Posted on 01/13/2003 12:09:56 PM PST by MrLeRoy
LOS ANGELES The only medical-marijuana case to end in conviction in Long Beach Superior Court has been overturned on appeal, and prosecutors have not yet decided whether to retry the case.
Marie Rutledge was charged last year with possessing marijuana in her car but claimed it was medically prescribed to treat her asthma, muscle spasms and migraine headaches. Her Long Beach jury disagreed, finding her guilty of cultivating marijuana, possession of marijuana and public intoxication.
After reviewing the case and hearing oral arguments in Los Angeles last month, the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict based on a recent California Supreme Court decision that lowers the defendant's burden of proof in such cases.
The Supreme Court case, People v. Mower, states that "the defendant should be required merely to raise a reasonable doubt as to those (underlying) facts rather than to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence.'
The court stated that Rutledge's jurors may have returned a different verdict had they been instructed properly. For example, the fact that Rutledge introduced evidence of her maladies may have been enough to raise reasonable doubt, the court found.
Rutledge is one of four people charged in Long Beach with marijuana possession but who claim they are exempt from prosecution under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Two of those cases were ultimately dismissed, and one has yet to be tried.
Allen Fields, who runs the Long Beach branch of the Los Angeles district attorney's office, said he hasn't yet decided whether to retry the Rutledge case or dismiss it.
"I haven't seen the appeal,' he said Friday. "We'll take a look at it and decide what to do.'
Deputy Public Defender Leslie Allenby, who represented Rutledge during her trial, said she was pleased by the decision and hoped it would end the case.
"It's the right result,' she said. "I do hope that they choose not to litigate it again because it's much ado about nothing.'
Attorney J. David Nick, who filed the appeal, also had argued that Long Beach prosecutors committed prosecutorial misconduct when they suggested that Rutledge's doctor might subject himself to prosecution if he testified on her behalf. The doctor ultimately asserted the Fifth and refused to testify.
The Court of Appeal rendered no opinion on that matter, however, saying such a thing was "unlikely to recur at any new trial.'
Yeah, I read the same report. But I thought she was smoking a joint, not a mixture of "2.0 per cent marijuana and isoproterenol". But maybe I read the article incorrectly, otherwise why would you waste my time with this scientific experiment?
"Bronchial asthma
5.33 Cannabis and THC dilate the small airways of the lung, and this has suggested a possible application in the treatment of bronchial asthma. However, according to the BMA report, there have been few clinical trials and these were mostly in the 1970s before the advent of the more powerful drugs now available for the treatment of this illness. Smoked cannabis is clearly unsuitable for the treatment of asthma because of the irritant effects of the smoke, and THC delivered by aerosol also appears to have irritating effects."
--BMA Report to the House of Lords
Common sense would indicate that a person with asthma shouldn't smoke anything. But you insist on proof for everything.
Until a better one is found, yes.
Do you think that the AMA, IOM, NIH, FDA, or your doctor, will recommend smoking marijuana for asthma?
As you know, at least one doctor already has---and research supports its benefits.
If marijuana is found to have medical benefits, certainly you don't care if the "delivery system" is other than smoking, do you?
Not at all---but a universally superior delivery system does not yet exist, and sick people should not be forced to wait for one.
You did; marijuana and isoproterenol were not administered to the same subjects. "in morning sessions, subjects inhaled Iso or saline 8 to 9 min after the development of bronchospasm, and in afternoon sessions, subjects smoked 2.0 per cent marijuana or placebo during a period of 10 min immediately after the induction of bronchospasm."
"there have been few clinical trials and these were mostly in the 1970s before the advent of the more powerful drugs now available for the treatment of this illness."
I'm sure doctors try these newer drugs first---but I doubt they work better for every single patient.
Common sense would indicate that a person with asthma shouldn't smoke anything.
Research shows that smoked marijuana does more good than harm.
If marijuana is found to have medical benefits, and that those benefits can be obtainted by simply extracting the THC in alcohol, or simply eating the plant itself, you wouldn't care if people grew their own, rather than requiring that they use a synthetic version from a pharmaceutical company, would you?
GW Announces Positive Results From Each of Four Phase Three Clinical Trials
Trials Show Cannabis Spray Helps MS Patients
Source: Guardian Unlimited
Shares in GW Pharmaceuticals, the company pioneering research into cannabis-based medicines, soared 17.5% to 151p yesterday as it prepared to announce positive trial results this morning.
The Salisbury-based business will say tests on treatments for patients with multiple scelorosis (MS) have been successful and it plans to apply for early approval to make products available to patients.
GW has been developing for three years a range of products based on cannabis extracts that can be taken orally via a spray under the tongue.
The latest results are the first from seven, phase three, clinical trials being undertaken on 600 patients but they pave the way for the development of what could become a £250m per annum market.
GW is the only holder of the only UK licence to develop cannabis-based medicines and has been pouring cash into research. This summer it reported a £5.3m loss for the six months to March 31 and now hopes to launch its first cannabis-based drug in early 2004.
There are currently no prescription drugs based on cannabis but any go-ahead from the medicines control agency is likely to have wider social implications.
Hundreds of MS sufferers are believed to be using cannabis illegally amid widespread anecdotal evidence that it relieves pain associated with the condition.
GW Pharmaceuticals declined to comment on heightened speculation about its latest clinical trials. "All I can say is we will be announcing the preliminary phase three results tomorrow as we had previously indicated," said a spokesman.
The company has had to increase the amount of cannabis it grows in Britain to cater for its trials. GW is also undertaking tests on relieving cancer pain and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is examining whether there are opportunities for future drugs of this kind to be used inside the health service.
You don't think having the cannabis pass through the sanctifying hands of Big Pharmaceutical Business will be enough to grease the wheels in the USA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.