of them as an inticement to get them to abandon the sale of tobacco. BAT genuinly saw it as a way of saving a multi billion dollar industry, and likewise the government saw it as a way to retain the tax revenue they would lose with the demise of smoking tobacco.

It never came to pass and many believe it was a moral stand that prevented the British government from legalising Canabis at that time.

Unfortunately that was not the case. It was the Pharmacutical industry who PERSUADED those in power to stop legalisation, and I don't think I need to elaborate on what their likely motives where.

In relationship to the quoted article, I think my wifes experiences shine light on the fact that morals have price tags attached to them. And when the price is right, such will be the time for legalisation.

Is she currently charged with anything? If not then this is nothing special. The Federal Government has made its position clear on medical marijuana. They can't set a precedent of tolerance. But just because they can prosecute doesn't mean they always will.

Why of why can the fed's not get their priorities right. Even if as posted above the feds did not initiate this. They seem to be still pursuing it. Either way this would not the first time, nor the last. Multiple states have tried to or are currently trying to get the feds to change their outlook on patients. WHAT GOOD DOES MAKING A CRIMINAL OUT OF HER DO? She is going to die anyway (not meant to disrespect her) An example. That’s just sick.

Our money says in god we trust, god said we shall have all the earths’ seeds, yet her she stands. My country disgusts me!

As Sean Paul? said...use but don't abuse. It's a f'n herb....there's hundreds of other herbs out there that can cause worse symptoms than marijuana yet they are not illegal to consume. Plus, alcohol, nicotine and the famous Vioxx are -drugs- with minimal benefits if any. This is just a way for politics to meddle in people's affairs and where big Pharma can form a monopoly on things that are readily available in nature.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by laiguana]

Seeker PI said:

Unfortunately that was not the case. It was the Pharmacutical industry who PERSUADED those in power to stop legalisation, and I don't think I need to elaborate on what their likely motives where.

In relationship to the quoted article, I think my wifes experiences shine light on the fact that morals have price tags attached to them. And when the price is right, such will be the time for legalisation.

That's the real reason behind the drug laws, the money. God forbid there be anything left at all on earth that someone can't privately buy and sell. Especially something as lucrative as drugs.

The first drug laws in Canada were implemented out West, when the Chinese railroad slaves started getting richer than the railroad Barons with the opium trade.

The only moral issue in this case is the disregard for life and the love of greed.

Abraham Lincoln said that 'bureaucracy is the cruelest form of tyranny' and I think this is a good example.



[edit on 16-3-2007 by clearwater]

All this ruling does is to say "Hey, regardless of what California laws say about mj, the feds can still come afer you if they choose to".

Iow, nothing has changed. If the feds haven't hassled her before this, chances are they won't hassle her now.

Originally posted by chissler
I do not believe that Marijuana should be legalized, so I wish to clear that up immediately. Many do, but I do not. However, I do support the substance being decriminalized.

Chissler, I've heard this position many times, from many people.

What, in your opinion, is the difference between legalizing pot and decriminalizing it? I'm truly curious.

As an aside, I was listening to a radio talk show yesterday, and a nurse came on and said that pot was prescribed not to relieve pain, but to relieve nausea.

Fwiw.

Originally posted by Seeker PI
Unfortunately that was not the case. It was the Pharmacutical industry who PERSUADED those in power to stop legalisation, and I don't think I need to elaborate on what their likely motives where.

In relationship to the quoted article, I think my wifes experiences shine light on the fact that morals have price tags attached to them. And when the price is right, such will be the time for legalisation.

I think I know what you meant by this, but would you care to elaborate? As far as the pharms reluctance to legalize, I mean.

Well, I see decriminalization of the substance as the path to travel for the following reasons.

Individuals who grow, distribute, or possess large quantities of the substance can still be held accountable for their behaviour. However, the regular joe who gets nabbed with a little piece in his pocket, he won't go down for the rest of his life with a possession charge on his record. People who introduce this substance to young children should be held accountable, which is why I feel it should be an illegal substance. However, if someone of legal age wants to carry a small quantity on them, they would not face a haunting criminal record.

Works both ways. Lets those off the hook who should be, but holds the rest accountable.