View Full Version : Feds Aim to Pain

Ian McColgin
03-15-2007, 08:23 AM
They don't agree with states' rights regarding medical marijuana.

Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two whose ailments include scoliosis, a brain tumor and chronic nausea was prescribed marijuana every two hours as the only palliative that gives her any relief, all other drugs being ineffective. The federal government feels so strongly that state jurisdiction should obtain only when it fits the conservative agenda is relentlessly prosecuting Raich. Yesterday they won a new ruling before the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals and promised to prosecute Raich, jail her if necessary, for following doctor's orders that are legal in California and ten other states.

It's the little reported scandal of our prison systems, state and federal, that Hepatitis C is epidemic in every prison. Like at least 40% of the population. Like over 880,000 people. So, should she live so long, Ms Raich could face an additional disease.

Compassionate conservatives unite.

Rick Starr
03-15-2007, 09:03 AM
Funny how some folks argue so stridently against the law in some cases, and so ardently for it in others.

S.V. Airlie
03-15-2007, 09:25 AM
Umm.. States Rights. Time for another Civil War?

03-15-2007, 10:14 AM
The federal government feels so strongly that state jurisdiction should obtain only when it fits the conservative agenda is relentlessly prosecuting Raich.

Conservative agenda? I don't recall Democrats saying that medical marijuana is OK. In War on Drugs the Repucrats are united.

In the same vein,

"Today, Richard Paey sits in a wheelchair behind high walls and razor wire in a high-security prison near Daytona Beach. Paey is a 46-year-old father of three, and a paraplegic. His condition is the result of a car accident, a botched back surgery, and a case of multiple sclerosis — three setbacks that have left him in a chronic, debilitating state of pain. After moving to Florida from New Jersey, Paey found it increasingly difficult to get prescriptions for the pain medication he needed to function normally — to support his family, and to be a parent to his children.


Paey insists his old doctor wrote him the prescriptions he needed. The Florida pharmacists who testified at his trial back him up. But the doctor says he forged the prescriptions. For his part, Paey holds no animus against his former doctor. Cops gave the doctor a devil's bargain — give Paey up, or face 25-years-to-life imprisonment for the excessive proscribing of painkillers. Paey still maintains the prescriptions were legitimate, but understands why his doctor turned against him.


State prosecutors concede there's no evidence Paey ever sold or gave his medication away. Nevertheless, under draconian drug-war statutes, these prosecutors could pursue distribution charges against him based solely on the amount of medication he possessed (the unauthorized possession of as few as 60 tablets of some pain medications can qualify a person as a "drug trafficker").
After three trials, Richard Paey was convicted and put in prison for 25 years, effectively a life sentence for someone in his condition. Ironically, the state of Florida now pays for a morphine pump connected to Paey's spine which delivers the same class of medication at the same doses the state of Florida told him wasn't necessary, and put him in prison for trying to obtain."

(from http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5145)


Ian McColgin
03-15-2007, 10:18 AM
Not really. Checks and balances is not just administrative - legislative - judicial. It is also federal - state - local. One always pushes one's agenda in the arena where it stands the best chance.

For example, in the Carter years we'd push product safety matters - like dangerous toys - through CPSC more than state agencies. In land use planning, we in Oregon had little use for the feds but needed the power of state law to get county commissioners out of the real estate business.

So here, I did indeed tweek at the Con's overly frequent homage to states rights, but I don't believe it any more than they do.

I really think that marijuana ought to be legal, perhaps quality regulated as alcohol is, as it's a terrific product and an excellent agricultural enterprise. Clearly the medical use is a minimal legitimate need even if grass in general remains unlawful, but we ought to cut to the chase here.

John of Phoenix
03-15-2007, 10:28 AM
And that most liberal of all institutions, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, handed down the decision.
Well, wait ‘til she’s a comatose vegetable on a feeding tube, that’s when the compassion kicks in.