Prayer is the last shot.
It has to be said again and again. While marijuana has no curative value that we know of, it may have the ability to relieve pain for those who are suffering greatly. If so, and if a doctor prescribes it when other prescriptions have failed, then let the patient smoke it by the trainload if they want, and to hell with - and God curse - anyone who decides that the Government knows better.
excuse my sarcasm, but her "diseases" don't make sense...Endometriosis rarely starts before one's mid twenties, scoliosis is present in 7% of women, and rarely causes back pain from arthritis before age 40, and usually exercize and NSAIDS keeps it under control. Brain tumor? Seizures? Let me see the CT scan...bet the reporter never saw them...and my favorite "Chronic wasting syndrome"...this only exists with HIV or advanced cancer. And it is NOT a medical disease, just one of the side effects of advanced disease...makes me wonder if she has HIV or hepatitis C from her earlier illegal drug use making her sick...
Want to bet she likes being high, and after doctor shopping for her narcs has found the marijuana lets her be stoned all the time so she doesn't have to cope with life...
She may consider a refund. ;)
The potheads couldn't get Marijuana legal so they invented the medicinal use fallacy.
Doesn't matter. This case isn't about marijuana, it's about federalism. It's not a question of whether marijuana is good medicine, it's a question as to whether or not the federal government can regulate private, non-commercial, intra-state, charitable agriculture grown for medical purposes, based on the federal government's Constitutional right to regulate "interstate commerce." The answer, from a Constitutional viewpoint, does not depend on whether or not marijuana gets people high, or whether it is in fact good medicine. The answer depends on whether such cultivation of marijuana affects interstate commerce to a non-trivial degree. The answer is "no." The cultivation and free distribution of medical marijuana has approximately zero affect on interstate commerce. The federal government has no business regulating it.
If you think it should be outlawed, try to convince Californians to outlaw it--we get to make this decision, not Congress.
Is there a pothead agenda at work here? Sure. But that doesn't matter. The Constitution is far more important. There is a federalist agenda here, too. The federal government does not have general police powers. If you think Ashcroft is right about this, you are giving him general police powers, in violation of the Constitution's limits on the federal government.
If you think the federal government should have such police powers (to fight terrorism and potheads and whatnot), then write up a Constitutional Amedment and start a political campaign to get it ratified. Because that's how we change the Constitution in this country...
I'd just reiterate that if Raich wins this case, it won't mean an ends to federal drug laws. Commerce (selling drugs) can still be declared illegal. Drugs generally end up crossing state borders, and the drug trade operates at an international (not just interstate) level, so even intrastate drug sales can be outlawed by Congress (because selling drugs in one place affects their price/availability in another). If SCOTUS rules in favor of Raich, it would not mean a radical change in our nation's drug laws--just that states can decide these medical issues for themselves, so long as the drugs are cultivated/manufactured in-state and then donated to the patients.
This is classic states' rights federalism without the pointy white hood. True conservatives should be celebrating this.
Free pot for EVERYONE!
Gather round the Pot & Ice Cream Truck kids and I'll tell you the story of how free pot came to be!
You see, it all started when medical marijuana was legalized in 2009...
So let me guess: She's a plaintiff cuz she's suing her dealer.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)
Its to bad that some bad people need to monopolize on the illness of others so they can legalize their favorite drug of choice.
What?!
I gather that being a product of a liberal upbringing would make one gravitate towards illegal drugs.
Works for me.
Geez, give the woman her meds. Even Morphine is used medically these days. A lot of drugs are deadly if not administered properly. The trouble is the drug companies can't make enough off of Marijuana.