cannabisnews.com: Patient's Pot Plea Meets Skepticism










  Patient's Pot Plea Meets Skepticism

Posted by CN Staff on March 28, 2006 at 10:24:45 PT
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer 
Source: Sacramento Bee  

Pasadena -- A frail medicinal pot user from Oakland took the federal government to court again Monday but left with little encouragement. Judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who had ruled in favor of Angel Raich in an earlier phase of the same case, sounded skeptical this time. They questioned repeatedly why she was seeking their protection when she's never been prosecuted for using marijuana, which her doctor swears she needs to stay alive.
The judges suggested that the appropriate way to assert her legal rights would be to raise a defense of medical necessity after being charged with a crime - a situation that a government lawyer called "incredibly unlikely.""The federal government always has focused on large-scale distributors and growers," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan, who argued the case against Raich's request for an injunction.He said he knew of no federal marijuana prosecutions based solely on personal possession.Raich, now 40, was the plaintiff in last year's U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the power of the federal government to regulate marijuana within the borders of states that permit medicinal use. After winning a 2-1 decision from the 9th Circuit, she lost the states' rights argument 6-3 in the Supreme Court. Snipped:Complete Article: http://tinyurl.com/kd2rmSource: Sacramento Bee (CA)Author: Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs WriterPublished: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - Page A3Copyright: 2006 The Sacramento BeeContact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Justicehttp://www.angeljustice.org/ Medical Marijuana Focuses On Right To Lifehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21692.shtmlMedical Pot Case Back To Litigationhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21690.shtmlRenewed Bid for Medical Marijuana Back in Court http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21685.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help






 


Comment #24 posted by FoM on March 30, 2006 at 07:32:03 PT

Toker00
Have fun at work. I am feeling better. Thank you. I love spring. I enjoyed the interview with Neil and Demme. I haven't heard anymore about a tour with CSN but it's early. We have the back of our house and one side to finish this year and then we will tackle work inside. It will take a couple more years but hopefully it will all get done and when my husband retires we won't have to worry about this work anymore. The interest rates are rising so we have to get it done or we won't be able to afford to do it.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by FoM on March 30, 2006 at 06:38:53 PT

Hope 
I look at it all as amazing. I just guess I thought everyone knew about the guest book. CNews is a really big web site when you think about it. When I think about how big we are I get tired! LOL!PS: I feel really great now! I'm gonna live. I told my husband the other day that if I'm going to die I hope I hurry up and die and he looked at me with a frown but that's how sick I felt. Now we are getting ready to start work on the new house siding and windows and spring is in the air and I'm happy.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by Hope on March 30, 2006 at 04:34:32 PT

Wierd?
Another room in this big house that I didn't realize was there. Like 151 pages of a book you thought you had read...but discovered you hadn't.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #21 posted by Toker00 on March 30, 2006 at 04:05:18 PT

Why,
thank you very much, FoM! Haven't had much time to post, lots and lots going on at work, and home. I'm so glad you are feeling better.Now it's off to La La land! (work)Toke.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by FoM on March 29, 2006 at 17:17:19 PT

Toker00
I know you like Neil Young and they just were talking about the clip on the Rust List and I thought you might like to check it out.***Wire Image Episode 54 - Neil Young's "Heart of Gold" Join Director Jonathan Demme and music legend Neil Young as we sit down with them at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival discussing their latest collaboration, the film "Heart of Gold" This podcast features performance excerpts, clips from the film and footage from the roundtable discussion at the festival. Total Running Time 8:18 For more photos and video visit: http://www.wireimage.com YouTube: Heart of Gold Video Interview: http://tinyurl.com/zhpqu
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on March 29, 2006 at 10:07:33 PT

Hope 
Why does it make you feel weird? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by Hope on March 29, 2006 at 09:07:29 PT

That's just scary.
I did not know you had a 151 page guestbook to this site.Makes me feel wierd.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by mayan on March 29, 2006 at 04:49:30 PT

Cancelled
The CNN gig with Ed Asner and Sander Hicks was cancelled...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/asner_on_cnn.htm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by runderwo on March 28, 2006 at 20:30:48 PT

John Tyler
It's a terribly flimsy argument if it was intended to support marijuana prohibition. It's bad science too, unless they compared a joint to an UNFILTERED tobacco cigarette? Apples to apples, please.Note that PAC's such as benzene and toluene, while poisonous, are NOT the cause of lung cancer in tobacco smokers due to their short half life. Lung cancer in smokers is caused by continous insults from the alpha emissions from radioactive heavy metals in corporate tobacco, compounded by nicotine's role in suppressing the immune system's response to cancer cells.So yes, there are nasty things in smoke, but answer me this, why do tobacco chewers get cancer too? Do people who eat handfuls of hemp seeds a day get cancer? What about people who eat and/or vaporize marijuana?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by John Tyler on March 28, 2006 at 19:36:22 PT

re: French study
“The study also found that marijuana smoke contains more toxic chemicals than cigarette smoke.” Lets back up here a second. First off what is the French National Consumers' Institute? Are they a dept. in the French government? The French government is notoriously anti cannabis. So they state that cigarette smoke has some level of toxic chemicals. If their argument is that cannabis has toxic chemicals and is thus dangerous and that is why it is illegal then shouldn’t cigarettes also be declared illegal too because they have some level of toxic chemicals too and most people smoke a whole lot more cigarettes than cannabis. Or as it seems, is this just another flimsy BS prohibitionist argument with no merit? It seems that prohibitionists just don’t like cannabis, but they can’t figure out why. It is just raw prejudice. None are so blind as those that cannot see the goodness of cannabis.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by FoM on March 28, 2006 at 18:53:35 PT

Link To Guestbook
http://tinyurl.com/qybht
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 28, 2006 at 18:47:16 PT

Hope
It's at the bottom of the front page of CNews. We have about 750 comments in it. I had to make it that I review the comment before it becomes visible. I check the guest book on a regular basis but not everyday. A number of years ago it was flamed really badly but since that time we haven't received any negative comments. Sometimes spam gets entered and I delete it but that's all. 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Hope on March 28, 2006 at 18:35:03 PT

Hmmmm
First I've heard that we had a guestbook.That was nice.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by Toker00 on March 28, 2006 at 17:43:49 PT

Hey man, want to buy a lid of LEAVES??
Can you guys see the desperation that is going on in DRUG FREE LAND? I think the only cannabis leaves I ever smoked, were from plants that had dropped them and my curiosity got the best of me. Can you say HAAARRRSSSHHHH?? Buds only for me, thank you. I haven't seen a growing plant in a decade. Or so.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on March 28, 2006 at 17:11:33 PT

Comment # 6
Doesn't it say they added it to Marlboro cigarettes? What's that mean?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21693.shtml#6
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by whig on March 28, 2006 at 17:03:51 PT

Re: #6
Who smokes leaves, anyway? And which leaves are they using? Probably not even middies.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by jose melendez on March 28, 2006 at 16:55:58 PT

I just ate 5 cookies . . . 
Thanks for posting this, made my day."There is no consequence of responsible marijuana use that justifies any of this malicious, violent, immoral prohibition. We need leaders who will assert that the government can't take away selected freedoms simply because they're fun or interesting or they keep Hostess's Twinkie division in business."The ice is breaking . . .
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by FoM on March 28, 2006 at 16:50:23 PT

Off Topic: Our Guestbook
Since this is really for all of us I wanted to share the latest guestbook entry. Thanks everyone for making it possible.Edinburgh, Scotland Comments: I've been reading this site for years now and enjoy reading the comments of the intelligent and couragous people involved. Keep up the amazing work! 

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 28, 2006 at 15:03:22 PT

News Article from HealthCentral.com
Marijuana Tar Levels Seven Times Higher Than Cigarettes***March 28, 2006Marijuana smoke has seven times more tar and carbon monoxide than cigarette smoke and the health risks of smoking three joints are about equal to the risks from a whole pack of cigarettes, according to a French National Consumers' Institute study.The study also found that marijuana smoke contains more toxic chemicals than cigarette smoke. 
Researchers used an artificial smoking machine to compare 280 specially rolled joints of marijuana leaves and resin to regular Marlboro cigarettes. The machine measured the smoke's content for tar and carbon monoxide, and for the toxic chemicals benzene, nicotine and toluene, Agence France Presse reported.The study also found that a person who smokes a joint of cannabis resin rolled with tobacco will inhale twice the amount of benzene and three times the amount of toluene than someone who smokes a regular cigarette.People who smoke pure marijuana leaves will also inhale more of these toxic chemicals than they would from a regular cigarette, AFP reported.The findings were published in the April issue of the institute's magazine.Copyright: 2006 ScoutNews LLC. http://www.healthcentral.com/newsdetail/408/1507998.html

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by mayan on March 28, 2006 at 13:21:52 PT

FEAR OF PERSECUTION
They questioned repeatedly why she was seeking their protection when she's never been prosecuted for using marijuana, which her doctor swears she needs to stay alive.Should anyone have to break the law in order obtain and use the medicine which keeps them alive? Should anyone have to live in fear?He said he knew of no federal marijuana prosecutions based solely on personal possession.Then why don't the feds just go ahead and decriminalize personal possession? Why keep a law on the books that is supposedly never enforced?It sounds like these judges feel trapped and don't want anything to do with this case since they could be labeled as murderers if they rule against the right to life. Or maybe they've been leaned on by Johnny Pee? Surely not the 9th Circuit!On an unrelated note, Ed Asner and Sander Hicks are supposed to appear on CNN's Showbiz Tonight to defend Charlie Sheen at 6pm CST (10pm replay)...The Dam is Breaking on the 9/11 Cover-Up: More Stars Go Public with Demands for 9/11 Investigation, Others to Follow:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/asner_on_cnn.htmThe Week The Nation Went Down The 9/11 Rabbit Hole:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060328141014712Spring Breakthrough for 9/11 Truth - Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, and Charlie Sheen Splash on Mainstream TV - Total Print Media Blackout Continues: 
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb363611.htmMSNBC VIDEO: Moussaoui wore 'stun belt' for new testimony:
http://www.total911.info/About Moussaoui, much ado about nothing:
http://www.blogcharm.com/EXPOSED/20133/About%20Moussaoui%2C%20much%20ado%20about%20nothing.htmlPropping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by runderwo on March 28, 2006 at 13:12:27 PT

whig
Thanks. My thoughts exactly.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 28, 2006 at 11:51:01 PT

Huffington Post: Marijuana Morals 
By Davis Sweet
 March 28, 2006From the AP story, "Medical Marijuana Issue Returns to Court:""There is no fundamental right to distribute, cultivate or possess marijuana," Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan, the government's lead medical marijuana attorney, wrote to the appeals court. Good point, Mr. Quinlivan. But surely you'd concede that there is also no fundamental right to confiscate or destroy marijuana, or to imprison those who possess marijuana.Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What the anti-marijuana moralists refuse to accept is that there is zero moral component to medical marijuana -- or marijuana, period. Just as with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, misuse and abuse and general stupidity can turn a beneficial or morally neutral instrument into a bad thing. With marijuana, though, the "bad" end doesn't kill anybody, not even the abuser, unless you combine it with a car.There is no legitimate foundation for this government's war on marijuana (like some other wars I could mention). It's based exclusively on imaginary benefits, which make horrible, overreaching laws. The desperate prohibition rationalists really are stoned, and I want none of what they're smoking. From the White House Drug Policy Web site, which is the only place I've seen the term "peace-loving flower children" this century:According to officers with the Forest Service and other agencies, many of California's illegal marijuana fields are controlled not by peace-loving flower children but by employees of Mexican drug-trafficking organizations carrying high-powered assault weapons. Unfortunately, their bad trip (I'm guessing they're huffing gasoline, what with the prez telling us they're all addicted to the stuff) doesn't prevent them from doing violence to generally peaceful others:There were a total of 1,745,712 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States during 2004. Of the drug arrests, 5.0% were for marijuana sale/manufacturing and 39.2% were for marijuana possession.In FY 2003, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) made 5,679 arrests related to cannabis, accounting for 20.9% of all DEA arrests during the year. This is an increase from FY 2002, when 5,576 cannabis-related arrests were made by the DEA, accounting for 18.5% of all DEA arrests.According to a 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) survey of Federal and state prisoners approximately 19% of Federal and 13% of state drug offenders were incarcerated for a marijuana-related offense. There's your law. Almost one in five of the federal jail beds -- which we like to reserve for, you know, terrorists and other profoundly dangerous people -- are crowded with pot smokers, college dorm entrepreneurs, and unlucky botanists. Feel safer? Feel proud? Feel like the DEA might be strawberry coughing its way through its "priorities" meetings?It's instructive to imagine the prohibitionists' benefit proposition. It's not easy, because the rationale is essentially "because we've done it that way for sixty years." But here goes: by lumping marijuana in with the world's most harmful substances under the law, we can keep a certain number of people from trying it. By keeping those people from trying marijuana, we keep them from possibly enjoying it, which could lead to someone driving a car while impaired, which could lead to someone being hurt or killed. Not a bad argument, really, since nobody wants to see impaired folks driving.But replace "marijuana" in that argument with any of the following: alcohol, Ambien, energy drinks, religious ecstasy, driving-while-getting-a-blowjob. Precisely the same risks; unconscionably different prohibitions and penalties. You could sure smash up a herd of schoolchildren if you tried to operate a moving vehicle while a good friend bobbed in your lap, but lap-bobbing on its own isn't a crime. In most states, anyway. Driving while impaired, including being impaired by lust, is already and justifiably illegal, not to mention breathtakingly stupid. Where is the societal benefit in jailing, robbing, and, for our medicine-using friends, torturing and killing people who aren't driving while impaired? It doesn't exist.Or if you're grasping at stems, trying to drum up any "evil" in this popularly smoked flower, you might point to the corporatists' argument: the demon weed drains your ambition. For a very few people, in my experience, this appears true-ish. For many more people, this is demonstrably false. But I'm indulging the paranoiacs, so let's say it's true universally. Does it affect a body's get-up-and-go more than video games, satellite teevee, or cheap bacon quintuple-cheeseburgers? Not in the least. If you're predisposed to be lazy or to go all-out and embrace self-destruction, you don't need marijuana to help. In fact, it probably sucks for the consciously lazy, because it sparks all kinds of creativity and neural growth in the brain which you'd have to smother with something genuinely harmful like alcohol.The unspoken terror is that a matted-haired, red-eyed someone unacquainted with the workings of a shower will walk up to an old Republican lady on the street and ask her for a buck, startling her a little bit and making her vaguely uncomfy for maybe the whole morning. (Yes, dear-heart, preventing this kind of encounter -- giving Grannie Blue-hair a moment's jolt of adrenaline and/or putting her in a position to get a whiff of brown-people sweat -- is why a butt-load of our laws exist and why we imprison at least some of the millions of Americans we cage.) That scenario is not a hazard of cannabis, though, but rather of homelessness and, maybe, hippiedom. Neither of which is illegal. There is a contingent of the weed demonization promoters who want hippie-ness to be illegal, of course, and they believe that if you starve the hippies of their imagined herbal fuel, you'll eventually wipe them out. (Tip to the hippie-averse: if you really want to wipe out the hippies, eliminate church.)Folks, the threat of a pothead nation simply doesn't exist. It is a pipe dream. There is no consequence of responsible marijuana use that justifies any of this malicious, violent, immoral prohibition. We need leaders who will assert that the government can't take away selected freedoms simply because they're fun or interesting or they keep Hostess's Twinkie division in business.Copyright: 2006 HuffingtonPost.com, LLChttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/davis-sweet/marijuana-morals_b_18042.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by whig on March 28, 2006 at 11:43:59 PT

Biased article
"He said he knew of no federal marijuana prosecutions based solely on personal possession."Of course. If they prosecute someone for personal possession, they infer "intent to distribute" even if there is no evidence of such intent other than the possession itself."The judges suggested that the appropriate way to assert her legal rights would be to raise a defense of medical necessity after being charged with a crime"But what's she supposed to do about the seizure of her medicine? Die? Oh, yeah. That's right. Congress made that value judgment.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Max Flowers on March 28, 2006 at 10:49:43 PT

Isn't it obvious?
She's taking it on for ALL medical cannabis patients!They're not used to seeing someone fight for the rights of all, instead of just for his/her own particular personal situation. It confuses them, evidently.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment