Some people have to live their lives in constant pain. Pain relief meds can be addictive, or have unpleasant side effects, or just not be effective. Cannabis would be a suitable treatment for many people, but the UK Court of Appeal has told them that they'll have to continue suffering.
The court dismissed appeals in six cases where people were given fines or suspended sentences after convictions for possessing or importing cannabis.
The court had been told that cannabis was more effective than conventional forms of pain relief and did not have the potentially serious and life-threatening side-effects of alternative treatments.
But the judges ruled that the defences of necessity or duress should be confined to cases where someone committed what would otherwise be an unlawful act to avoid "imminent danger of physical injury".
What kind of pain are these people suffering?
Barry Quayle, 38, from Market Rasen, Lincolnshire, who had both legs amputated below the knee and suffered pain from damaged tissue and "phantom limb" sensation; Reay Wales, 53, of Ipswich, who has serious bone and pancreas conditions and Graham Kenny, 25, from Shipley, West Yorkshire, who has chronic back pain, all used cannabis for pain relief.
Cannabis could be cheap, and it could provide a useful cash crop alternative for people currently growing opium poppies.
2
doghouse_reilly
I'm lost
February 2004
MAY 30, 2005 04:13 PM
But pharmaceutical companies don't see any money from sick people using marijuana, so naturally, it has to be kept illegal.
I'm guessing the reason the pharmaceutical companies prefer opiate painkillers to cannabis is that the opiates are more addictive, and therefore more likely to create life long customers?
James_ said:
I'm guessing the reason the pharmaceutical companies prefer opiate painkillers to cannabis is that the opiates are more addictive, and therefore more likely to create life long customers?
Or maybe I'm just another paranoid stoner
That and its political suicide for any politician to be openly supportive of its legalization. So no bills will ever be created or voted upon. The issue almost always dies at the state level.
Well dont give up hope. Oregon has Medical Mary J. Not that they give you any clue where to sign up for it. So mabey the rest of the world will take a hint. Or just think Oregon is a buncha hippys
Oh and someone correct me if im wrong but isnt it legal in Alaska?
Sunheart said:
Well dont give up hope. Oregon has Medical Mary J. Not that they give you any clue where to sign up for it. So mabey the rest of the world will take a hint. Or just think Oregon is a buncha hippys
Oh and someone correct me if im wrong but isnt it legal in Alaska?
I think the state basically took it's Marijuana laws off the book. Basically the feds will still come after you if they get wind of it, but the state it self doesn't care. Though I may be wrong, I've been away from home for a while now.
Realize that even though your state allows medical marijuana, it it still a federal crime to posses it. After California legalized it the feds came out and said they will still prosecute people for it.
While I think that marijuana should be legalized somehow, the judge is correct here. Laws that are written with specific intent, i.e. duress code, should not be tampered with and 'tailored' to fit our own personal sense of morality. The solution is new legislature, federally, that recognizes/legalizes marijuana. The solution is not, lets find a loop hole and run with it.
Cruorem_Angelus said:
Realize that even though your state allows medical marijuana, it it still a federal crime to posses it. After California legalized it the feds came out and said they will still prosecute people for it.
Yes they will, because the will of the people and states' rights are apparently not enough.
dem_z
United Kingdom
June 2004
MAY 30, 2005 03:22 PM