March 29, 2005Kianna's LawInstead of a wave of Terri's Laws that will introduce government intrusion into private family decisions, The Wall Street Journal suggests Kianna's Law, for Kianna Karnes, who died at the age of 44 from kidney cancer. She was denied any chance at clinical trials because our beloved FDA has a public to protect. After her write-up in the Journal, the drug manufacturers and the FDA called to help. But... But isn't it a national scandal that cancer sufferers should have to be written about in The Wall Street Journal to be offered legal access to emerging therapies once they've run out of other options? Terri Schiavo was well served by the law. She got multiple chances for redress, and in the end got what her husband said she wanted. Kianna Karnes received no chances at what she clearly wanted -- to purchase drugs that might save her life. Pharmaceuticals Posted by jk at March 29, 2005 5:24 PM |
Yes, interesting that we can allow (in some states) access to marijuana for medical purposes but not unapproved drug therapies. To my knowledge marijuana has never passed any FDA approval testing.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at March 30, 2005 10:37 AMYou'll get me started on another rant if you're not careful. Although 11 states have passed Medical Marijuana statutes, the feds will still not allow it. In California, they throw terminal cancer patients in jail for using the only thing that brings them relief.
Posted by: jk at March 30, 2005 10:59 AMI don't believe the government has any business restricting marijuana use any more than it does alcohol, which is to say - apply the current alcohol laws, don't abolish them all for both substances.
However, I sympathize with the conviction that so-called "medical marijuana" is a canard to get the drug legalized by deadbeat low-lifes.
I'd support this compromise: Marijuana can be legally sold at regulated stores (like liquor stores) but only to people over 21 AND ... clean shaven with a neat haircut, no odious personal odors and closed shoes of some kind. And any straight-laced proxy buyers caught aiding the sandal wearers would be prosecuted for felony mischief.
Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2005 3:12 PMOkay, I'll contravene my libertarian ideals to go with your dress code requirements.
I am in favor of BOTH legalization and medical, although I don't think of one as a loss-leader.
I am gonna try to convert you, though, jg. Even if you do not believe in the efficacy of doobage for pain management, do you really approve of the gub'mint telling an MS or terminal cancer patient that they cannot even try it?
I have read of terminal cancer patients thrown in jail, because that is all that works for them (this is in National Review, not Rolling Stone or High Times). And, in the MS world, it is very popular. If 11 states' voters say they think people should get this chance, why is it the Fed's job to meddle? Tenth Amendment anybody? Federalism? If you can't allow Interstate Commerce, I suppose they can grow it locally.
Posted by: jk at March 30, 2005 5:54 PMNo, I'm honestly with ya on this JK. Ward Churchill's just got my dander up at the moment.
The drinking age should be abolished as well.
Posted by: johngalt at March 31, 2005 2:37 PM | What do you think? [5]