Mom Charged For Giving Son Medical Marijuana

[s_stabeler]

That "fuck head county prosecutor" is just doing their job. It's not a prosecutor's job to determine guilt or innocence. If a prosecutor refuses to do their job, they should be fired. Don't agree with the laws? Don't put yourself in a position that will go against your morals. Nothing has been done wrong by the prosecutor and that should be pretty obvious to anyone who understands how that job works.

As for the person who feels weed is immoral, reporting someone for committing a felony is not a crime against humanity everyone here is making it out to be.

a) it's cannabis oil that was being used, not actual cannabis. the woman wasn't giving the kid a spliff to smoke.
b) IT WAS RECCOMMENDED BY HER DOCTOR- IF anyone was acting immorally, which i doubt, it was the doctor.
c) there is a public interest test as well- specifically, would it be in the public interest to proceed with the case. It's more or less designed for this exact situation- the case would be highly likely to end up failing due to Jury Nullification, the law is changing anyway...

[wolfie]

You think a jury is actually going to convict this woman? When even Child Protective Services disagrees with the charges? When a doctor recommended it in the first place?

Yes they will. Why? Because the Feds will take over prosecution, and (with the jury out of the courtroom) the judge will order the defense attorney to not mention "medical marijuana", the doctor's recommendation, or CPS's decision. I've heard of a case where someone hired by a city in California to grow medical marijuana was convicted under these circumstances, and after the fact more than half the jury stated that if they'd known it was a medical marijuana case they'd have voted for acquittal.

the case would be highly likely to end up failing due to Jury Nullification, the law is changing anyway...

The problem is that if the defense is prohibited from bringing up facts that would likely lead to Jury Nullification, the jury won't have the information they need in order to vote their concienses.

[Panacea]

So she did something clearly illegal and that's ridiculous? I don't get it.

And then there's the whole it's still illegal in all 50 states since fed > state law.

It's generally accepted in the medical community that marijuana will be defacto legal within 10 years. The Federal response to medical marijuana has been muted at best, and once it becomes common practice, judges will start ruling the Controlled Substances Act unconsitutional. I think the Feds are trying to avoid that.

There is no reason for marijuana to be a Schedule I drug. To be that, it has to have no accepted medical use . . . yet the FDA accepted Marinol decades ago and it is available to people by prescription. I know people who got prescriptions based on my recommendations that they talk to their doctors about it; they say it doesn't work as well as pot but it does work and it's legal.

I think the DEA has been inconsistent in their crackdowns in part to avoid a marijuana showdown they are bound to lose. The medical evidence is not stacking up in their favor.

However, that doesn't stop patchwork prosecutions like this one.

Technically illegal. The prosecutors were just being dicks (and so was the jerkass who tattled on her).

Yeah, pretty much. The tattle tale is the real douche.

The prosecutors were doing their jobs and the "jerkass" who reported her clearly feels strong enough about people doing drugs that it was worth it to them. There are plenty of people in the world who still think we shouldn't hand out drugs like candy.

Prosecutors have absolute discretion. He could have chosen to delay filing this case "for lack of evidence" or some other procedural bullshit until the law took effect . . . at which point a judge would probably toss it anyway.

Yes they will. Why? Because the Feds will take over prosecution, and (with the jury out of the courtroom) the judge will order the defense attorney to not mention "medical marijuana", the doctor's recommendation, or CPS's decision. I've heard of a case where someone hired by a city in California to grow medical marijuana was convicted under these circumstances, and after the fact more than half the jury stated that if they'd known it was a medical marijuana case they'd have voted for acquittal.

The problem is that if the defense is prohibited from bringing up facts that would likely lead to Jury Nullification, the jury won't have the information they need in order to vote their concienses.

That varies widely depending on state laws. It might actually fly in Minnesota. It depends on which Circuit the state is in; it's definitely not California (Circuit 9).

Even if they get instructions not to nullify, juries sometimes do anyway. There's really not much the judge can do about it. It simply gives the prosecutor a basis for an appeal. He might win the appeal . . . and lose the election if his constituents get pissed enough.

[Rapscallion]

And there are plenty of people who think it's none of the government's damn business what you put into your own body.

I'd agree with the concept with three basic qualifications that I can think of.

First, it affects nobody else. Drunk driving and burglary to support a drug habit are not acceptable, just as they aren't now.

Second, the user pays their own way. I don't mind taxation from my wages paying for an underprivileged person's necessities. I'm not paying for recreational pharmaceuticals.

Third, we need to have the ability to replace those who self-deselect themselves from life. We've got plenty of spare people we wouldn't miss as a species right now. If we were down to half a million folk in the world, I'd say that rule would be out the window.

Probably another thread to discuss that, and there are probably factors I haven't thought of yet.

Rapscallion

[Jarlaxle]

So the jerkass is one of those goodie two shoe types who tattles on people and makes their lives miserable. Because obviously a mother who's treating her son is such a threat to society.

They are the type whose favorite words were, "I'M TELLING!"