'I'LL SMOKE CANNABIS DESPITE WHAT COURTS SAY'
Source: Lincolnshire Echo, UK
Date: May 28, 2005
Subj: I'll smoke cannabis despite what courts say
Web: http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/
A Disabled father-of-three has vowed to continue smoking cannabis to
ease his pain - despite judges ruling there is no defence for using the illegal
drug.
Barry Quayle says using the drug is the only way he can relieve the pain
he suffers after having both his legs amputated at the knee after a fall.
Yesterday three judges threw out Mr Quayle's appeal against his
conviction for cultivating cannabis. The judges, who considered Mr Quayle's
case alongside five other similar claims at London's Appeal Court, ruled that
an old common law defence of "necessity" could not be used to defend
the use of cannabis.
Mr Quayle (38), of Arlington Road, Newtoft, near Market Rasen, was
convicted after police raided his home on November 9, 2002 and found he was
growing cannabis plants for his own use. He pleaded guilty and was given a
four-month suspended sentence.
Mr Quayle is already facing another prosecution for possession of
cannabis, which magistrates had been waiting to hear until the result of his
appeal.
But he is determined none of that will stop him using the drug.
"If it means that eventually I'll end up in prison then I will go
to prison," Mr Quayle said.
"I do not smoke joints 24/7. I smoke in the evening when I have
removed my prosthesis. It helps the pain in my joints, muscles and nerves.
"My only other option is to take medication that knocks me out. I
am a single parent with three children. Two of them are disabled. If I have to
be
knocked out to sleep then they are at risk.
"I think that it's really sad that the law would take a political
stance rather than taking into consideration the needs of people with long-term
suffering who can gain relief this way."
There are now plans to take the case to the nation's highest court, the
House of Lords.
Legalise Cannabis Alliance
spokesman Don Barnard said: "I have to say I am not surprised but I am
annoyed that these three learned judges should bring such a ludicrous decision
forward.
"We now have a clear ruling on medical necessity not being
available as a defence for cannabis possession, cultivation or importation.
This is subject to an appeal to the House of Lords.
"In the meantime I believe the Government should be considering
exemptions for genuinely sick people who are using cannabis much the same as
they do for disabled people who suffer discomfort wearing a seatbelt.
"Regardless of all this juries still have the right to bring in not
guilty verdicts. I would be saying to people who are subject to jury duty 'you
can change the law if you believe that the person is telling the truth and
using it for medicinal purposes'."
In announcing the appeal decision Lord
Justice Mance said that to allow a wide-ranging defence of medical necessity to
cannabis charges "would involve a positive invitation to the jury to act
contrary to the law and take over the role of the legislative
authorities".