Dying can be charged for using marijuana (CNN.com)
Zig
...I am Captain Planet! Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
...I am Captain Planet! Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
in Discussions
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Appeals court rules dying not immune from drug charges for marijuana use
• Doctor says marijuana is only drug keeping Angel Raich alive
• Raich has a brain tumor and chronic nausea, her doctor says
• She sobbed when told of the court's decision
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- 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."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><img src="http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/3669/worffacepalmvj7.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
What do you guys think about this?
It's just... Ugh. I don't know. I can't even sort my thoughts on this, it's just a swirling cloud of malice in my brain. I hate pot legislation. I hate the corrupted link between our government and its interests in private industry and agriculture. I hate that cigarettes and alcohol are, around the world, so much deadlier than Marijuana and yet..
FGSFDS!!! I wish pot law and all the bigwigs opposing legalization, supporting tobacco and alcohol, the purveyors of incorrect information and the publishers of backwards government-backed anti-pot ads would all coalesce into a watermelon that I could smash with a huge wooden mallet. That would make me feel better.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• Appeals court rules dying not immune from drug charges for marijuana use
• Doctor says marijuana is only drug keeping Angel Raich alive
• Raich has a brain tumor and chronic nausea, her doctor says
• She sobbed when told of the court's decision
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- 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."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--><img src="http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/3669/worffacepalmvj7.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
What do you guys think about this?
It's just... Ugh. I don't know. I can't even sort my thoughts on this, it's just a swirling cloud of malice in my brain. I hate pot legislation. I hate the corrupted link between our government and its interests in private industry and agriculture. I hate that cigarettes and alcohol are, around the world, so much deadlier than Marijuana and yet..
FGSFDS!!! I wish pot law and all the bigwigs opposing legalization, supporting tobacco and alcohol, the purveyors of incorrect information and the publishers of backwards government-backed anti-pot ads would all coalesce into a watermelon that I could smash with a huge wooden mallet. That would make me feel better.
Comments
Psh, I wouldn't quit either if I were her. What the hell kinda leverage does a federal prosecution have on you when you're going to die?
What do you guys think about this?
It's just... Ugh. I don't know. I can't even sort my thoughts on this, it's just a swirling cloud of malice in my brain. I hate pot legislation. I hate the corrupted link between our government and its interests in private industry and agriculture. I hate that cigarettes and alcohol are, around the world, so much deadlier than Marijuana and yet..
FGSFDS!!! I wish pot law and all the bigwigs opposing legalization, supporting tobacco and alcohol, the purveyors of incorrect information and the publishers of backwards government-backed anti-pot ads would all coalesce into a watermelon that I could smash with a huge wooden mallet. That would make me feel better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont know I will agree that cigarettes are bad but I dont think alcohol is any better or worse than weed. Marijuana can be pretty bad, I have known people who are seemingly addicted to it, cant go a day without smoking and their brains are about the consistency of a sponge, with the memory of a goldfish. The same applies to alcohol I suppose, but if weed were as readily accesible as alcohol I dont think it would be a good thing. It also has very unpredictable results, paranioa/depression etc, and when combined with alcohol can send a person right over the edge.
stupid censors...
[edit2] and if you are schizophrenic, or might possibly be, STAY AWAY FROM POT [/edit2]
But I agree with zig, if you think about how much money the government spends a year on the war on drugs, and how low a percentage of drugs in the country they actually confiscate, you would be horribly upset about the incredible waste of money. trillions of dollars, to put nonviolent criminals in jail for rediculous amounts of time.
As for the paranoid effects, I have had friends claiming the neighbours were going to kill them and some guys at a party that I and some friends were bouncing at decided we were out to get them and we were hitmen or something. I doubt legalizing it would get rid of this effect, just possibly change it from one "threat" to another. I suppose its a good thing that pot usually makes you feel helpless and like your going to die rather than voilent and trying to "defend" yourself against imaginary threats! I guess I have a biased point of view though, whenever I have tried it it has had little/no effect on me so I never really "got" the fun side of smoking it!
How much of the paranoia associated with marijuana do you think is because of its legal nature? Do you know how many people who tell me they stay away from marijuana because it's illegal. Alot. Is it physically addicting in the sense that your body needs it? No. Mentally in the sense that you think you need it? Yes. Is it dangerous by itself (if you eat it or use a vaporizer). No. Should people die because of juristictional *peeing* contests? No.
stupid censors...
[edit2] and if you are schizophrenic, or might possibly be, STAY AWAY FROM POT [/edit2]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I also know many people who started smoking it <b>because</b> it's illegal. If you take away the "lol i r smooth criminal" aspect, I'm betting a lot of people either wouldn't start, or would moderate it. Same as normal cigarettes with underage children. I see 6-8 year olds smoking around here all the time, trying to look cool leaning against the bus shelters etc (which is simultaneously the saddest and funniest thing I've seen).
Also there are benefits with legalisation, such as increased control over the market, increased control over the quality of the stuff (I honestly have no idea how it is in the weed market but in the cocaine market, a lot of the stuff sold isn't cocaine, and most of it that is, isn't pure, which is where a lot of the danger comes in). Plus taxes.
Although that'd make a lot of people still follow the illegal route, I guess.
But back on topic, that ruling is..... tough. I am assuming that the only reason the court decided it is to keep a hard face on it, thinking that if they allow this, they'll have many people claiming the same etc... Sort of like the "no dealing with terrorists" policy can be extremely hard to enforce when there are a few hundred hostage's lives at stake. If you bow down to them, you're gonna have to put up with a lot more of it.
I dunno if that's true or not (as in, I don't know if that's what tipped their decision), but it's the only reason I can even begin to think of. It's just wrong.
Can someone with a better understanding of it than me describe the uses of marijuana in medicinal use? I thought it was just a pain killer of some sort, I don't see how it could be the sole thing keeping someone alive.
I can see how this could be a hard-line tactic, and they may wait for all the dust to settle and then just turn a blind eye to the woman. That's no doubt what they'll do because if they actually prosecuted her, in California, it would eclipse the war for a few days/weeks. Still, this stuff grows like... well... weeds. If they legalized it, I think the prices would drop considerably, even accounting for taxes. Not to mention you'd cut the drug trade nearly in half if not more.
Que the conspiracy theorists talking about how trafficers have a stranglehold on the government.
- It would free up law enforcement to deal with *real* criminals
- It could have a whole range of medical benefits
- The government could tax it, resulting in more funds to spend on public services
- Hemp. Its useful stuff.
- Its actually unconstitutional to illigalise Marijuana. The first amendment says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion. I'm British and even I know this. Some Hindus, Buddhists and Rastafarians use Marijuana as part of their faith, thus the government is in fact breaking the first amendment.
The arguements against legalising Marijuana:
- WEED R BAD. DUUUUURP!
As for alcohol, I'd say the facts are clear: Large amounts (especially large regular amounts) bad, small amounts harmless. Seriously. A normal, healthy human can drink a beer or two per week and NEVER suffer any ill effects.
Oh, one thing however:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->- Its actually unconstitutional to illigalise Marijuana. The first amendment says that the government cannot 'prohibit the free exercise' of religion. I'm British and even I know this. Some Hindus, Buddhists and Rastafarians use Marijuana as part of their faith, thus the government is in fact breaking the first amendment.[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What if my "religion" demanded of me that I eat a small child once a year? Obviously I would NOT be allowed to do that, but you'd prohibit me from freely exercising my religion. In other words, that law cannot be taken literally, there have to be additional conditions. What are those conditions?
What if my "religion" demanded of me that I eat a small child once a year? Obviously I would NOT be allowed to do that, but you'd prohibit me from freely exercising my religion. In other words, that law cannot be taken literally, there have to be additional conditions. What are those conditions?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so long as it does not step on the rights of others, it's acceptable. the child has (among others) the right to life.
srrsly though, it's pretty amazing that pot isn't legal, at the very least for medicinal purposes. it's a conspiracy I tells ya!
Well, here's my next question then: If banning pot is unconstitunional, then how come the ban is in effect? Again, I assume that reasons (bogus or not) for why smoking pot is "stepping on the rights of others" have been stated. So again, does anybody know what those reasons are?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The first thing you've gotta learn about the constitution is that hardly anyone with power in this country actually gives a damn what it says. Office hopefuls will drone on and on about it, but in the end, they give away to the major streams of thought that permeate our culture. They bend to the will of the status quo.
Someone, somewhere along the line label pot as bad for some reason. Any guesses as to who, when and why are purely theory at this point. We can point to as many apparent facts as we want, but that doesn't change popular mindset. It also doesn't change how the law is broken every day in every state of the union. Chalk it up to anomalous events in a free, dynamic system or to an Illuminati-style conspiracy, whichever suits your fancy.
Then you had people go "OMG we can make paper from trees. We no needs no stupid hemp to compete against. BAN TEH HEMP!"
And it's been illegal ever since <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
_
Well maybe not, but who knows, it may be that simple.
The first thing you've gotta learn about the constitution is that hardly anyone with power in this country actually gives a damn what it says. Office hopefuls will drone on and on about it, but in the end, they give away to the major streams of thought that permeate our culture. They bend to the will of the status quo.
Someone, somewhere along the line label pot as bad for some reason. Any guesses as to who, when and why are purely theory at this point. We can point to as many apparent facts as we want, but that doesn't change popular mindset. It also doesn't change how the law is broken every day in every state of the union. Chalk it up to anomalous events in a free, dynamic system or to an Illuminati-style conspiracy, whichever suits your fancy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Easy target time...
Nixon, and his want to exercise supreme power, started official prohibition on so called "illegal" drugs
Well, here's my next question then: If banning pot is unconstitunional, then how come the ban is in effect? Again, I assume that reasons (bogus or not) for why smoking pot is "stepping on the rights of others" have been stated. So again, does anybody know what those reasons are?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Allow me to enlighten you.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Killerdrug.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
MURDER! INSANITY! DEATH! DRUGS ARE BAD!
Here's my very, <i>very</i> simple theory on why alcohol is killing us, and it should be no less illegal than weed: <b>It is DEADLIER by some several orders of magnitude.</b>
1) It's as old as time, and it's available everywhere. By and large, everyone can and does use it.
2) It causes instant chemical addiction in many people. The millions who use it do so often.
3) It's cheap. These legions of drinkers imbibe great quantities and are often prone to being completely impaired.
4) It's easy to use. They just swallow and swallow until they can't see straight, then they hop into the car.
They work together to kill tens of thousands of people are killed every year. Manslaughter sentencing is a joke. My algebra teacher was killed on the freeway by a <i>| drunken | illegal immigrant</i> | who was <i>doing 90</i> | in an <i>unregistered car</i> | <i>without a license</i>. | <i>Killed.</i> How many years? 7. That adds up to, what, 3? For causing someone's death. In the United States of America, if you get trashed, go out, and KILL someone, and you have the excuse of drunkenness on your side, you can get out of prison in just a couple of years. Wonderful!
So, sure, if you drink a little red wine with your dinner, you're going to be perfectly fine and you'll die at a wonderful old age. Except of course if you're behind the wheel of a car, in which case you'll perhaps kill an entire family while driving drunk at the age of 22. Shucks, you might not even die! Let's keep this stuff legal. At least it doesn't cause <b><i>REEEFFERRRR MAAAAADNNESSSSS!!!!</i></b>
On the topic of of relatively mild drugs vs. comparatively lethal drugs:
Here's my very, <i>very</i> simple theory on why alcohol is killing us, and it should be no less illegal than weed: <b>It is DEADLIER by some several orders of magnitude.</b>
1) It's as old as time, and it's available everywhere. By and large, everyone can and does use it.
2) It causes instant chemical addiction in many people. The millions who use it do so often.
3) It's cheap. These legions of drinkers imbibe great quantities and are often prone to being completely impaired.
4) It's easy to use. They just swallow and swallow until they can't see straight, then they hop into the car.
They work together to kill tens of thousands of people are killed every year. Manslaughter sentencing is a joke. My algebra teacher was killed on the freeway by a <i>| drunken | illegal immigrant</i> | who was <i>doing 90</i> | in an <i>unregistered car</i> | <i>without a license</i>. | <i>Killed.</i> How many years? 7. That adds up to, what, 3? For causing someone's death. In the United States of America, if you get trashed, go out, and KILL someone, and you have the excuse of drunkenness on your side, you can get out of prison in just a couple of years. Wonderful!
So, sure, if you drink a little red wine with your dinner, you're going to be perfectly fine and you'll die at a wonderful old age. Except of course if you're behind the wheel of a car, in which case you'll perhaps kill an entire family while driving drunk at the age of 22. Shucks, you might not even die! Let's keep this stuff legal. At least it doesn't cause <b><i>REEEFFERRRR MAAAAADNNESSSSS!!!!</i></b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed. It's unfair to assume that everyone who drinks is going to get someone killed, though (I know you're not assuming that, most likely, I'm just throwing it out there). I never used to be a particularly heavy drinker (despite an Irish family, which does make a difference, stereotypes aside), but since I've come to university, I have gotten quite wrecked numerous times, without any consequences other than a bit of embarassment (loudly proclaiming "i'm not drunk or sleeping" while passing out on a couch for the 15th time), liver damage and a killer headache.
I don't see alcohol as dangerous by itself, but as you said, the combination of factors (cheapness, ease of use, availbility etc...) leads to some dangerous situations. And it is dangerously addictive in some people. My grandad, for example, was a fully fledged alcoholic (still is, I guess) and he used to get violently drunk. I suppose it can happen in places, but I've never seen anyone get violently high. I would agree that due to many factors, teh booze is as bad as teh weed.
But at least booze has a pleasant side effect or two. What really gets me is cigarettes. I mean, seriously. We've all but proven that the only thing they do is get you addicted and give you cancer. That's it. The only positive side effects of smoking (such as "relaxing" someone) only happen when you're already addicted to them. And not only that, it can give *other* people cancer too, as well as generally annoying non-smokers in a resteraunt. It's always seriously annoyed me when governments get high and mighty about pretty much any other drug, yet they're fine with cigarettes just because of the serious tax money they earn off them.
Still, banning alcohol is not an option. All the prohibition accomplished in the U.S. was increasing both alcohol consumption and organised crime. What's required is a change in attitudes, particularly among (us) young people. Do you find yourself getting very drunk every thursday/friday/saturday night? YOU'RE the problem.
Yes, I mean Crack, Heroin, anything. If you take heroin knowing full well what it does to people then you deserve whatever you get, but it should be your right to choose to do so. A lot of the problems associated with drugs would vanish, or at least be substantially lessened if they were legalised.
The reason this isn't actually practical is that the vast majority of people are stupid. You don't die from smoking weed. Hell, you don't even die from doing a line of coke. You die from going to a club, doing a line of coke off a dirty toilet seat, buying three pills from a bloke you met in the toilet, taking all three washed down with a couple of pints and then not hydrating yourself. Quite simply, drugs don't kill people, people do.
Although we'd be doing Darwin a favor by legalising everything and letting nature take its course, most governments seem to be of the opinion that death is a bad thing, even among the terminally stupid (this is before I even mention the deaths that would be caused by a healthcare system suddenly flooded with idiots).
Am I alone in thinking this?
Then there's what we call "Beschaffungskriminalität" in german, that's people breaking into your home and stealing your tv/stereo/family jewels in order to finance their next fix. Many of the "harder" drugs are highly expensive, especially if you need frequent hits just to get through the day. Would the cost of these drugs, and thus the "Beschaffungskriminalität", go down? Is the high cost directly connected to the illegality, or are there other factors that are not eliminated by legalising drugs? I don't know, somebody tell me.
Another possible problem, although that's speculative, is what widespread drug use could do to modern society. Many drugs put their users into conditions where they are incapable of working a normal job. So would drug usage increase drastically if we legalised all drugs? If it did, unemployment would probably skyrocket massively, meaning enormous welfare costs for the rest of society. Do away with welfare and you just force the drug users to turn to crime, leading us back to the problem of "Beschaffungskriminalität."
This entire scenario hinges on whether or not legalised drugs would lead to increased drug use. Again, does anyone know about this? If so, do tell.
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6134138168753053667&q=history+of+marijuana" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...ry+of+marijuana</a>
On the topic of of relatively mild drugs vs. comparatively lethal drugs:
Zig zig zig. zigzig zig zig, zig. Zig? zigzig.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I came in to post my opinion but you beat me <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quite honestly I think that every "illegal" substance should be legalised, because quite simply I don't think the government should have any right to tell anyone what they can and can't do to their own bodies on their own property, provided they arn't interfering with anyone else's right to do what they want.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would lead to a massive increase in crime due to high addiction. Also, who's going to produce heroin? Corporations?
mmm, covert/overt heroin advertising.
:-/
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Although we'd be doing Darwin a favor by legalising everything and letting nature take its course, most governments seem to be of the opinion that death is a bad thing, even among the terminally stupid (this is before I even mention the deaths that would be caused by a healthcare system suddenly flooded with idiots).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of innocent, smart people may find themselves dead due to idiots too.
To sum it up a writer was chroniclly ill, and had pretty much permanent nasea. He got arrested for possession and then forced onto marinol (which is THC in a pill form)
a week later dude was found dead, cause of death was asphyxiating on his own vomit.
For someone people it's literally the only thing that works, while they are stuck on Chemo and have horid bone pain. For others they smoke recreationally.
P.S LF, we have those same types of criminals, we call them "junkies" or "tweakers"... No one gets high with marijuana and then goes "OH CRAP I NEED TO ROB THE CORNER STORE SO I CAN GET MORE WEED"