Victory for America, loss for n'er-do-wells

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Hey Potheads!

an 8-0 loss for your drug abuse! Sorry, but the weekend's over.

High court strikes down medical use for marijuana

May 14, 2001 Web posted at: 11:34 AM EDT (1534 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court handed medical marijuana users a major defeat Monday, ruling that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal has no exception for ill patients.

The 8-0 decision was a major disappointment to many sufferers of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses. They have said the drug helped enormously in combating the devastating effects of their diseases.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case.

"In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project)," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous court.

Thomas noted the act states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use."

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana distributors.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of the justice, sided with the government. All the clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, ruling that medical necessity is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing strict guidelines for making that claim.

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year.

The cooperative argued that a drug may not yet have achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment, but may still have medical benefits to a particular patient or class of patients.

Thomas said the argument cannot overcome the intent of Congress in approving the statute.

"It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote.

"Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument."

Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

There is no definitive science that the drug works, or works better than conventional, legal alternatives.

Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may revisit the issue this year. A measure to counteract laws like California's died in the House last year.

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151.

Copyright 2001 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

-- Capnsobriety (Responsible@american.citizens), May 14, 2001

Answers

Oops, forgot the Link

-- Sheepish (Responsible@american.citizen), May 14, 2001.

Potheads?

Nice way to classify people who have not found the answer to their suffering in conventional western medicine. Doctors are notoriously recalcitrant to prescribe pain-killers, for instance, in the dosages necessary and the length of time necessary to combat the overwhelming pain of cancer and other conditions.

This is truly a shame. I have not yet read the decision, but it is incomprehensible that congress could create a statute that assumes on its face that a medical use will never be found for marijuana. My feelings go out to those who suffer, and for whom thc was a good answer for their ailments.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), May 14, 2001.


Two of our relatives died of cancer, as did a friend. The patients were promised adequate pain medication at the end of life. When they reached the stage where they could no longer speak, hospice personnel refused to administer the promised meds at the promised dosages in the promised intravenous manner. When the patients moaned, groaned, thrashed, or in one case clearly spoke the word "pain", hospice personnel told the families that the dying ones were "too far out of it" to really be aware of pain. The families asked for the meds to be administered at the promised dosages and were denied. One hospice worker explained the moaning and thrashing as "life struggling with death". Do you believe that explanation enough to entrust your dying moments to a system like this?

-- helen (doomer@doom.gloom), May 14, 2001.

As much as I deplore the illegality of marijuana and the idiocy of the Congressional act this ruling upheld, there is no real connection between the medical use of marijuana and helen's sad experience because the hospice workers refused to administer painkillers to her relatives at sufficient doses. The two issues are separate. No doctor would have prescribed marijuana to helen's relatives in that situation.

My best understanding is that the marijuana provides excellent relief to sufferers from glaucoma, by relieving the interior pressure within the eyeball. Marijuana also is an effective antinausea medication for some patients under chemotherapy. It also has applications as an appetite enhancer for AIDS patients and others with wasting diseases.

Marijuana doesn't have much effect as a painkiller and there are much better alternatives. It is possible that marijuana might be usefully prescribed in conjunction with orally administered morphine, as a means for settling the stomach if the morphine was being consistantly vomited back up. But again, there are other antiemetic drugs such as phenergan that could be used first and a patient in a coma isn't in much shape to use marijuana.

I should probably repeat that I think outlawing marijuana has been a wretched mistake and marijuana does have legitimate medical applications. Incidentally, I haven't used marijuana in over 20 years, so I am not what you'd call a stoner.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 14, 2001.


Hey Capnsobriety, you are the most irresponsible american citizen I've seen in a while.... Have you even bothered to study up on the matter?? Or are your moronic brain cells too pickled with beer to care??? I really, really hope that you or someone you dearly love has to suffer the most ungodly pain humanly possible and that you cannot find any relief!!! Nine states have medical use laws on their books, it will be up to the feds to do the dirty work on this one, again messing up lives in the process.

-- Rob (celtic64@mindspring.com), May 14, 2001.


Little Nipper, it IS related to the marijuana question. A U.S. senator was very visible last year in his efforts to legislate against narcotic pain killers at the end of life because they might be given at lethal doses. In effect this senator wanted to legislate dosage levels so that the patient and his or her own doctor had no part in the process. I want to be certain of his name before I post it.

I am well aware my relatives could not have used marijuana while in a coma. The federal government gets to make medical decisions regarding marijuana use ... and at least one senator is trying to extend that control to other meds known to be beneficial.

-- helen (doomer@doomer.doomer), May 14, 2001.


,b>Doctors are notoriously recalcitrant to prescribe pain-killers, for instance, in the dosages necessary and the length of time necessary to combat the overwhelming pain of cancer and other conditions.

This is truly a shame.

Yes it is. Underdosing people's morphine isn't what this is about though.

Helen,

Sorry about your loss, but again, their pain wasn't NOT controlled because of a lack of pot, but because the appropriate medicines were not given. I agree that we need to work on letting doctors know they should treat people's pain.

I really, really hope that you or someone you dearly love has to suffer the most ungodly pain humanly possible and that you cannot find any relief!!!

Thanks a lot asshole! The pot wouldn't help though, I'd take the opiates & try to find a physician willing to do their job and give it in the appropriate dosages.

Face it buckwheat, this issue is just a strawman towards legalizing recreational marijuana (or IOW, if you object to someone having "your moronic brain cells too pickled with beer to care" why would you want that many MORE people running around stoned? Nice going with the "hope someone dies painfully" bit though, real classy.

-- Go (to@msterdam.hippie), May 14, 2001.


helen, I think I know the senator and bill you refer to: Senator Nichols and the Pain Relief Act. The bill was a false front. The real intent was to nullify the recent Oregon law that permits terminally ill patients to request a lethal dose of barbituates. The Catholic church and a lot fundamentalist churchs strongly oppose the Oregon law, but they failed twice to get the people of Oregon to vote it down. So they went to Senator Nichols and he ginned up this law that regulates the use of federally controlled substances for terminal patients.

Under the Nichols law doctors suspected of prescribing a lethal dose of morphine or barbituates could be thrown in federal prison, which would be bound to have a chilling effect on the doctors and force them to underprescribe painkillers. The irony was that the bill was being sold as improving pain management for the terminally ill, by creating federal standards.

It very nearly passed. It had huge support early on, when the representatives in Congress thought they could curry favor with the far right by being anti-euthanasia and killing the Oregon law while at the same time claiming to do good for people in pain. When the word got out what the bill really did, opposition grew. It was near run thing, but it finally lost. Nichols is a powerful committee chairman and he threatened to attatch it as a rider to several critical spending bills, but he was talked out of it at the last minute when the GOP leadership realized that MDs would be royally pissed off at them if it became law and so would millions of people who had gone through what you have gone through with your loved ones.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 14, 2001.


Sobriety,

Why do you care so much what other people are doing when it doesn't affect you one iota?Why would you care if people were gettin' high for medicinal purposes or for their own personal pleasure?

Is there someone forcing you to buy them reefer? Or is someone strapping you down,putting a bag over your head,filling the bag with smoke and forcing *you* to get high?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 14, 2001.


Helen, What you encountered is highly unusual.I've worked as a medical professional and have been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Most Doctor's will prescribe narcotics for pain quite liberally to the terminally ill. There is no need to worry about addiction, it is not at issue. Hospice is usually quite quick to "help" a patient along with a little extra medication.

I don't believe your experiences are the norm, at least in upstate NY it isn't. There are a few "dinosaurs" left that don't know pain management protocols but, thankfully they are few and far between.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 14, 2001.



How can this be an 8-0 decision if there are nine supreme court justices?

-- confused florida voter (did@buchanan.win?), May 14, 2001.

"Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case."

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), May 14, 2001.

Marg, I'm sorry to hear you have cancer. I hope you have all the support you need and want near you. I am very sorry I brought this up because causing you any more stress is absolutely out of line.

-- helen (abc@a.bc), May 14, 2001.

Thanks, Helen getting through and doing fine. I just wanted to let you know that what your loved ones went through is the exception. Maybe you should start asking why to hospice and their Dr.'s and don't stop until you get the answers.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 15, 2001.

Marg, unfortunately that has been the experience of every person I know who attempted to die at home with hospice care but one. That one had a life-long friend who happened to be a doctor. Knowing this, I asked repeatedly about the confidence the family had in the latest hospice care workers. They believed the pain would be controlled in the manner described. The dosages and delivery methods were carefully planned with the patient and the family beforehand. When the time came to carry out the plan, the family was told the patient didn't need it. The family disagreed and was ignored.

As far as asking questions goes, the matter is closed. In my family you are free to think your thoughts because only you can be hurt by them. Speaking your thoughts hurts others. Insisting on speaking about a taboo subject is treated as an act of aggression. Open reaction to anything negative is destabilizing to the group. In bringing this subject up repeatedly, by my own internal standards I have committed an act of aggression against you. I think I need to stay offline until I get this under control.

-- helen (going@once.twice), May 15, 2001.



Hey Marg-

I was diagnosed with very advanced testicular cancer last year, but fortunately for me the diagnosis was mistaken. So far, I've been officially cancer free since the first of the year. If you need someone to talk to or vent at, please drop me a line. My e-mail address is real, but acts up sometimes due to my ISP. Please let me know if you can't reach me through it and I'll give you an alternative.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 15, 2001.


Helen, don't fret. This is not upsetting to me. Rest assured I have no problem with discussing it. I am sorry that you can't discuss things with ytour family. I was thinking more along the lines of hospice. My experiences with that group have been bad and I wouldn't recommend them to any one.Just for your mental state, I would ask them why they did not follow the protocol that was agreed upon. If this does not give you answers that are adequate caontact the state where this took place. There will be a review of notes taken during that period of time and interviews of the nurses involved and you may get satisfaction from that and you may also be the catalyst for a comp[lete revision of healthcare in that field. Count it all joy, Helen

Tarzan, glad to hear you are okay. Wow what a mistake to mak eh? I can't imagine the scope of emotions that you must have went through in a short period of time.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 15, 2001.


Tarzan, I sent you an e-mail, but it came back.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 15, 2001.

I respect the bitch.

-- (Hawk@squawk.box), May 15, 2001.

Marg has terminal cancer, what a bunch of bullshit, sympathy seeker. Bunch of dumbasses, she never mentioned it before.

-- truth seeker (marg@is.aliar), May 15, 2001.

Truth Seeker, Why should I? It's none of your business.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 15, 2001.

she never mentioned it before.

truth seeker, Why should she? Why would she want to give some lowlife "ammunition" to add psychological harrassment on top of an already emotionally devestating situation?

What does it say about you for you to try to kick someone who is already down?
Are you so emotionally bankrupt that you are incapable of feeling basic human compassion for another human being?

Is this an example of compassionate conservatism? Do you actually consider this form of behavior you are showing normal?
Do you have some deep seated need to belittle others to compensate for a lack of emotional stability and self confindence in yourself? You are to be pityed.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), May 15, 2001.


No I do not need any pity, I am a bit concerned over your sticking up for the old hag though. How gullible you are. With all the drunks and fags and aids idiots, we know who they are, it just amazes me that you would put up with yet another pity ploy. The only decent thing is that they are getting ran off by the truth being shoved in there faces. Pehaps we will wait and see who gets it next.bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

-- truth teller (bwaaaa@hahhhh.hhhh), May 16, 2001.

Dear Truth seeker, You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you in the head. Who was talking with you? I addressed my post to Helen. Nobody asked for any response from you.Need attention?Don't get any at home? What a loser. I'm usually pro-life but, you are the best reason for abortions I've seen to date.The best part of you, ran down your mother's leg. YOU ARE to be Pitied. As usual with anon's, I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 16, 2001.

Perhaps this is Marg's penance for living a life filled with hatred of anyone who doesn't follow her specific brand of biblical philosophy.

-- (ahh@the.irony), May 16, 2001.

Cut away Marg how fitting of you. Used to be prolifer? So what? We know how you feel about those of us who are not. But the best part of all is that you are no prolifer at all. The truth is in your recent answer. Lonely are you Marg? I am certainly not lonely and if I were I would rather keep company with the likes of all these forum loonies than with your sorry pitiful ass. Inner child, right. If you had an inner child you would abort it too. Come on cut away admit it the real loser here is you.

-- truth Teller (bwwwaaaa@haaaaaaaa.haaaa), May 16, 2001.

BTW Truth, YOU cannot "run" me off. So shove that up your ass.....ooops, sorry, I didn't see your head was already there.

-- Marg (okay@cutaway.com), May 16, 2001.

bwwwaaaa@haaaaaaaa.haaaa,

"the likes of all these forum loonies"

Where *exactly* do you fit into that description???

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 16, 2001.


Oh poor cutaway Marg. No one is trying to run you off. You just pissed on your own logic is all. You discredited yourself by stating your were prolife and you really are not. Oh the irony of it all.We know you are here to stay we want you to stay. One day you will fade away justlike the rest of the anon posters. In the interim, may we make a suggestion to you? Careful where you piss. And how would you know if my head is up my ass? You trying to get some of it? bwwwwaaaahhaaa

-- truth Teller (truth@teller.bwaaaahhhaaaa), May 16, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ