How much more obvious does it need to get that this is not justice but barbarism? We blow up 2-year-old babies, we round up harmless elderly people in SWAT raids and imprison them, and we imprison people with severe cancerous tumors for trying to ingest a plant with medical benefits. Frankly I think foreign human rights organizations should mobilize troops to rescue the victims of these 'laws' and put the perpetrators on trial in international criminal court.

I wonder why the judge disallowed medical necessity defense. Probably because the judge and the prosecutor knew it would make the case un-winnable.

"The judge ruled in May that Mackenzie couldn't use his medical condition as a defense. Mackenzie said he was threatened with jail if he talked about his health in court."

Not just for this case; but for the law in general - Why is it allowed for a judge to decide what defense someone wants to use?

I understand what Jim P. is saying in that they think they won't win; but, why is such a ruling allowed in the first place? How does such a "process" benefit anyone beside the state?

That's not a rhetorical question - I really am curious why this is allowed. Perhaps, Amy, you or another of your readers knows the reason behind such a process.

"It is an outrageous violation of human rights for the government to tell people what plants they can grow and ingest and to lock people up in cages when they violate the government's order on this."

Does this apply to coca? Poppies? Deadly nightshade? Angel trumpet?

Some plants people use to try to get high kill them instead. You can't buy some pesticides as a private citizen. Is that a violation of some "civil right", too? Where's the line?

And I am extremely interested in what mechanism you intend to modify the law. Actually, let's make that the point. It would be consistent of me, at least: I always want to know the ROI on any initiative.

Not allowing the medical defense is effectively denying the accused a jury trial. He ought to appeal on that ground -- and win.

In the meantime I'm voting to acquit ANYONE accused of a drug offense, no matter how horrible -- because it's almost certainly the usual overcharging by prosecutors.

"Does this apply to coca? Poppies? Deadly nightshade? Angel trumpet?

Some plants people use to try to get high kill them instead. You can't buy some pesticides as a private citizen. Is that a violation of some "civil right", too? Where's the line?

And I am extremely interested in what mechanism you intend to modify the law. Actually, let's make that the point. It would be consistent of me, at least: I always want to know the ROI on any initiative."

Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line, but seeking to imprison a suffering individual for growing weed is clearly well short of it.

The ROI of ending the Drug War is pretty clear. Practically speaking, all of the violence is a function of prohibition,the resulting black market, its risk premium that provides an inflated profit motive, and the inflated prices that can drive an addict to commit violence to support a habit. All of the costs of enforcement and imprisonment are a function of prohibition. All of the imprisoned, non-violent, drug offenders are a function of prohibition. All of the opportunity costs for those enforcing,those imprisoned, and those innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire, who could otherwise be pursuing productive endeavors, are a function of prohibition.

On the other side of the ledger, one may argue that making access easier will increase health problems related to usage. That is speculative, but even if it were so, there is no way that this could outweigh the costs of prohibition.

And whence cometh the morality of telling an individual what he can and cannot ingest, when that act trespasses on no other?

"Not allowing the medical defense is effectively denying the accused a jury trial. He ought to appeal on that ground -- and win."

This. How can the judge prohibit the accused from stating facts that the accused believes to be relevant to his defense? That is surely ground for appeal right there.

If the prosecution doesn't believe that the guy was going to extract oils from the marijuana, or if the they think that 71 plants are more than really needed - i.e., if they believe this was a grow operation having nothing to do with his illness - then they will just have to deal with that at trial.

"Does this apply to coca? Poppies? Deadly nightshade? Angel trumpet?"

Coca has been traditionally chewed and it makes a fantastic tea. It kills hunger and helps tummy aches, among other benefits.

However that is no longer the case as the coca grown for cocaine makes a poor a plant for chewing/brewing.

That has been one of the biggest gripes the indigenous populations have with their U.S. backed governments, who used to enforce the destruction of their coca leaves but didn't do much to the drug lords.

Practically speaking, all of the violence is a function of prohibition,the resulting black market, its risk premium that provides an inflated profit motive

So...you think the cartels, the middle-men, and the street dealers are interested in seeing that "inflated profit motive" disappear, and would peacefully, cheerfully accept the end of the war on drugs?

Oh, they'll accept us not attempting to arrest, prosecute, and lock them up for it, and leaving their customers alone. But that profit margin? that'll stay.

Drugs are cheaper and more plentiful now than in the eighties.

And thats with nearly a trillion dollar spent trying to make access more difficult.

If we let Merck and Pfizer manufacture and sell drugs they'd be cheaper than fast food.

Drug lord might hang onto their fields, but they'd be legitimate businesses and paying taxes, and local dealers would be cut off entierly

> "Does this apply to coca? Poppies? Deadly nightshade?

Funny you choose this example, as interestingly enough, some of the compounds in "deadly nightshade" are currently showing significant promise in recent scientific research as having a potent antidepressant effect[1]. (Note to laypeople: NB, you cannot safely try ingest it yourself - the compounds require professional expertise to extract safely.) In fact, 'deadly nightshade' has a long list of known medicinal uses.

But hey, yeah, send in SWAT teams and lock people in jail for trying to use these 'God-created medicines'.

[1] http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2010/rapid-antidepressant-action-of-common-medication-confirmed-by-repeat-trial.shtml

So...you think the cartels, the middle-men, and the street dealers are interested in seeing that "inflated profit motive" disappear, and would peacefully, cheerfully accept the end of the war on drugs?

What exactly do you think they would do about it?

It's nice how some people hate things enough to not let others make their own choices, good or bad.