View Full Version : At first glance this is "heartless" but..
DCTravelAgent
03-14-2007, 04:42 PM
.... I suspect that the Court found this way in order to force a decision up the line and perhaps do away with this stupidity. I for one am glad as it brings this to the forefront - the woman's physicians believe this is the only thing keeping her alive! Where are the Right to Life people?! They should be lining up right behind her!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijuana.ap/index.html
DC, you ask an excellent question. I'd like to expand your question a bit further. Why isn't the Right to Life movement against capital punishment as a group? They definitely aren't.
.... I suspect that the Court found this way in order to force a decision up the line and perhaps do away with this stupidity. I for one am glad as it brings this to the forefront - the woman's physicians believe this is the only thing keeping her alive! Where are the Right to Life people?! They should be lining up right behind her!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijuana.ap/index.html
clarkef
03-15-2007, 04:52 AM
DC, you ask an excellent question. I'd like to expand your question a bit further. Why isn't the Right to Life movement against capital punishment as a group? They definitely aren't.
You are right. The Right to Life groups view abortion and the capital punishment as two unrelated issue. One can easily be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. I would submit that this is NOT an inconsistent position.
The simplest and most direct argument is that someone who is deserving of the ultimate punishment, death, has forfeited his right to life by whatever heinous action committed. An child in the womb has committed no action which would justify the forfeiture of his/her life.
There are any number of other arguments, but that is simple and easily conveyed on a bulletin board.
Eileen Sellers
03-15-2007, 08:50 AM
If we say we have a "right" to live, then we have to acknowledge that we have a "right" to die. We saw that in the Terri Schiavo case.
Which as Clark points out is different then the having a "right" to kill or a "right" to force life.
DCTravelAgent
03-15-2007, 09:17 AM
Yes, and this woman wants to exercise her "right" to live.
the dark knight
03-15-2007, 10:07 AM
I agree with both Clarke and Eileen to a point. Leaving my personal political thinking out of it, which I think is irrelevant to the current discussion, I also see the issue of capital punishment and the death penalty as a seperate issue from the abortion verus life issue. However, I also see the abortion issue as a seperate issue from right to live (or die)for someone alive who is gravely injured or ill or something along those lines.
They are three seperate, hot-button and emotional issues and should be viewed and discussed as seperate things. Combining ones views when trying to give a opinion on such can potentially only confuse the listener, in my opinion. I would prefer the courts, especially the Supreme Court to not have to deal with this stuff for this is personal stuff, not stuff to be regulated by government. But certain things, like capital punishment, need such, so the courts is necessary to be involved in those areas. Otherwise, such should be a personal choice made by the patient, and/or the patients loved ones, whoever they are or their relationship, and the patients doctors. Simple as that.
Clarke, I think this is the counter argument, and it's certainly an important part of the reason I am committed to abolishment of capital punishment in our society and throughout this planet.
No matter what politicians and prosecutors say, capital punishment is not a deterent to murder. Studies of prisoners on death row have shown this to be true, and you don't have to be an expert to see that virtually all murders are either committed by contract, in the commission of another crime, or in the heat of passion, and that therefore the threat of capital punishment doesn't ever become a factor. Therefore society doesn't benefit by capital punishment. From a cost factor we hear over and over again that it costs more to kill a prisoner than keep the prisoner alive.
None of that really matters, however. A prisoner in jail is under the complete control of society, and is no longer a threat to society. At that point, if we kill that prisoner, to me it's murder, pure and simple murder. I can see no justification for killing that prisoner other than revenge, and revenge is never a justification for murder.
If a policeman would kill a prisoner, while the prisoner was in a jail cell in custody, the policeman would be convicted of murder. The two situations are not different.
Society is no better than the murderer when it executes anyone.
While society may have the power to execute people, I don't think they have the moral and ethical right to do so.
You are right. The Right to Life groups view abortion and the capital punishment as two unrelated issue. One can easily be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. I would submit that this is NOT an inconsistent position.
The simplest and most direct argument is that someone who is deserving of the ultimate punishment, death, has forfeited his right to life by whatever heinous action committed. An child in the womb has committed no action which would justify the forfeiture of his/her life.
There are any number of other arguments, but that is simple and easily conveyed on a bulletin board.
DCTravelAgent
03-15-2007, 11:12 AM
I actually do appreciate the wide-ranging discussion here, but I am stuck back on this woman who is being denied the only treatment which her physician deems suitable to keep her alive. And I do think that the majority of people who say they are "pro-life" would see this situation in the same way. These are the very people who were pushing for everything and anything that might keep Terri Schiavo alive .......
bodega
03-15-2007, 12:36 PM
I voted against the death penalty, but when my friend's husband was sent to prison for child molestation, I wanted nothing but 'the chair' for him.
With medical marijuana, it all comes down to money and regulation. We can get dangerous drugs through our pharmacies that are highly addictive, so there should be a way medical marijuana could be dispensed as well. What is more at issue with the government is that marijuana is easily grown, making it difficult for them to control the safety of the product. In the meanwhile, those who could benefit are being made out as criminals. I side with person who has tried other means of treatment with no success and finds medical marijuana to improve their quality of life. Having spent 39 years in pain myself, trying drug after drug, I fully understand.
Here in CA, there are places that medical marijuana can be 'legally' obtained. However, it still falls into a grey area and it is being fought. There is an office down the road from me that is currently dispensing to those with a medical need. There are dangers with growing medical marijuana, as well and it also falls within that grey area. Some have had it taken by law enforcement and some have had it taken by gun point by local hoods.
Eileen Sellers
03-15-2007, 03:34 PM
I don't understand why the lady brought the suit to begin with, perhaps as you say to "Push it up the line" ...
However, I also see the abortion issue as a seperate issue from right to live (or die)for someone alive who is gravely injured or ill or something along those lines.
I agree that abortion is separate from capital punnishment as it seems to me that the same principles apply in the right to life argument.
Capital punnishment is something that society votes for or against in their exercise of self government.
Right to life/death belongs to those beings that are capable of being without artificial means. The fetus can't survive without the mother, so the fetus doesn't have any rights other than the wishes of the mother.
Teri Schiavo didn't have any rights other than the wishes of her husband as her legal voice.
In the case of a baby capable of sustaining their own life outside the womb without artificial means, killing of that baby would be murder.
DCTravelAgent
03-15-2007, 04:22 PM
The suit was brought in order that she may avoid prosecution - the Feds were/are trying to prosecute her for using illegal drugs. Actually, I'm not sure it's a "suit" - I believe she was appealing a decision enabling the Feds to prosecute her.
And in the Schiavo case it was also the law that gave her husband the right to represent her "wishes" as he understood them from previous discussions. And the law that gave her husband the right to make those end of life decisions.
Here we have the law telling a woman she has not right to use "illegal" substances regardless of whether they are keeping her alive.
I do think the two issues are related - seems to me if people could say that the law is/was wrong in giving a Spouse the right to make life/death decisions, these same people should be saying the law is wrong in forcing a woman out of using a drug that will help her - or basically telling her she has no right to make medical (or life/death) decisions. I think this is a "no-brainer" for the Right to Life Movement.
Angel Raich didn't bring suit. She's appealing the right of the Federal Government to convict her on drug charges stemming from her possession and use of medical marijuana which is legal in California, but not under Federal Law. The Federal Courts have ruled against her every step of the way.
It seems to me that the Attorney General's office desperately needs to get its act together in more ways than one, and in this particular case, drop it and go after some real crooks instead.
Allow me to add to ClarkeF's excellent response regarding the seeming contradiction about why some "right-to-life" advocates also advocate capital punishment (myself included).
Capital punishment is not something to be taken lightly. I wouldn't want to live in a country like China that has so many people, they have no problem with carrying out executions within hours of the sentence and a perfunctory "appeal"--heck, they even execute white collar criminals for egregious crimes (the Enron guys ought to be thankful that we don't do that here!). For them, it means one less mouth to feed. But, if terminating the life of a criminal spares the life of an innocent (or two or 10) down the line, I'm all for it. Some crimes are just so heinous or egregious that it isn't in society's interests to have them around, even behind bars.
Capital punishment may not deter crime, but it certainly reduces the recidivism rate dramatically.
Those who advocate for mandatory life imprisonment as a substitute for capital punishment ought to catch some of MSNBC's documentaries about maximum security prisons, especially when a prisoner becomes violent to guards. Watch those and think about what it would be like to be married to one of those guards, wondering if the day might come when your loved one might not come home because of a prison riot, much less an isolated assault against a guard.
N.B. For all the complaints about a perceived contradiction in a pro-life supporter being pro-capital punishment, what about pro-"choice" advocates who have no problem terminating babies, yet oppose the termination of horrible people Charles Manson and the like who have no respect for life? That's an even worse contradiction in my book.
bodega
03-15-2007, 05:37 PM
Here we have the law telling a woman she has not right to use "illegal" substances regardless of whether they are keeping her alive.
_______________________
What we have is the Federal Government saying one thing, but the State of California allowing another. Feds trump State and someone who needs medical assistance loses. I see what you are asking DC, but it appears the right to life group has an agenda that sadly doesn't include this. The people of California addressed the need for quality of life by vote, but the government of the people and by the people, located across continent in DC, doesn't care for State's rights.
JBM, recidivism is also stopped by life imprisonment. I have no problem with Alcatraz like conditions as punishment. I have no problem with punishment.
...Capital punishment may not deter crime, but it certainly reduces the recidivism rate dramatically...
To imply that "pro-choice" advocates are pro-abortion is simply not true, nor the implication that they have no problem terminating pregnancies is also simply not true. I believe a more accurate depiction of "pro-choice" would be a respect for life already living, and permitting a woman to make decisions about one of their most private aspects, their own bodies. To have a law which causes a person to die, become disabled, mentally or physically, so that a pregnancy can come to term is immoral. It places value of zero on a particular class of living breathing human beings. That law allows the state to play G-d. Perhaps more thought needs to be given to the issue on both sides. I actually think there is much common ground.
...N.B. For all the complaints about a perceived contradiction in a pro-life supporter being pro-capital punishment, what about pro-"choice" advocates who have no problem terminating babies, yet oppose the termination of horrible people Charles Manson and the like who have no respect for life? That's an even worse contradiction in my book.
JBM, recidivism is also stopped by life imprisonment. I have no problem with Alcatraz like conditions as punishment. I have no problem with punishment.
...Capital punishment may not deter crime, but it certainly reduces the recidivism rate dramatically...
...N.B. For all the complaints about a perceived contradiction in a pro-life supporter being pro-capital punishment, what about pro-"choice" advocates who have no problem terminating babies, yet oppose the termination of horrible people Charles Manson and the like who have no respect for life? That's an even worse contradiction in my book.
To imply that "pro-choice" advocates are pro-abortion is simply not true, nor the implication that they have no problem terminating pregnancies is also simply not true. I believe a more accurate depiction of "pro-choice" would be a respect for life already living, and permitting a woman to make decisions about one of their most private aspects, their own bodies. To have a law which causes a person to die, become disabled, mentally or physically, so that a pregnancy can come to term is immoral. It places value of zero on a particular class of living breathing human beings. That law allows the state to play G-d. Perhaps more thought needs to be given to the issue on both sides. I actually think there is much common ground.
trojan
03-15-2007, 05:53 PM
This thread reminds me of a crucial distinction in the Ten Commandments that has been largely lost through the years.
It is NOT "Thou shall not kill" It is, rather, "Thou shall not murder."
Ned's use of the term murder is simply an incorrect phrasing. Murder is unjustified killing of another. If I use deadly force to repel deadly force, I have broken no Commandment.
In the instance of one condemned by an American State to death, the ajudications are deliberate and onerous. Rightfully so. No defendant enjoys a greater level of redress than one facing capital punishment. Thus, the killing of one under these circumstances, is quite literally, just. Justice was done.
Is our brand of justice worthy/moral? It's flawed as hell, ain't it?
If we then devolve into arguments about convicting the wrong folks, it becomes a different animal altogether. So, please, let's not go there in this thread.
I would willingly push the fatal cocktail for Manson and/or that scum who killed Jessica Lunsford. Tookie (bad dude executed in CA last year), too.
Y'all really want to have fun? Start arguing if the practicalities of allowing child rapists, who have, I have heard from multiple sources, the highest recidivism rate of all felons, as opposed to their lifetime incarceration, or even execution. Do we demand ankle bracelets for life? Scarlet letters where possible (license plates, drivers licenses, passports, etc.)? Where may they be allowed to habitate? Can they ever leave the jurisdiction of the conviction (move)? What is the sentence if they violate parole conditions?
clarkef
03-15-2007, 08:25 PM
Clarke, I think this is the counter argument, and it's certainly an important part of the reason I am committed to abolishment of capital punishment in our society and throughout this planet.
Ned, you really didn't address the point that I was making which is simply that it is not inconsistent to be pro-life and pro-death penalty.
However, I would point out that being pro-life does not in any way, shape, or manner, necessitate that one if pro-death penalty.
clarkef
03-15-2007, 08:34 PM
To imply that "pro-choice" advocates are pro-abortion is simply not true, nor the implication that they have no problem terminating pregnancies is also simply not true. I believe a more accurate depiction of "pro-choice" would be a respect for life already living, and permitting a woman to make decisions about one of their most private aspects, their own bodies. To have a law which causes a person to die, become disabled, mentally or physically, so that a pregnancy can come to term is immoral. It places value of zero on a particular class of living breathing human beings. That law allows the state to play G-d. Perhaps more thought needs to be given to the issue on both sides. I actually think there is much common ground.
I'm going to have to disagree with the factual assertions. 1)The first is more of a clarification. In any movement there are different variations. Within the pro-choice movement, (I used to be part of it) there are people who place zero value on the life of the unborn while others see value in the life, but believe that the woman's right to choose trumps.
2) Within the pro=life movement, their is a very tiny, radical group (isn't it always the tiny radical groups that get airtime), that believe abortion is always wrong regardless of the circumstances. The overwhelming majority of pro-life people would permit an abortion in at least 3 of the 4 cases that you mentioned. The metes and bounds of mental disability induced abortion would have to be explored before I could comment on whether the average pro-lifer would accept it as proper.
Incidentally, I personally vassilate on my opinion of the death penalty. I don't have a problem with it in theory. I believe is justice. If you commit a horrible enough crime, you forfeit your life. That is a sufficient justification for the death penalty. Deterrence and other benefits are really only gravy.
However, with due respect for Trojan, the practical elements of the death penalty are at least as crucial as the theoretical elements. Can the state impose the death penalty knowing that statistically at least one innocent person will be killed? Is there an acceptable margin of error for state sanctioned killing? Another issue is the disparate imposition of the death penalty. A study in Florida showed that great deviations in its imposition. Ironically, the racially dispositive fact was the race of the victim, not the perpetrator.
Clarke,... discussion, disagreement, agreement, in the way you do it, always with respect for the other person, makes the world go round... well. If only there was more of that in this world, it would be a better place. My point (I guess I wasn't quite clear enough) is that "pro-choice" doesn't automatically equate to "pro-abortion." I am definitely "pro-choice" and in my crowd in the movement we understand how difficult it is, or at least should be to terminate a pregnancy. This is not something to be done lightly, without great thought or deliberation, however, I do believe someone who already is, trumps the life of someone who might be.
I also agree that the "pro-life" movement is not monolithic either. That's part of the reason I said I think members of the groups actually have a lot more in common, than most would believe.
clarkef
03-16-2007, 03:02 AM
You're probably right. I don't think that most people view abortion lightly.
The difficulty is that this issue does not lend itself to resolution because the parties have such different paradigms. On one hand the pro-choice people see this as a civil rights issue. Conversely, the pro-life people see abortion as murder.
Most issues lend themselves to compromise. I suspect this issue will have to be resolved through power, whichever side convinces the most people will prevail, until they become complacent and the balance of power shifts.
If someone sees a potential compromise, please show me because I just don't see one.
Kairho
03-16-2007, 08:46 AM
If someone sees a potential compromise, please show me because I just don't see one.
Exactly what I was thinking through your first three paragraphs.
the dark knight
03-16-2007, 10:11 AM
Compromise is never a easy thing...and rarely is such fully accepted by all those involved. For almost any issue...there must be a winner and a loser and few like the gray area in between, preferring the black of one end or the white of the other end.
For as goofy or whatever Rodney King is...he did say at least one profound thing in his life..."Can't we all just get along?" Apparently when it comes to emotional issues like abortion, right to life(or die) with dignity, and capital punishment versus the death penalty, or even many far lighter issues and debates, it seems to me most of us in this country cannot just get along or make a somewhat reasonable compromise so that we can worry about more important things. That is unfortunate.
Yes! I think you're generally right DK. Your succinct post is really meaningful.
People have to be willing to see the other side of the coin before compromise is possible. They need to discover they have common ground and then find it. Then more is possible than either side thinks.
I have been involved in many successful negotiations as a facilitator. As long as the parties actually want to figure out a solution, once everyone gets over the fact, I repeat, fact, that nothing in the world is actually black and white, solutions can be found.
I can think of lots of ways to come to a compromise solution in the abortion issue, but it takes the "pro choice" constituency to agree to give up on abortion on demand under every circumstance, and it takes the "pro life" constituency to agree to give up on the position that there are no potentials for permitting abortion other than if the "mother's" life is in imminent physical danger, and that there are more forms of acceptable birth control and pregnancy prevention than they would permit at this point.
I think it first takes the realization that both sides come from positions of merit. Without that, solutions will not come about.
If I can use another example about finding a solution; the Israel/Palestinian question. Both sides have to believe that each have positions of merit and legitimacy. Both sides also have to agree that each has to come away a winner and a loser, or the solution will not work, nor will it endure. As arrogant as it sounds, I believe I could negotiate a treaty/solution in a few days which would endure if both sides would come to the table with the above beliefs. While neither side would be happy with the solution, both sides would agree that they got what they needed, they got what they could live with, and that the other side didn't beat them. With that, both sides would work hard and fight to keep the solution alive and well.
Compromise is never a easy thing...and rarely is such fully accepted by all those involved. For almost any issue...there must be a winner and a loser and few like the gray area in between, preferring the black of one end or the white of the other end.
For as goofy or whatever Rodney King is...he did say at least one profound thing in his life..."Can't we all just get along?" Apparently when it comes to emotional issues like abortion, right to life(or die) with dignity, and capital punishment versus the death penalty, or even many far lighter issues and debates, it seems to me most of us in this country cannot just get along or make a somewhat reasonable compromise so that we can worry about more important things. That is unfortunate.
JBM, recidivism is also stopped by life imprisonment...
Not entirely. Crime is committed inside prison, too, against guards and prisoners. Read the story about the prisoner who was murdered and his entrails put on display by his murderer.
Only capital punishment guarantees 100% against recidivism. I do not favor its use as a form of population control, however (as China seems to do).
There are no guarantees in this world. Personal experience has certainly proved that to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Nevertheless, my point about capital punishment is that it is murder by society, and no different than the murder committed by an individual. If an individual would execute a person who is "in custody", society would consider that a crime. Society can't get a free pass to do the same, just because it's done collectively. Society may have the power to execute a person, but not the moral or ethical right to do so.
trojan
03-16-2007, 06:04 PM
...so that we can worry about more important things.
As a general proposition, this is a sound philosophy.
However, in the case of abortion, at least one side believes this to be the ultimate civil rights issue - life itself. There can be no more important thing.
The societal compromise on abortion is precisely as Ned outlined. Once viability can be reasonably achieved (now down to, what, 21 weeks?) the vast majority of Americans believe protection for the unborn should be given. Before viability, there is a close division.
Anyway, for my profundity du jour...Individuals and societies generally engage in arguments/fights over more trivial matters so as not to force themselves to really have to face consequences of philosophies/belief systems. It's an excellent concept that leads to far more civility than if everyone was to wait for some actual knock down, drag out, fights. Most everyone, I suspect, has a decent grasp of the nature of evil. We can see it under most every rock, imo. However, if we chose to do nothing but identify and fight, we would lead significantly less rich and full lives.
So, as thousands of Dr. Phil's have noted with thousands and thousands of folks, it ain't about the toilet seat, it's about the underlying assumptions of respect and conduct.
Final aside- An minority actually cared about WJC's immoral sex in the Oval Office, but myself and tens of millions more cared deeply that a president could bald facedly lie to us and then commit perjury in an unrelated case. In the end, wasn't it Nixon's hubris that tore it with the public?
clarkef
03-16-2007, 09:57 PM
I can think of lots of ways to come to a compromise solution in the abortion issue, but it takes the "pro choice" constituency to agree to give up on abortion on demand under every circumstance, and it takes the "pro life" constituency to agree to give up on the position that there are no potentials for permitting abortion other than if the "mother's" life is in imminent physical danger, and that there are more forms of acceptable birth control and pregnancy prevention than they would permit at this point.
I have to respectfully disagree. There are certain position which do not permit compromise. Civil rights is one. Murder is another.
I'll let the pro-choice folks articulate their position but the traditional pro-life position will not permit compromise absent a radical paradigm shift. Consider, the pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception and therefore abortion is simply murder. Where exactly is the compromise on murder.
You yourself are vehemently against capital punishment as you see it as murder. As long as you believe that capital punishment is murder, there is no argument that I or anyone else can proffer that will change your mind.
The pro-lifer is in the same situation.
DCTravelAgent
03-19-2007, 11:33 AM
Okay - let's get back to this woman who is being denied a life-saving drug .......
I really did not intend for this to be a Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice thread.
So really, what do you all think about this woman being denied marijuana which:
1. eases her nausea
2. stimulates her appetite
Without it, she has not appetite or drive to eat and even worse, she can not keep the food down.
She has multiple medical problems, such as understandable anxiety which are also eased by the marijuana.
It is legal in the State of which she is a resident....
trojan
03-19-2007, 03:51 PM
I would never deny anyone whatever palliative care/pain relief they can find.
The problem is the distribution system. In some cases, the patients themselves resell their medications. For some reason, this practice seems to be more pervasive for marijuana.
In L.A. a few months ago, there were several "clinics" whose entire operation centered around processing bogus MJ prescriptions. It was scarcely different from your neighborhood packy (liquor store). The abuse of distribution of marijuana is the thing that compels authorities to make the seemingly "heartless" decisions to deny or ban the availability of marijuana.
Even with the known problems, I would still make medicinal MJ available to any terminally ill person, and to those who try the usual & customary narcotics first (typical protocols under physician care) and do not seem to attain relief.
DCTravelAgent
03-19-2007, 04:34 PM
I would never deny anyone whatever palliative care/pain relief they can find.
The problem is the distribution system. In some cases, the patients themselves resell their medications. For some reason, this practice seems to be more pervasive for marijuana.
In L.A. a few months ago, there were several "clinics" whose entire operation centered around processing bogus MJ prescriptions. It was scarcely different from your neighborhood packy (liquor store). The abuse of distribution of marijuana is the thing that compels authorities to make the seemingly "heartless" decisions to deny or ban the availability of marijuana.
Even with the known problems, I would still make medicinal MJ available to any terminally ill person, and to those who try the usual & customary narcotics first (typical protocols under physician care) and do not seem to attain relief.
you know what? If she's re-selling, prosecute her for that - not for trying to stay alive.
Eileen Sellers
03-20-2007, 09:14 AM
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.
I don't think anyone is denying her the MJ--the article just says she is
not immune from prosecution. Although, it is unlikely that anyone would prosecute her for using MJ.
DCTravelAgent
03-20-2007, 09:19 AM
The reason for these appeals is that the Feds (while Ashcroft was still AG) were prosecuting her. They (now under Gonzales - but who knows...) have said they intend to follow that policy.
Eileen Sellers
03-20-2007, 01:20 PM
That's the missing piece..I couldn't figure the whole story from the article.
Seems like there must be more to it than just the medicinal part of the deal.
bodega
03-20-2007, 01:38 PM
Here in CA we voted for allowing the use of medical marijuana. But sadly, it has become a situation where the Federal Government, aka Big Brother, doesn't agree with the law. As a country, we have so many drugs that are narcotic that are allowed by Rx, but the US Government has not found a way to regulate medical marijuana and undoubtly doesn't think CA is capeable of doing it. In the meanwhile, people who could actually benefit, like this woman, are made out like criminals of the US Government and being made to suffer. I don't know how or why our country has become so uncaring and it breaks my heart to hear these type of stories.
clarkef
03-20-2007, 01:49 PM
I don't know how or why our country has become so uncaring and it breaks my heart to hear these type of stories.That the 1M dollar question. The woman and her physician have articulated that she needs the MJ. But I am very skeptical. Are there really no other alternatives? What about synthetic THC? Is law enforcement really going after little old ladies who smoke pot?
Quite frankly I don't believe that the entire story has been reported as there are numerous holes and logical inconsistencies.
Consider, in states like CA, local law enforcement doesn't go after the Cannabis clubs unless there is something going on which breaks CA law, i.e. selling to healthy people, etc. Personal use by a single person is rarely enough to get the Feds attention. So what is really going on? Inquiring minds want to know.
DCTravelAgent
03-20-2007, 02:03 PM
I think back to the "Ashcroft years", if you will, and I see a number of situations where the Justice Department attempted to interfere with "State's Rights" on social issues - the Department announced when CA passed the Medical Marijuana Law that they would prosecute users. They also announced that even after the citizens of OR twice voted to allow "assisted suicide" that they would prosecute anyone who tried to use the law. There seemed to be a strong desire to intercede on these "social" issues. I really do believe it was Ashcroft-driven. I think that Gonzales (if he continues as AG and that is doubtful and he will likely be sacrificed) will not be as much a zealot.
Clark - it is next to impossible to get synthetic THC - there are horror stories of it taking people over a year to get through the paperwork with the DEA. The interesting thing about Marijuana is that it really does quell chronic, serious nausea better than most anything. Oncologists have know that for years and it is a bit of a "secret" that they tell their patients that even as they are writing the Rx for the legal drugs that don't work so well. If your nausea is absent, you are more likely to eat and you are more likely to keep food down......
Clarke, DCTA has nailed this one. This was all Ashcroft. I remember watching a speech he made early on, while he was AG, in which he railed against states which sought to "overturn" the Federal laws against drug use, possesssion and sale. He said they were wrong and wrong headed. Since he left office, this case has continued on its own momentum.
My neighbor tried for several years to get the synthetic stuff and finally gave up. They make it virtually impossible to get it legally.
I think back to the "Ashcroft years", if you will, and I see a number of situations where the Justice Department attempted to interfere with "State's Rights" on social issues - the Department announced when CA passed the Medical Marijuana Law that they would prosecute users. They also announced that even after the citizens of OR twice voted to allow "assisted suicide" that they would prosecute anyone who tried to use the law. There seemed to be a strong desire to intercede on these "social" issues. I really do believe it was Ashcroft-driven. I think that Gonzales (if he continues as AG and that is doubtful and he will likely be sacrificed) will not be as much a zealot.
Clark - it is next to impossible to get synthetic THC - there are horror stories of it taking people over a year to get through the paperwork with the DEA. The interesting thing about Marijuana is that it really does quell chronic, serious nausea better than most anything. Oncologists have know that for years and it is a bit of a "secret" that they tell their patients that even as they are writing the Rx for the legal drugs that don't work so well. If your nausea is absent, you are more likely to eat and you are more likely to keep food down......
clarkef
03-21-2007, 03:16 AM
Clarke, DCTA has nailed this one. This was all Ashcroft. I remember watching a speech he made early on, while he was AG, in which he railed against states which sought to "overturn" the Federal laws against drug use, possesssion and sale. He said they were wrong and wrong headed. Since he left office, this case has continued on its own momentum.
My neighbor tried for several years to get the synthetic stuff and finally gave up. They make it virtually impossible to get it legally.
Bonnie Dumanis, the DA of San Diego, was discussing medical marijuana today on TV. She painted a horrible picture. Apparently,to get the stuff all you have to do is go to a doctor, get a recommendation (can't call it a prescription) which basically states that you are entitled to get marijuana for an ailment, which is also not disclosed on the recommendation. Curiously, their are no age limits. Minors can purchase the stuff. Ms. Dumanis has her office ran an analysis and in San Diego over 70 percent of the purchasers of the so-called medical marijuana are under age 40.
Again, I simply do not believe that this story has been reported in a fair and balanced manner.
I reiterate my reasoning. It is simplicity itself to get medical marijuana in California. Even if she purchased the dope from a street dealer, the FBI does not routinely get involved in possession for personal use matters.
Therefore, what is really going on?
clarkef
03-21-2007, 03:25 AM
One of the perks of being an attorney is that I have easy access to many cases. I did a quick search. It's as I suspected. This is not a real case. This lady is out to prove a point. There are no federal charges pending against her. She instituted this litigation against the US Government as a civil rights complaint for the purpose of changing its drug laws.
Everything about this case is designed to pull on your heartstrings and the writer fell for it. :mad: This is dishonest and the journalist who wrote that misleading article should be required to take remedial journalism classes.:mad:
Kairho
03-21-2007, 06:28 AM
One of the perks of being an attorney is that I have easy access to many cases. I did a quick search. It's as I suspected. This is not a real case. This lady is out to prove a point. There are no federal charges pending against her. She instituted this litigation against the US Government as a civil rights complaint for the purpose of changing its drug laws.
Everything about this case is designed to pull on your heartstrings and the writer fell for it. :mad: This is dishonest and the journalist who wrote that misleading article should be required to take remedial journalism classes.:mad:
Your research is well appreciated! Such situations are bad enough for those local to the scene, but for us on the other side of the continent, well, we just wonder WTH is happening over there sometimes. Not that Florida is any paragon of legal righteousness.
the dark knight
03-21-2007, 10:11 AM
Eileen,
I agree with you. My views on abortion and capital punishment are slightly complicated, but the short form is that for certain specific crimes, I have no problem with the death penalty(multiple murders, child or animal molestation, treason). Otherwise, I do prefer strong jail terms.
On abortion, I do not like the term "pro-lifer" to describe my views, nor do I totally want Roe vs. Wade rescinded. I do feel that this medical procedure should be available for use for certain indisputable situations (rape, incest, immediate danger of death to the mother). For those reasons, I am against banning it entirely.
However, I also do not feel it should be available as a "easy way out" for those ladies and teenage girls who "make a mistake" or has a "lapse in judgement" and get pregnant. Yes, the guy is just as responsible too. That is not cool and there is health risks in doing such anyway. All other options should be explored and exhausted first in my opinion.
The legalization of medicinal marijuana is fine with me as long as it is regulated properly and grown, sold and used in a responsible manner. Otherwise, it should be illegal like other similar drugs. I have never smoked or used drugs, so I know it is easy for me to say such, but one can also say such on any other drugs, and even alcohol, but we see the results of that every day, illegal or not.
the dark knight
03-21-2007, 10:17 AM
Clarke,
You have a point as well. Such stories do bother me as well. While I have no problem with someone fighting for what they believe to make a point and to help to change things for the better, there are ways to do it without damaging the message that is trying to be spoken.
I guess this case we have been discussing is not one of them. Unfortunately, in my opinion, there are many "journalists" who need remedial journalism classes, at the very least. We on this board have seen examples of that recently. Unfortunately, in my opinion, most of them will not seek nor get that assistance.