Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Correo electrónico: Contraseña:
Anonymous
Nueva cuenta
¿Olvidaste tu contraseña?
News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Column: The Death Of Peter McWilliams
Title:US CA: Column: The Death Of Peter McWilliams
Published On:2000-06-24
Source:Orange County Register (CA)
Fetched On:2008-09-03 18:28:19
THE DEATH OF PETER McWILLIAMS

Peter McWilliams is dead Age? Fifty. Profession? Author, poet,
publisher.

Particular focus of interest? The federal judge in California (George
King) would decide in a few weeks how long a sentence to hand down,
and whether to send McWilliams to prison or let him serve his sentence
at home.

What was his offense? He collaborated in growing marijuana
plants.

What was his defense? Well, the judge wouldn't allow him to plead his
defense to the jury. If given a chance, the defense would have argued
that under Proposition 215, passed into California constitutional law
in 1996, infirm Californians who got medical relief from marijuana
were permitted to use it. The judge also forbade any mention that
McWilliams suffered from AIDS and cancer and got relief from the marijuana.

What was he doing when he died? Vomiting. The vomiting hit him while
in his bathtub, and he choked to death.

Was there nothing he might have done to still the impulse to vomit?
Yes, he could have taken marijuana; but the judge's bail terms forbade
him to do so, and he submitted to weekly urine tests to confirm that
he was living up to the terms of his bail.

Did anybody take note of the risk he was undergoing? He took Marinol -
a proffered, legal substitute, but reported after using it that it
worked for him only about one-third of the time. When it didn't work,
he vomited.

Was there no public protest against the judge's ruling? Yes. On June
9, the television program "20/20" devoted a segment to the McWilliams
plight. Commentator John Stossel summarized:

"McWilliams is out of prison on the condition that he not smoke
marijuana, but it was the marijuana that kept him from vomiting up his
medication.

I can understand that the federal drug police don't agree with what
some states have decided to do about medical marijuana, but does that
give them the right to just end-run those laws and lock people up?"

Shortly after the trial last year, Charles Levendosky, writing in the
Ventura County Star, summarized: "The cancer treatment resulted in
complete remission." But only the marijuana gave him sustained relief
from the vomiting that proved mortal.

Is it being said, in plain language, that the judge's obstinacy
resulted in killing McWilliams? Yes. The Libertarian Party press
release has made exactly that charge. "McWilliams was prohibited from
using medical marijuana and being denied access to the drug's
anti-nausea properties almost certainly caused his death."

Reflecting on the judge's refusal to let the jury know that there was
understandable reason for McWilliams to believe he was acting legally,
I ended a column in this space in November by writing, "So the fate of
Peter McWilliams is in the hands of Judge King. Perhaps the cool thing
for him to do is delay a ruling for a few months and just let Peter
McWilliams die." Well, that happened last week, on June 14.

The struggle against a fanatical imposition of federal laws on
marijuana will continue, as also on the question whether federal laws
can stifle state initiatives.

Those who believe the marijuana laws are insanely misdirected have a
martyr.
Miembro Comentarios
Ningún miembro observaciones disponibles