The government makes lots of money from the selling of alcohol and tobacco, but none from the selling of grass. Easier to damn the untaxed stuff than to change the law.

Banning drugs is a measure of government control. Without it, there would be no legality for unreasonable searches and arrests.

fact is, there's not a jury in the world that would convict her. smolke away.

As fast as our judicial system moves, by the time they decided to put her on trial, they'd probably unfortunately have to exhume her body.

Funnily enough, it's hard to do studies on the damage that pot does to humans. A lot of that is because:
a) there are relatively few people who will be honest about their illegal habits.
b) the drugs they take are illegal and therefore not controlled (dosage, additives, et cetera).
c) the medics who want to do these studies tend to get hassled by law enforcement.

Also, the original banning of pot was not just political; it was racial as well.

Um, wouldn't this ruling constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment'?

Pot is too easy to grow,and because of that, they cannot control it. You know they would love to put a price on pot if they were the only ones that could grow it. It is bullshit what they can do because of this plant. A plant that grows, you pick it (or someone does) and you smoke it. Your business.

Next they will ban the sell of tomatos because they want you to buy lycopene pills.

it would be if the government brought this punishment down on her in the first place and then said, "Fuck you we wont allow you to make our punishment any easier on you."

This disgusts me on so many levels, most touched on already. One big backwards ignorant and determined to stay so system.

Hmm, I was thinking that, since it wasn't a direct act by the government in response to a crime. But in a way, keeping or upholding the ban, is a direct act which results in her being in pain or whatever. That is, the government is effectively preventing respite from her ailment (if she obeys the law). Also, does that clause only refer to crime? Or can it be applied to other laws? Anyway, I'm no lawyer, that just sort of jumped in my head when I read it.

Sounds like you like smoking pot as much as I do

if the Justices recited the Hyppocratic Oath, you'd have a point. In the eyes of the law, since she's dying already, their actions do not constitute criminal indifference to human life. Pain, maybe, but not Life.

that's unfortunate.

Isn't this the same fucking administration that preached about the culture of life with Terry Shaivo. Politicians will fight tooth and nail about some fucking brain dead woman who has been connected to a feeding tube for years, yet when it comes to a perfectly conscious dieing woman they turn their noses up.