Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 01 2018, @07:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the smoking-stopped-son's-seizures-so-son-siezed dept.

They Let Their 15-Year-Old Son Smoke Pot to Stop His Seizures. Georgia Took Him Away. (archive)

The pharmaceuticals weren't working. The 15-year-old boy was having several seizures per day, and his parents were concerned his life was in danger. So Suzeanna and Matthew Brill, of Macon, Ga., decided in February to let their son try smoking marijuana — and his seizures stopped for 71 days, they say.

The Brills' decision led to the boy, David, being taken away from his parents, who face possible fines and jail time after being charged with reckless conduct for giving him the drug. David has now been in a group home for 30 days, and his seizures have returned. He is separated from the service dog that sniffed out his seizures, and he is able to communicate with his parents only during short visitations and phone calls.

They maintain they made the right decision for their son's health, despite their current predicament. "Even with the ramifications with the law, I don't care," said Mr. Brill, his stepfather. "For 71 days he was able to ride a bike, go play, lift weights. We were able to achieve that with David medicated not from Big Pharma, but David medicated with marijuana."

The Brill parents were jailed on April 20, and posted bond on April 25.

Since The New York Times published the article, Twiggs County Sheriff Darren Mitchum has received media attention and threatening phone calls, one of which he played back for reporters at a press conference.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday June 01 2018, @10:29PM (3 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Friday June 01 2018, @10:29PM (#687486) Journal
    Language always has to be taken in context. Is the court asking you to state that you will render an unjust verdict? Surely not. Such an interpretation is indefensible, and amounts to calling the Judge a criminal. Are you calling the judge a criminal? No? Good. Then the oath must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with the requirements of justice, and cannot be interpreted to demand an unjust verdict. QED.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:01AM (2 children)

    by dry (223) on Saturday June 02 2018, @05:01AM (#687584) Journal

    The question comes down to "what is a just verdict". Arguing necessity might be a better route, if they're decent people, they'll acquit without realizing that they're performing jury nullification.
    This is how abortion became legal here in Canada, Dr Henry Morgentaler kept getting arrested for performing illegal abortions, he kept arguing necessity, juries kept acquitting, by the third time only taking an hour to deliver the verdict. Incidentally it also led to bans on double jeopardy (first as a law, known as Morgentaler Amendment to the Criminal Code. and then as a right) as the nation got pissed off when the crown appealed and overturned the acquittal. Eventually the Supreme Court struck down the abortion laws due to our right to "security of person"
    Whether the same thing could happen in America with abortion is questionable as so many Americans would judge the justice of abortion differently. Might be the same with marijuana.

    As an aside, medical marijuana also became legal here based on our right to security of person and the obviousness of the government not being able to ban a medicine or otherwise screw with a persons health.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler#Quebec [wikipedia.org]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_of_person#Canada [wikipedia.org]
    "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Saturday June 02 2018, @02:04PM (1 child)

      by Arik (4543) on Saturday June 02 2018, @02:04PM (#687671) Journal
      William Penn had a similar story. He clearly broke the law, but the law was clearly wrong. The judge tried to pressure the jury to convict, but they refused. He imprisoned the jurors, who refused to cow, and eventually won their case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushel%27s_Case - a common precedent inherited by both Canada and the USA as part of common law.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:43PM

        by dry (223) on Saturday June 02 2018, @04:43PM (#687730) Journal

        Yes, I was going to mention that case in response to, IIRC, a different comment of yours.
        It's interesting how the common law has evolved.