|
|
| Medical Pot Leads To Child Custody Case |
|
Posted by FoM on July 13, 2001 at 20:28:29 PT By Hil Anderson Source: United Press International 
A battle over the use of medical marijuana was shaping up this week in Northern California where a woman claimed she was fighting for custody of her 7-year-old son after she successfully treated his mental disorder with pot-laced muffins.Few details have been made available about the case due to strict confidentiality rules in juvenile court, however the Sacramento Bee reported Thursday that the custody case was the subject of a court hearing this week. "My son, for the first time in his life, is laughing and loving life," the 30-year-old Rocklin woman wrote on her personal Web site, according to the Bee. "He has very few... angry outbursts, he is compliant, is doing great in school, and actually is making friends." The unidentified woman claimed on her site that her son has a bipolar disorder that caused mood swings, hyperactivity and disruptive behavior that had landed him in psychiatric hospitals three times and made him the bane of local teachers and principals. After visiting 16 doctors and trying 19 prescription drugs in four years, the woman said she began feeding the boy -- with her pediatrician's approval -- muffins baked with a pinch of pot baked in them. While the muffins appeared to calm the boy's behavior, the therapy was apparently not well-received by Placer County Child Protective Services. The woman wrote that the agency had "taken me to court" due to "accusations of me abusing my son." Placer County officials have declined comment on the case, including details of the allegations and whether the use of marijuana was the only issue before the court. Officials would not say when the next hearing would be held. Medical marijuana use is sanctioned to an extent by California's voter-passed Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which allows seriously ill patients to buy marijuana to treat their conditions if it is deemed appropriate by physicians. Giving marijuana to a child, however, is apparently a murky issue that brings the Compassionate Use Act into conflict with laws governing the safety and welfare of children in alleged unfit homes. Marijuana has been touted as a therapy for patients suffering from glaucoma, chronic pain, chemostherapy side effects and the symptoms of AIDS. Critics, however, say the plant's effects are no better than legal medications available on the market. While some proponents of medical marijuana also claim the weed has properties that can ease some psychological problems, the use of medical marijuana on children has not received much scientific study, and California's rules governing medical marijuana use are not always clear. In a recent interview with a Lake Tahoe newspaper, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the Compassionate Use Act had a number of unanswered questions and few clear guidelines when it was drafted by the state legislature. "Unfortunately, the law was the first of its sort and there are a lot of unanswered questions that arose after it was adopted," Lockyer told the Tahoe Daily Tribune earlier this week. "Things like what specific diseases, what quantities, the role of the caretaker, the role of the doctor, and so on. There have been legislative efforts which I've supported to provide for those clarifications, but they haven't yet passed." The issue could be further complicated by the U.S. Supreme Court's May 14 ruling that federal laws prohibited the distribution of marijuana to a patient by another party. Although the ruling did not void state medical marijuana laws, it concluded that there was no "medical necessity" that warranted an exemption from anti-drug trafficking laws for users of medical marijuana. Source: United Press International Related Article: Medical Pot War Engulfs Boy, 7 CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #2 posted by Toker00 on July 14, 2001 at 08:54:19 PT |
| For Immediate Release July 13th 2001 To All News Media Contact Kay Lee (321) 253-3673 Prup Director, Linda Tant Miller Local Citizens to Participate in National Prison Vigil On Saturday July 14th at 2:00 pm, participants in the Prison Reform Unity Project (P.R.U.P.) will gather outside the Brevard County Detention Center in Sharpes, FL and before 4:00, will visit Brevard CI as well. This is the second annual PRUP vigil Day. It will be taking place at jails and prisons all over the country. Participants in striped prison garb will share information with visitors and passersby from the prison cell called "PEACE", a symbolic visual of the need for change. WHY: We have become uneasy about the costs, risks, and results of mass incarceration. Most prisons are explosive, diseased places, failing in any form of 'correction' or rehabilitation Therefore... 1. We vigil to draw attention to the risks to society of mass incarceration, and the resulting unprofessionalism, neglect, disease and corruption within the offices, facilities, institutions and prisons of the state. 2. We vigil to slow the rush to judgment in Florida's courtrooms; to stop the addiction to prisons for non-violent offences; to resist discarding the children; and to show the need to change the way we approach the accused, the prisoners, their families and most especially the children. 3. We vigil Brevard specifically because Commander Brown has failed to contain his crew who are tormenting a 14 year old child who, after a year, has not even been brought to trial yet. 4. We vigil here because Brevard CI guards have tried to discredit 5. Our message is that it is time for a change: Proposing: FURTHER INFORMATION
DIRECTIONS: This facility is located on Camp Road approximately 3/4 miles from I-95, Exit
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on July 14, 2001 at 07:38:07 PT:
|
| I'm sure you have. They are bound and determined to do things their way, no matter that an easier way exists. No matter that what they are doing is wasteful of time, energy, and might actually be harmful to themselves and those around them. They just doggedly keep plugging away...until someone older and wiser takes the matter out of their hands, entirely. Often with much caterwauling on the part of the child. IMHO, the voters of California have sent a message to the political and LEO machine courtesy of Prop215 and informed them that it's time to stop being the stubborn child about cannabis. "In a recent interview with a Lake Tahoe newspaper, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the Compassionate Use Act had a number of unanswered questions and few clear guidelines when it was drafted by the state legislature. "Unfortunately, the law was the first of its sort and there are a lot of unanswered questions that arose after it was adopted," Lockyer told the Tahoe Daily Tribune earlier this week. "Things like what specific diseases, what quantities, the role of the caretaker, the role of the doctor, and so on. There have been legislative efforts which I've supported to provide for those clarifications, but they haven't yet passed." Well, first off, I'd hardly ask the man most responsible for the pre-prop215 legal chicanery responsible for derailing MMJ in California what his opinion is on its' workability. But secondly, his response points out something which I have repeated before: when you read Prop215, you find no mention at all of any grow or possession limits, distibution systems, etc. Text of Prop215: Read it yourself. Where does it mention the kinds of limitations that Sturmbannfuehrer Lundgren brings up? Nowhere. There was a reason for this, a reason antis are loathe to examine. A reason which points directly to the purpose of this posting. The antis are engaging in an orgy of nit-picking, hair-splitting, and other equally pointless wastes of taxpayer's money in trying to determine something which the law itself made absolutely no provision for. Lundgren and his cronies have missed the boat; they just haven't tumbled to what actually happened in 1996. In 1996, California voters knew exactly what they were doing by voting for Prop215 as it was written. As mentioned, there were no limitations written into the bill. Now, why do you think that that happened? And why do you think that the voters voted for it? Because they are sick and tired of LEOs and the whole (ha-ha) Justice system wasting their time and money - and ruining people's lives - in this insane war against cannabis. Many saw the entire Justice machine as behaving precisely like the 'stubborn (or perhaps a better word would be stupid) child' with regards to cannabis...and took it out of their hands. It was as clear a signal as any that it is long past time to quit devoting so much resources and time to an enterprise that has yielded nothing but broken lives and trashed rights. But the antis just can't let go. They can't take the hint. They think they can go in through the back door, and keep control of this despite having been told to lay off. So they engage in this endless round of hair-splitting about matters left entirely out of the scope of the law. And their actions have already caused the death of one voice in the movement: Peter McWilliams. And they are trying to kill Todd McCormick. Like the stubborn child, they are bound and determined to make the hopelessly unworkable...work. The voters have told them to lay off, but they still don't get the message. Perhaps a 2-by-four would have been a better means of communication. There would have been no doubt whatsoever about the import of that particular message. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |