Woman with terminal cancer jailed over medication in her system

another source

reason.com...

according to her pharmacist, there was not enough THC in her blood to impair her ability to drive

i know the pharmacist is not a doc but they do know just a little about the effects of prescription drugs and how they cause a person to react

Under Kansas law, it is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, to operate a motor vehicle while "under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle

to a degree that it renders a person incapable of safely driving a vehicle

Kastner could be described as a "habitual user" of THC, but only because her doctor prescribed it to help her tolerate the side effects of chemotherapy. According to a summary of the Kansas DUI law from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, habitual users of a drug with any amount of it in their systems are automatically deemed to be impaired, although there is no logical or scientific basis for that "zero tolerance" rule.

no scientific base to the zero tolerance rule......

like i have been saying in like 4 threads. things are not always black and white....the cops should be able to use their brains and evaluate the situation.
is she a habitual user of marinol? yes
was she under the influence? no

if john do habitual user gets pulled over and he is blazing and clearly under the influence then yeah...pop him with the dui

this is an example of a habitual user of marinol that was not under the influence. great chance for the law to use their brains and evaluate

i dont know why i am keeping on with this because you and others clearly do not and will not get it

Have these police never heard of HIPPA?
The doctor prescribed her medicine outside that the authorities have no say on how this individual medicates.
Personally I feel they violated her health rights by making her submit to a test for something she had been authorized to use.

a reply to: JAY1980

cause they dont evaluate the situation.
thc in your system??? JAIL!!!!!

never mind she was not high and on a legally prescribed medication

they should give her the chair

originally posted by: JAY1980
Have these police never heard of HIPPA?
The doctor prescribed her medicine outside that the authorities have no say on how this individual medicates.
Personally I feel they violated her health rights by making her submit to a test for something she had been authorized to use.

I think you mean HIPAA. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. And it doesn't work like that.

Anyone operating a motor vehicle is subject to the laws governing the use of prescription drugs that might cause impairment of reaction time, cognizance and fine motor skills, etc. HIPAA won't protect someone who is in violation of the law...just like a drunk driver, they are a threat to the safety of other people on the road.

She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that. And she could have refused being tested...anyone can refuse. But that only serves to reinforce the suspicion that they're trying to bypass the law...so if you refuse, you go directly to jail. And it makes everything just that much worse for you.


However, if she was not impaired; weaving all over the place or running off the road, etc., that cop could have let her go. In my personal opinion, that is precisely what should have happened. Escort her home if there's a concern she might become dangerously impaired after she drives away.

There are so many different ways this could have been handled rather than making a public spectacle of a dying woman, putting her in jail to make a point. It's despicable.

originally posted by: tigertatzen


She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that..

can you tell me how please?
i posted links to explain why she was not.

first of all how can she be in violation when the medicine she was taking does not get her high?
you admitted in your first post that you really dont know much about marinol.

i do know about it.
ive taken it.
i posted links explaining about marinol.

but its just cut and dry right?

even though she was not high and had a legal prescription. in your opinion having thc in her system is enough to be charged?
curious about this

and like you said
yeah you can refuse but that just makes things worse.
that seems to be the tone this 'free' country is going in.

sure you are 'free' to do it but if you do # gets worse. how is that free

a reply to: TinySickTears

Lets also not forget that every law maker turns a blind eye to politicians and other law makers having coke and whore parties where the next monday they are writing and voting on laws while still under the influence.

Lets also ignore that the biggest drug dealer in the world is our government through drug companies or through pop up cartels selling illegal drugs to fund black projects....

Lets forget that evidence lockers lose drugs from precincts all across the country. Forget that many have had a cop take our pot at least once in our lives to gift it to a buddy or a girl friend....or smoke it himself.

Lets pretend this woman deserves this.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: TinySickTears

Lets also not forget that every law maker turns a blind eye to politicians and other law makers having coke and whore parties where the next monday they are writing and voting on laws while still under the influence.

Lets also ignore that the biggest drug dealer in the world is our government through drug companies or through pop up cartels selling illegal drugs to fund black projects....

Lets forget that evidence lockers lose drugs from precincts all across the country. Forget that many have had a cop take our pot at least once in our lives to gift it to a buddy or a girl friend....or smoke it himself.

Lets pretend this woman deserves this.

bravo man.
dig that post.

i experienced that last paragraph for the first time when i was about 8 years old. my dad and i were in the car in pinellas county florida(kenneth city) and he got pulled over.
cop found his stash and took it. let my dad go.

She broke the law. Having cancer does not exempt a person from the law.
It is her responsibility to make sure she is fit to drive, no one else.
If her medication makes her unfit to drive she should not be driving.
Pretty simple really.

originally posted by: UKTruth
She broke the law. Having cancer does not exempt a person from the law.
It is her responsibility to make sure she is fit to drive, no one else.
If her medication makes her unfit to drive she should not be driving.
Pretty simple really.

apparently you did not read the thread

she was not unfit to drive.
thc in your system does not mean you are unfit to drive.

figures though.
youre one of those cut and dry, black and white types.
its not always that simple

from the comments section of the article

she was in an at fault car accident where she was the only one hauled off to the hospital with an airbag caused brain bleed, her blood was taken and she had a trace of Marinol in her system which she hadn't taken for a couple weeks. But the base ingredient is THC that doesn't get out of your blood for 30 days.

uktruth why are you so quick to assume that she was not fit to drive?

this is an example of the problem with these tests. it detects something in your system but that does not mean you are under the influence.

this is a serious problem

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: tigertatzen


She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that..

can you tell me how please?
i posted links to explain why she was not.

first of all how can she be in violation when the medicine she was taking does not get her high?
you admitted in your first post that you really dont know much about marinol.

i do know about it.
ive taken it.
i posted links explaining about marinol.

but its just cut and dry right?

even though she was not high and had a legal prescription. in your opinion having thc in her system is enough to be charged?
curious about this

and like you said
yeah you can refuse but that just makes things worse.
that seems to be the tone this 'free' country is going in.

sure you are 'free' to do it but if you do # gets worse. how is that free

The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.

That is how she broke the law. Was it bullsh!t ? I think so. But the law does not care what I or you think. And that's what I was talking about.

I think I was pretty clear that I don't personally think she should have been charged. In fact, I don't think she should have been charged even if there actually was enough in her system.

In my opinion, no one should. Like I said, anyone can grow it in their own backyard. But they don't want us having it because then we won't want their poison medicine anymore.

What I was talking about was the reason why they were able to arrest her. That warning on that bottle was placed there for exactly that reason. Entrapment. So no, in that sense, we're not free.

originally posted by: TinySickTears
another source

reason.com...

according to her pharmacist, there was not enough THC in her blood to impair her ability to drive

i know the pharmacist is not a doc but they do know just a little about the effects of prescription drugs and how they cause a person to react

Under Kansas law, it is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail, to operate a motor vehicle while "under the influence of any drug or combination of drugs to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle

to a degree that it renders a person incapable of safely driving a vehicle

Kastner could be described as a "habitual user" of THC, but only because her doctor prescribed it to help her tolerate the side effects of chemotherapy. According to a summary of the Kansas DUI law from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, habitual users of a drug with any amount of it in their systems are automatically deemed to be impaired, although there is no logical or scientific basis for that "zero tolerance" rule.

no scientific base to the zero tolerance rule......

like i have been saying in like 4 threads. things are not always black and white....the cops should be able to use their brains and evaluate the situation.
is she a habitual user of marinol? yes
was she under the influence? no

if john do habitual user gets pulled over and he is blazing and clearly under the influence then yeah...pop him with the dui

this is an example of a habitual user of marinol that was not under the influence. great chance for the law to use their brains and evaluate

i dont know why i am keeping on with this because you and others clearly do not and will not get it

You are keeping on it because you are in the right, dont stop, IMHO the majority understand but dont have any solutions so they either sit on the fence or ask frustrating qustions as they search for answers,the redundancy happens to you because every person takes their turn asking the same "cautious feeling out" type of fence-sitting questions,dont fret,they are in many cases trying to learn,the others are hard core people who dont have any guts so they make an educated guess as to which side of the conversation will come out "on top" and slide comments in supporting whover looks to be winning.....lol....and there are the deluded undereducated people who truly do support the status quo to protect their own comfort zone ie. lifestyle/career/religon/gov/ect ect ,and there are the active disinformation agents who work 24/7/365 to hide the many truths people are now promoting online.

Its easier to hold back new learners....but the old dogs who have traditionally done the dirty work are literally passing on and the new generations are more learned and less likely to be duped....the internet generations are learning,the older ones never even had acess to material of info to help them....

I enjoy your efforts and IMHO you have as much impact as anyone....keep up the good work.

a reply to: TinySickTears

i know the pharmacist is not a doc but they do know just a little about the effects of prescription drugs and how they cause a person to react 

Not so very long ago, pharmacists could prescribe most medicine just like a physician. I'll let you guess why that ability was taken away from them. They do know medicine...better than the doctors who prescribe it.

The reason pharmacists no longer treat patients is the same reason behind this story. And the warning label is significant. That's how they get around the THC issue. Because it is a medical fact that not every drug works precisely the same on every single person. People are not identical in that way...not even twins.

That is the little game that they're playing here. The pharmacist is no longer on the same level as the prescribing physician; he cannot assess a patient and he cannot make a positive determination about how a medication will affect each individual patient. That is also a medical fact. So they can dismiss his opinion as just that.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.

That is how she broke the law. .

except as i posted in this thread that is not what the warning says.
i posted a link about it and a picture of it.

originally posted by: tigertatzen

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: tigertatzen


She was most definitely in violation of the law in this case. There's no way around that..

can you tell me how please?
i posted links to explain why she was not.

first of all how can she be in violation when the medicine she was taking does not get her high?
you admitted in your first post that you really dont know much about marinol.

i do know about it.
ive taken it.
i posted links explaining about marinol.

but its just cut and dry right?

even though she was not high and had a legal prescription. in your opinion having thc in her system is enough to be charged?
curious about this

and like you said
yeah you can refuse but that just makes things worse.
that seems to be the tone this 'free' country is going in.

sure you are 'free' to do it but if you do # gets worse. how is that free

The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.

That is how she broke the law. Was it bullsh!t ? I think so. But the law does not care what I or you think. And that's what I was talking about.

I think I was pretty clear that I don't personally think she should have been charged. In fact, I don't think she should have been charged even if there actually was enough in her system.

In my opinion, no one should. Like I said, anyone can grow it in their own backyard. But they don't want us having it because then we won't want their poison medicine anymore.

What I was talking about was the reason why they were able to arrest her. That warning on that bottle was placed there for exactly that reason. Entrapment. So no, in that sense, we're not free.

Marinol is a patented drug.....it is in no way related to MJ.....in no ways at all.....it is simply another dangerous poison being fed to the public for profit.......synthetic = FAKE=patented=legal entanglement=TPTBs comfort zone..

TPTB...NEED....to keep the crooked courts going and the Profit Prisons going ...they have quotas to fil so right now they are working overtime to install MJ impaired driving laws.....but this is how we can teach people to catch them and to trck down their conduits of power.....like the seemingly innocent citizens recruited into " machined manipulated charitys".....which are then used to sway public opinion.......the people who push for and support these MJ driving laws are IN LARGE members of TPTBs power network....most have drug problems or sexual deviencies or theft or other problems because they have been TARGETED AND SET UP WORKED OVER INTENTIONALLY.......now we need to watch and note who when and how these DESPERATELY NEEDED MJ DRIVING LAWs are pushed forward.....and THESE ARE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE PEOPLE WORKING FOR ...TPTB....either knowingly or unknowingly either voluntarily or involuntarily....and WE DONT CARE ABOUT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES...only that we identify them and follow their popcorn trails right to the money men supporting them indirectly.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: tigertatzen

The medicine itself typically does not contain enough THC to cause euphoria in most people. However, it can in certain people. Enough people in fact, that the manufacturer was required to put a warning not to drive while taking it on the medication bottle.

That is how she broke the law. .

except as i posted in this thread that is not what the warning says.
i posted a link about it and a picture of it.

here

I am going by what it states in plain English on the manufacturers own website. It very clearly disagrees with you. And unfortunately, so does medical science.

It is a fact that every person who takes the same medication and the same dose will not have the exact same symptom set. You might not experience euphoria with this medication, but someone like myself who has systemic lupus and does not absorb medication normally, and therefore is abnormally sensitive to the side effects could very well get knocked on their ass by it. The data sheet on the company's website contains a myriad of different adverse effects that any halfway decent lawyer could make a case with...and apparently did, since she's going to be serving a sentence.

I'm not siding with these people. You seem to have been looking for a fight with some of your comments, and you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'd elaborate, but it's not worth the post removal that would result.

What they're doing is f*cked up, and I completely disagree with it. I'm simply trying to tell you how and why they're able to get away with it. And that is absolutely by design. But I'm not the enemy here. Not by a long shot.

a reply to: tigertatzen

not trying to pick an argument i just dont want false info posted.

from the link you posted and like i have been saying this whole time

Do not drive a car, operate machinery, or engage in any hazardous activity until you know how this medication affects you and until you are sure you can perform such tasks safely


that is what it says in plain english on your link...

again, i just want the right info out there when it comes to this because people believing the wrong info is why this woman is in trouble and why this # is so demonized and im tired of it

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: tigertatzen

not trying to pick an argument i just dont want false info posted.

from the link you posted and like i have been saying this whole time

Do not drive a car, operate machinery, or engage in any hazardous activity until you know how this medication affects you and until you are sure you can perform such tasks safely


that is what it says in plain english on your link...

again, i just want the right info out there when it comes to this because people believing the wrong info is why this woman is in trouble and why this # is so demonized and im tired of it

Once again...not every person will experience the effects of a medication precisely the same. That is irrefutable medical fact. Once they put that warning in there, they opened the door for a perfect way to find her guilty. Because any medical expert will say that it is possible that she was affected by the drug...especially with her specific condition.

She's taking chemo, which is poison. It really is. It destroys your immune system and your ability to absorb and metabolize drugs. It alone has side effects that can permanently destroy the parts of the nervous system associated with balance and reflexes. Add in a drug that plainly states those same side effects, and the prosecution has themselves a case. Because no one can say with 100% certainty, under oath, that the amount of THC in that drug is not enough to affect this specific, particular patient. Not even her private physician, and wait for it....not even her.

Because people who are impaired almost always either think they're not, or misjudge the level at which they can function normally. That is also a fact.

So the law already is not in her favor if it makes it to trial...which it evidently did. This is not by accident. The system is set up this way; one hand washes the other.

I'm tired of it too. I have a disease that can be debilitating. And prescription medicine sucks ass...I get every side effect. Ridiculous. So I know the reason they demonize weed is because it helps so many people...people who are currently trying to unchain themselves from prescription meds. If everyone has the magical healing herb, Big Pharma is screwed...which is also a medical fact, though you won't find proof of it anywhere online.

They're losing ground, so they're tightening the noose. If they have driving laws in place, it gives them a foothold even if it goes legal across the board. So they're using cases like this one to facilitate that. Demonizing recreational users isn't going to work for this. They've got to demonize the ordinary people, make them look dangerous too. The message is that THC=danger, no matter who you are.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: UKTruth
She broke the law. Having cancer does not exempt a person from the law.
It is her responsibility to make sure she is fit to drive, no one else.
If her medication makes her unfit to drive she should not be driving.
Pretty simple really.

apparently you did not read the thread

she was not unfit to drive.
thc in your system does not mean you are unfit to drive.

figures though.
youre one of those cut and dry, black and white types.
its not always that simple

It is that simple. If she was allowed to drive with thc in her system then she would not be in trouble.

(316) 660-5245

I just called them and told them this was messed up (couldn't find the judges number).

You can call them too.

Get active.