cannabisnews.com: US Prosecutes Cancer Patient Over Marijuana


cannabisnews.com: US Prosecutes Cancer Patient Over Marijuana 





US Prosecutes Cancer Patient Over Marijuana 
Posted by FoM on October 23, 1999 at 11:08:18 PT
By Lynda Gorov, Globe Staff
Source: Boston Globe
By now, vomiting is second nature to Peter McWilliams. He has no shame about it. Sometimes he even sees the humor in it.
McWilliams, 50, still laughs about the time he leaned over a trash can at a political convention, lost his lunch in front of strangers, then casually wiped his mouth with a cocktail napkin before continuing the conversation. The other day, at his home high in the Hollywood Hills, he simply shrugged when he returned from retching in the bathroom.''You get used to vomiting,'' he said. ''You get used to anything, I suppose. But it's insane that anyone has to go through this.''McWilliams, who has AIDS and cancer that is in remission, said he and his doctor know the solution to his suffering: medical marijuana. He said he knows from experience that it helps him keep down the powerful drugs he needs to survive and the food he needs to keep up his strength. Without it, the book publisher and best-selling author fears he will die.But for more than a year, McWilliams has been barred from smoking marijuana while he awaits trial on a variety of marijuana-related charges. He says he was growing it for his own consumption, and had not used it for more than 20 years until he became ill. Federal prosecutors charge that he was conspiring to sell it along with his codefendants, all of them users of medical marijuana. Either way, McWilliams's situation underscores the ongoing conflict between the state and federal governments over the use of marijuana by patients with AIDS, cancer, or chronic pain - despite some medical studies and much anecdotal evidence showing its palliative benefits.California voters became the first to approve medical marijuana for patients with a doctor's approval in November 1996 - the same year McWilliams discovered a lump in his neck and learned he had non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and AIDS. Washington followed last fall, and several states are considering similar measures. But the federal government maintains that the sale or distribution of marijuana remains illegal under all circumstances.''The laws against medical marijuana are crazy in the first place,'' said state Senator John Vasconcellos, a Democrat who has led the charge to legalize medical marijuana and keep it legal in California. ''But to say that people who are dying of cancer and AIDS can't relieve their pain is awful. By denying Peter McWilliams the right to smoke marijuana while he's out on [$250,000] bail, they're denying him life.''McWilliams's trial is still a month away. For now, he is mostly confined to his home, relying on friends to bring him the milk he gulps by the glassful and the honey-roasted peanuts he eats by the fistful because they do not make him nauseated.Unable to work, McWilliams finds his Prelude Press bordering on bankruptcy. Unable to walk even short distances, he uses a wheelchair for court appearances. The other day, his face dripping sweat, he nodded off in the hallway while inside the courtroom where his hearing was being postponed.Of the first time he smoked marijuana after chemotherapy, McWilliams said, ''I had this epiphany: `Oh my God, this stuff really works.' Then I got mad, furious, thinking about all the millions of cancer patients who this could be helping.''Repeatedly turned down by a federal judge who says he cannot authorize someone to break the law, McWilliams now hopes a federal appellate court, which recently ruled that seriously ill people should be allowed to use medical marijuana, will give him access to the only drug that he has found to keep his nausea under control. Other defendants in federal marijuana cases are expected to mount similar appeals based on the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.To federal prosecutors, however, McWilliams's case has nothing to do with medical marijuana and everything to do with a drug ring, regardless of why the defendants were growing the plants or who was using them. McWilliams is accused of masterminding the plot, in part because of the $120,000 that McWilliams says he paid codefendant Todd McCormick, a medical marijuana patient and researcher, to write two books on the subject. If convicted, they could face life in prison. ''We all admit to what we've done,'' said McWilliams, who previously bought marijuana on the black market or at the cannabis clubs that had sprung up around California after the passage of the law known as Proposition 215.''We all grew marijuana; we all used marijuana,'' he continued. ''The 300 plants I had were my own personal stash ... Todd was studying which strains work best for which types of illnesses. I mean all his plants were labeled.''But federal prosecutors say that is no defense. In fact, they do not want the defendants to be able to introduce a medical-necessity defense, discuss the benefits of marijuana, or even mention Proposition 215 to jurors. Both sides are scheduled to argue their positions next week before US District Court Judge George King. ''The way that I characterize this case is that it involves a conspiracy to conduct a commercial marijuana-growing operation involving more than 6,000 plants at four separate growing sites,'' said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the US Attorney's Office in Los Angeles, which is handling the case. ''It doesn't matter where they were going to sell it. It doesn't matter if they say, `I'm doing this to save my life.' It's illegal to manufacture or cultivate marijuana under federal law.''If prosecutors succeed in keeping those issues out of court, McWilliams's attorney, Thomas Bollanco, said the defendants may as well head straight to prison. Without medical necessity, they have no case.''We're going to be left unable to answer to the charges because we can only answer with what's true, and what's true is that these guys were motivated by their medical needs and Prop 215,'' said Bollanco, who recently lost a federal jury trial in Sacramento in which the judge refused to allow a medical necessity defense.Yet even on a state level, the answer to the medical marijuana debate remains murky. Lacking clear-cut guidelines, law enforcement officials in some jurisdictions actively pursue arrests, others tend to look the other way. Last year, a task force including advocates and opponents worked to craft a compromise. This year, the resulting bill was tabled. Faced with federal opposition, California Governor Gray Davis has resisted giving it his approval.But California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, unlike his predecessor, appears to favor the voters' decision to allow the use of medical marijuana, although he has called Prop 215 poorly written and open to too much interpretation. This month, he urged US Attorney General Janet Reno to let the appellate court ruling stand.Possibly turned off by the number of marijuana plants involved - or by McWilliams' admitted eccentricities - few have rallied around his case and some have turned against him. He insisted he is hurt but not angry or surprised by his isolation. After his arrest, McWilliams spent almost a month in jail until he could raise the money to post bail.''I am the representative of all the sick people and what they are doing to me is only the worst case right now, but there will be others,'' McWilliams said. ''I am living on borrowed time anyway. I owe this part of my life to luck and modern medical science. But I can't imagine what the rest of it will be like if they won't let me use medical marijuana.''This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 10/23/99. © Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company. Related Articles:Lockyer Urges Reno To Forgo Appeal of Medical-Pot - 10/15/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3287.shtmlAtty. Gen. Urges Reno No Rehearing of MMJ Case - 10/15/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3292.shtmlLockyer Asks Feds To Drop Opposition - 10/14/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3284.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by Jeaneous on October 24, 1999 at 12:31:29 PT:
aftermath
We all hope that Peter will be given his medication back so his life may be extended, but if it is not done and he does die without his freedom to use his medication. I certainly hope that he has attorny's that will follow through and charge the government with murder. For that is what they are committing.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 23, 1999 at 16:19:04 PT
My Feelings
I hope that Peter can hang in there. I feel that making a person that has virtually no immune system sit in a court room over an herb is more then wrong and it makes me sicker then I can even put in words. It is one of the only things that makes me want to just break down and cry! Why in God's Name won't they stop this? God Bless Peter Mc Williams and let's never forget Joe Hart either!Joseph A. Hart, Medical Marijuana Activist - 8/23/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread2591.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Rainbow on October 23, 1999 at 15:56:42 PT:
I apologize
Peter McWilliams I apologize for my state representative to Congress who said he is pleased that the Barr Amendment passed. I apologize that Minnesota could think to have such a senseless thinking person in office.CheersRainbow 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Jasper Vicenti on October 23, 1999 at 13:50:43 PT:
We must be grateful
We must be grateful for heroes like Peter McWilliams, for standing up to the federal government and providing the media coverage to show to all of America how ridiculous our government is.
Freedom is NORML
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Bill St. Clair on October 23, 1999 at 13:41:14 PT:
End the insanity
God bless Peter McWilliams. Without these insane prohibition laws, he would be a happy, productive, friend of liberty right now. As it is, he is a sick, weakly, friend of liberty. The government has no right to tell anyone what they can put into their own body. Deregulate all drugs 
My web site
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by observer on October 23, 1999 at 12:05:11 PT
Feds do not want the defendants to be able to ___.
> But federal prosecutors say that is no defense. In > fact, they do not want the defendants to be able to > introduce a medical-necessity defense, discuss > the benefits of marijuana, or even mention Proposition > 215 to jurors. Why? Because the Feds know darn well that the jury would believe McWilliams, that's why. You'll see this a lot in Federal cases: before the trial starts, the Federal persecutors will argue to the Federal judge that the defense should not be allowed to present a case, other than to confess to what the inquisitors specify. The system is corrupt and built on lies; in this case, the lie of due process, the lie of a fair trial, the lie of an impartial judge and and impartial jury. Little of that exists in reality; what is left is a facade.> Both sides are scheduled to argue their positions next > week before US District Court Judge George King. I.e., (in all likelihood) a former Federal prosecutor, who was promoted to Federal judge. Guess what? Unless lightening strikes, the Federal judge will do whatever the Federal prosecutor asks. Virtually every time, the defense is not allowed to present a case. That's what we are most likely to see here. The Feds know they have to lie and have the Federal judge (against the principles of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, i.e. breaking the oath prosecutor and judge swore) disallow the defense to present a case. Not much different from Stalinist show-trials. Just enough of an officious show to fool the people.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on October 23, 1999 at 11:28:26 PT
Making examples...and corpses
The Feds know exactly what they are doing, here. They are going to kill this man because he had the guts to speak up. Because he made fun of a law crafted by religious and racial bigots and their industrialist allies, and made sport of those who blindly (or, which is worse, knowingly) prosecute that bogus law. Because his actions and those of others have shown the country just how small-minded these people are. But, just as their philosphical predecessors, these 'jackbooted thugs' are going to stand up in the docket, someday, and say to the judge with a straight face: " I vuss only vollowing my orderss, mein Herr." Shakespeare said it best: "Oft-times, the Law is an Ass."
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: