Posted on 11/28/2004 9:20:33 AM PST by Ellesu
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/28/MNGQ4A2RL11.DTL
Partially paralyzed, in constant pain from multiple disorders and desperate for help after trying nearly three dozen doctor-prescribed medications, the 30-year-old woman, a product of a conservative upbringing that made her recoil from illegal drugs, decided pot "might be my last shot.''
She's suffered back pain from scoliosis and pelvic pain from endometriosis since her teenage years. She became partially paralyzed from an allergic reaction to doctor-recommended birth control pills in 1995.
Since then, she's been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder and a wasting syndrome. She keeps 98 to 100 pounds on her 5- foot-4 frame only by gorging on high-calorie foods and using marijuana to maintain her appetite.
There's no euphoric effect. I do not like using it.''
Still, she takes her pipe everywhere, even to the Oakland Police Department, where she's worked with officers on their encounters with medical marijuana patients. She also vaporizes the drug, mixes it with massage oils, or bakes it in zucchini bread, which she eats in large quantities before a rare and agonizing plane trip like her journey to Washington for Monday's hearing.
Raich, now 39, has a doctor's recommendation for marijuana, as required by Prop. 215, and says she needs the medication every two hours. She wakes up in pain every morning and requires help getting out of bed. She uses 8 pounds of marijuana a year and gets it for free from two caregivers -- "my heroes'' -- in thanks for her work as an advocate.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Addendum: fedgov should sell marijuana, tax it, and pay off the debt instead of helping funnel black market funds to South America.
And you cite a "legalize-all-drugs" author, an attorney for "only marijuana works for me" Raich, who thinks that it was the original intent of the Founding Fathers (not because of what they said, but what they didn't say) that "regulation of trade" meant "encouragement of trade" when only 19 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the USSC ruled that wasn't the case.
When you've figured that out, come join the adults in a conversation about "substantial effects" and the "Necessary and Proper" clause.
Or, you can just stick with your sardonic three word posts.
Oops. You forgot morality.
You mean all drugs, not just marijuana, right?
Certainly if you believe that the federal government cannot decide which substances you may ingest legally, that would include all drugs.
Or can the federal government decide? I'm confused here.
Yes, absolutely I mean all drugs, and no, I don't want the federal government legislating what I believe to be "correct" morals upon other people.
I believe in letting people to be free to make their own choices, and that when in doubt, the State governments should be the authority in these issues i.e. welfare, education, drug policy, abortion, gay "marriage" etc...
OK. Legalize all drugs and, since morals are out, legalize all pornography, gambling, and prostitution.
By all means. Let's elevate the rights of the hedonists over those who just wish to raise their children in a decent society.
And don't give me any hypocritical crap about it being OK with you for the state government being able to legislate morality, just not the federal government.
And you still think your word games and twisted semantics will convince people you have a case. If I ask why you won't talk about applying your dogmatic reliance on stare decisis to Roe V. Wade, will you report me for abuse?
"So children should be able to smoke marijuana for their pain?"
Don't be ridiculous. They should be given oxycontin instead because it's regulated.
MY reliance? Oh, that's rich!
YOU are the one who is constantly comparing USSC rulings pre- and post-New Deal. You are the one crying about a lack of stare decisis on FDR-era rulings.
That's not a case of what came before, but rather what didn't come before, and is unsupportable by the Constitution or any historical reference. More twisted semantics. Constitutionally limited national government is not wished away so easily.
Speaking of children, wouldacouldashoulda, what if, what if, what if.
"And don't give me any hypocritical crap about it being OK..."
No sir, not hypocritical, Constitutional. In my mind, there is a HUGE difference.
I don't want to elevate anyone's rights over anyone else's. I want there to be equality for you to lead your life as you see fit, and likewise for those who disagree with you.
I'm not calling for pornography being on display in the public square, nor for the consumption of drugs on the street. However, in the context of the "war on drugs", I can see no net positives having been accomplished, whereas I can see serious erosions of individual freedom and State sovereignty.
Applying stare decisis to ill-conceived decisions is faulty reasoning. It is saying nothing more than once a court makes a mistake, it may never be corrected.
Heaven help us if the next batch of Supremes agree with this egregious line of thinking...
At first, I thought maybe you didn't want any government, federal or state, doing so. Thanks for the clarification.
The MOST complete understanding of what I said is that I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution as originally intended, which places authority to determine issues like those I mentioned in the hands of "the people" or the "States", per 9th and 10th amendments.
Do I REALLY want the State governments telling everybody how to live their lives? No. In many cases, I would prefer individuals to make up their own minds, rather than to have laws dictating our every move. For example, cigarette smoking is a bad habit, and possibly against somebody's morals, but do I support a law against it? Not hardly.
Then how can you say it's unconstitutional? If a ruling violates no precedent, why do you insist it's not constitutional?
Because I can read the Constitution, and the historical documents and comprehend that they are inconsistent with the ruling. It's not really very complicated. You look at the evidence, you weigh and analyze the argument, and you decide. If the arguments are logically flawed, and the evidence doesn't support the assertions they rely on then it's crap.
Well, you could always apply Justice Kennedy's thinking (from the "Texas sodomy" case) and use European laws when American precedent doesn't exist to support your distorted reading of the Constitution...
That said, put your personal feelings about drugs aside for a moment. If you can.
IF drugs are to be regulated (ie., some are legal, some are legal but only by prescription, and some are illegal), what is the best way to accomplish this? On a state by state basis (maybe even by cities, as with "dry" cities), or at the federal level?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.