Successful Medical Necessity Defense in Texas Marijuana Case

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:58:22 GMT  <== Drugs ==> 

Jacob Sullum at Reason - a Texas jury recently acquitted Tim Stevens for possessing marijuana which he used to relieve the cyclical vomiting syndrome associated with HIV infection. His expert witness convinced the jury that enforcing the "law" was worse than allowing Mr. Stevens to have his medicine, so they nullified. Bravo! [tmm]

Stevens, whose vomiting has been so severe that he was hospitalized and received blood transfusions, was arrested last October after an anonymous tipster saw him sharing a joint on a friend's porch in Amarillo and called the police. He had about a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana, resulting in a Class B misdemeanor charge that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He probably could have gotten off with a fine or a year's probation, Blackburn says, "but he didn't want to; he wanted to take a stand." The trial lasted about 10 hours on Tuesday, and the jury came back after 11 minutes with a "not guilty" verdict.

Blackburn says the expert testimony of Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau in New Mexico's Department of Health, helped establish that marijuana is demonstrably effective at treating nausea and superior in some ways to the legal alternatives. (For one thing, unlike the synthetic THC capsule Marinol, it does not have to be swallowed and kept down, a feat for someone suffering from severe nausea.) Blackburn, who was not at all confident about the prospects for Stevens' unusual defense in a "very, very conservative area," also credits "a streak of independence" and a "distaste for government" that he says is common in West Texas. "I think these jurors like the idea that they get to make a decision about what the law means, about when it applies," he says, "and I don't think they were shy at all about deciding how valuable the law proscribing marijuana use really is."

Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (1):

Re: Successful Medical Necessity Defense in Texas Marijuana Case

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:17:48 GMT

You can post to Tim's myspace page.

http://www.myspace.com/amarillotim

[quote=Bill St. Clair]Jacob Sullum at Reason - a Texas jury recently acquitted Tim Stevens for possessing marijuana which he used to relieve the cyclical vomiting syndrome associated with HIV infection. His expert witness convinced the jury that enforcing the "law" was worse than allowing Mr. Stevens to have his medicine, so they nullified. Bravo! [tmm:]

Stevens, whose vomiting has been so severe that he was hospitalized and received blood transfusions, was arrested last October after an anonymous tipster saw him sharing a joint on a friend's porch in Amarillo and called the police. He had about a twelfth of an ounce of marijuana, resulting in a Class B misdemeanor charge that carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $2,000 fine. He probably could have gotten off with a fine or a year's probation, Blackburn says, "but he didn't want to; he wanted to take a stand." The trial lasted about 10 hours on Tuesday, and the jury came back after 11 minutes with a "not guilty" verdict.

Blackburn says the expert testimony of Steve Jenison, medical director of the Infectious Diseases Bureau in New Mexico's Department of Health, helped establish that marijuana is demonstrably effective at treating nausea and superior in some ways to the legal alternatives. (For one thing, unlike the synthetic THC capsule Marinol, it does not have to be swallowed and kept down, a feat for someone suffering from severe nausea.) Blackburn, who was not at all confident about the prospects for Stevens' unusual defense in a "very, very conservative area," also credits "a streak of independence" and a "distaste for government" that he says is common in West Texas. "I think these jurors like the idea that they get to make a decision about what the law means, about when it applies," he says, "and I don't think they were shy at all about deciding how valuable the law proscribing marijuana use really is."

Edit comment

Add comment Edit post Add post