If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Jurors mad they weren't told that convicted marijuana grower was "officer" for Oakland's medical marijuana program   (asia.reuters.com) divider line 345
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9247 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2003 at 9:55 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



345 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-02-05 06:47:09 PM
It shouldnt have mattered. If this was a state case, yes it was relevant. To a federal case, no.
 
2003-02-05 07:11:38 PM
Well, it SHOULDN'T have mattered, but it obviously did to these jurors...
 
2003-02-05 07:21:13 PM
The judge in the case refused to let jurors hear Rosenthal's defense: that he was growing the drug for medical use, something legal under state law while illegal under federal law.

I'm going with local government. This isn't The United State of America. If each state government cannot create and enforce its own laws, why have a state government?
 
2003-02-05 07:35:29 PM
Basic ConLaw: The Constitution (thereby Federal law) is the Supreme law of the land. Nothing, not even any state can contradict it. Until Federal law changes it doesnt matter what a bunch of smelly hippies and stupid druggies in CA or AZ vote.*

*Not all people that voted to legalize marijuana fall into the above categories.
 
2003-02-05 08:10:08 PM
This is utter crap, I don't give a dang about the legaleze, Federal-Over-States BS. What I care about is justice ( like it ever happens in this nation these days ) and the right to live a life without being harassed by a bunch of jack-booted fascists and lying prosecutors. Thanks to people voting for fiends we now have this garbage of unwarrented searches, asset forfeitures without evidence and arbitrary arrests on the grounds of possible anti-Americanism. The fact that evidence was withheld by the prosecution alone should irk anyone who cares about freedom and democracy. Sure, the Feds have had supreme power since the War of Yankee Aggression, and we've all paid dearly for that state of affairs. So here we are in a war against terrorism, a war against the poor, a war against drugs, a war against freedom, truth, education, voting rights and economic growth. Thanks Feds!

Ed's getting screwed, that's all there is to it. He's a high profile guy who's written some fine grow books and advocates helping sick people with a plant that isn't controlled by the Pharmaceutical Conspiracy. The Feds ought to hear the voices of all the people, now a vast majority, that feel smoking pot isn't as bad as corporate corruption. Ed tried to give weed to sick people. Corporate CEOs stole billions of dollars from investors. Ed faces 25 to life, the corporate thieves face a slap on the wrist.

Something's got to be done folks. The Federal govenment is completely out of control. If it is not reigned in soon get ready to strap on the brown shirts and practice sief-heiling Ashcroft and Friends.

I doubt any of the quasi-conservatives here will agree, but I don't care either. I happen to have many conservative views. One view is that the government has too much power, takes too much from the populace and sticks it's nose into too many businesses. I also think it is very conservative to believe that the people can make better decisions than bureaucrats in Washington D.C. So flame on, I don't care. I vote, probably more than many of the quasi-conservatives can say. Too bad no one I vote for ever gets into office. Perhaps some day Americans will pull their heads out, but it'll probably be too late. One cannot vote while working in a concentration camp. Too busy making trinkets for the oligarchy.

/rant
 
2003-02-05 08:16:13 PM
...The judge in the case refused to let jurors hear Rosenthal's defense....Judge Charles Breyer did not allow defense lawyers to introduce testimony on that issue because growing marijuana for any reason is a federal offense...

Hmmmm. By this logic, considering EVERY criminal case is an attempt to prosecute a defendant for a local/state/federal offense.... we should just abandon this whole "trial" thing, eh?

Any lawyers here who can translate the judge's rationale?
 
2003-02-05 08:25:38 PM
CrazyCurt:

Your views aren't really conservative, they're Libertarian... (like me).

And its an important distinction alot of people who eventually side with "conservatives" don't realize...

conservatives do believe in less government with it comes to economic issues... but then they're willing to put our tax money right back into the government to fight "moral" issues....

So its just as bad as liberalism...

Liberals want to take my money and give it to people too lazy to work for it.

Conservatives want to take my money and stop people from doing anything Jesus wouldn't do.

The only thing conservatives have going for them is they'll generally bend to any issue that is "smaller, less intrusive government"... and its more often than not the fanatical ones who are so pro-morals...

Nevertheless... i'd be willing to bet most people who call themselves "conservative" are really Libertarian, but just don't know anything about Libertarianism.

check it out:
www.lp.com
 
2003-02-05 08:39:08 PM
Card-carrying member Downstairs, but I'm more of a patriopsychotic-anarchomaterialist. Praise "Bob". Trouble is the Libertarians never have a chance and last election our Libertarian gubernatorial candidate went on a radio show and spat on the host. Pretty darned un-Libertarian, I called up and told him so. I voted for myself. Next time I'm voting Monster Raving Loony Party, with me as candidate. I plan to dress as strangely as possible and campaign on the streets with loony slogans. My campaign promise will be to have the California State Legislature replaced by zoo animals, and to have California secceed and become a territory of Lichtenstein. I'll need more loony ideas but those are my first campaign promises.
 
2003-02-05 08:42:25 PM
Oops forgot the Monster Raving Loony Party website.

Monster Raving Loony Party

Mostly British but heck we could use this sort of thing in the USA. Politics are insane so may as well go all the way over the edge! After all, schizophrenics vote too.
 
2003-02-05 08:56:10 PM
Kill someone, get 20 years.
Grow a plant, get 85 years.

Sounds like justice to me.
 
2003-02-05 09:12:54 PM
I feel so much safer knowing this guy is behind bars.
 
2003-02-05 09:16:39 PM
Those jurors are asking for trouble. They're lucky if they don't get jailed as "enemy combatants".

The potgrowing dude was a terrorist. I know cuz I saw it on TV: no drugs, no terrorism.
 
2003-02-05 09:44:48 PM
You guys are kind of overlooking the fact that he is guilty, aren't you?

OK, maybe that ain't justice, but it is the law. Laws are often unfair. As Anatole France once said, "the law, in its great equanimity, forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread to feed their children."

This guy was convicted on exactly the same principles that allowed the Federal Government to prosecute KKK members for lynchings and hate crimes when those crimes were perfectly legal in backwards states and localities.

No state can make a law or policy that contradicts the supreme law of the land. California may not do so for the purpose of growing wacky terbacky any more than Alabama may do so for the purpose of lynching non-whites.

For future reference:

1. no matter which state you are in, no matter what your local governor or mayor may claim, no matter what loony local laws may be passed which imply otherwise, you are breaking the law if you grow medical marijuana. If you do so, you are guilty of a federal crime.

2. no matter which state you are in, no matter what your local governor or mayor may claim, no matter what loony local laws may be passed which imply otherwise, you are breaking the law if you lynch a black guy for having sex with a white woman. If you do so, you are guilty of a federal crime.


Unfortunately, however, this schmuck got caught in the middle of a power struggle between the Feds and the Locals. I think it was malicious for the Feds to prosecute one specific individual before getting the state laws overturned in court. I don't think their feud with California should be settled by sending someone to prison for life.

A much more entertaining arrest/prosecution would have been for the Feds to arrest the governor of California for signing the bill (assuming that's how it works in California), since he surely knew it was blatantly illegal when he signed it. Now watching the gov take the perp walk out in cuffs of the state cap - that would be much more fun than prosecuting some dude in Birkenstocks.

Scary, but fun.
 
2003-02-05 09:55:30 PM
Has anyone noticed that the Feds are ONLY going after California residents that legally grow? There are other states with medical marijuana laws, but no one ever gets popped by paramilitary guys in black bullet-proof suits in those other states. Is this just an anomaly or are the Feds punishing only California? Maybe I've just missed stories about Arizonans or Oregonians. Or maybe the Feds just hate California, know we have weak lawmakers in Congress and want to teach all us "liberal longhairs" a lesson. What can it be?
 
2003-02-05 09:57:55 PM
That's nice. Can we have a boobies link, please?
 
2003-02-05 09:58:27 PM
Only one way to send a message to these pinheads - vote the motherfarkers out.
 
2003-02-05 09:58:41 PM
/clear smoke

Its still illegal? Oh man....
 
2003-02-05 10:01:07 PM
I just read the guy is out on bail awaiting sentencing. God help us.
 
2003-02-05 10:01:23 PM
I'm going with local government. This isn't The United State of America. If each state government cannot create and enforce its own laws, why have a state government?

Riitzen: That's exactly what Strom Thurmond was asking back in '48. Not that I agree with any of this crap; pot should be decriminalized (legalize it and the gov't will screw it up). But watch out for those states' rights arguments.
 
2003-02-05 10:01:39 PM
conflicting laws, illogical....Nomad.. must...terminate...
 
2003-02-05 10:02:11 PM
Silly people, it's for your own good.

Sheesh. Making your own laws. Who do you think you are, corporate scions with enormous truckloads of money?
 
2003-02-05 10:02:38 PM
this is sad :(. i wish cali would become its own country. that would kick some ass
 
2003-02-05 10:04:35 PM
Coachwdb:

Only one way to send a message to these pinheads - vote the motherfarkers out.

Not true... There is such thing as jury nulification. it is much stronger than and easier to pull of than voting the bastards out of office. Unfortunatly we have shiatty judges that do their best to make sure jurors do not vote their concious (Sp?).

The idea behind jury nullification is that jurors not only vote on whether the defendant is guilty but also vote based on whether they think the law is just. It was because of jury nullification that the fugitive slave law was NEVER enforced. it is also because of jury nullification that the founder of Pennsylvania was able to come to america instead of rotting away in a English Jail.

Check out www.FIJA.org for more info. FIJA=fully informed jury association (or something like that).

Travis
 
2003-02-05 10:06:05 PM
Feds are ONLY going after California residents that legally grow?

i'll bet that guy in that car chase with the police last night here in CA musta thought he was on drugs when he drove onto the set of the SWAT movie being filmed and he almost hit a leer jet that had "crashed" onto the bridge....
 
2003-02-05 10:06:08 PM
I live in san francisco and everyone I know with a "medical marijuana" is NOT sick they are easy to get and its all about getting stoned and nothing to do with helping the sick
 
2003-02-05 10:06:09 PM
Well said, CrazyCurt.
 
2003-02-05 10:06:57 PM
I do find it interesting that the uptright/tight Conservatives seem to want to fly the banner of states' rights--that is, until some state has the temerity to pass a law they don't like.
 
2003-02-05 10:07:49 PM
jdJoe

The Constitution (thereby Federal law) is the Supreme law of the land, Nothing, not even any state can contradict it.

Thereby federal law is an awfully big jump. This assumes that all federal law is constitutional. Where in the constitution does it grant the feds the power to regulate drugs? keep in mind they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Was there another amendment that banned marijuana that I was unaware of?

Travis
 
2003-02-05 10:08:03 PM
Well, if they gotta 'weed' out the problem-makers...ah hell I just wanted to make a pun...erm...ahh...it's a trap!

*runs away*
 
2003-02-05 10:09:04 PM
*Sigh*: Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you can't smoke weed. It's not like it has to be this way for ever

can't some people just grow up and realize that it's not the government's business if i smoke weed, or own a gun for that matter
 
2003-02-05 10:09:25 PM
does anyone know of anything we CAN DO for Ed?
 
2003-02-05 10:12:19 PM
Hehehe I was watching the Simpsons last night (an old one with Ned and his Leftorium) and ned says he has to vacate his store because it's becoming "libertarian party headquarters"

I don't know why but it was amusing
 
2003-02-05 10:12:48 PM
well there is only one reason that marijuana isn't legal and that the GD old people and PC hate mongers in this counrty that hear the word drug and freak out. As a non-durg user i fully support the the legalizing of it in any form. if treated like alcohol where its legal to carry it and used in designated areas like pot bars and not allowed in public i don't see why it can't be legal.
 
2003-02-05 10:12:58 PM
02-05-03 08:10:08 PM CrazyCurt

Nailed. It.
 
2003-02-05 10:13:22 PM
So what if it's about getting high? So is alcohol, and cigarettes. Only difference is marijuana is much, much less harmful.

It's about moderation. People should be allowed to indulge themselves. Smoking pot every day is bad for you (though not as bad as drinking or using tobacco every day); smoking a joint a week is nearly harmless.

Transforming otherwise law abiding, contributing members of society into economic liabilities and stealing their property just makes no sense. It is evil, wrong and insane.
Orewellian, in fact. Power for the sake of power.
 
2003-02-05 10:13:43 PM
I love me!
 
2003-02-05 10:13:45 PM
Speaking of National versus States, I wonder what Senator Dan Burton, from my home state Indiana thinks about this. A high-profile advocate of the War on Drugs, he used his power to get his son, Danny Burton, off scott-free for growing 100+plants..........

How do you spell justice again?

Let's give Ed the CHAIR!!!

p.s. I often see Danny shooting pool in the local pool hall..... He's pretty damn good.....I wonder what Ed thinks of that as he rots in jail...........
 
2003-02-05 10:15:17 PM
Main Entry: [2]dare
Function: noun
Date: 1594
1 : an act or instance of daring : CHALLENGE

I suggest my man took a dare and lost.
 
2003-02-05 10:16:09 PM
It didn't take this long for the prohibition to end, when are they going to get the message and realise what a massive waste of money it is trying to ban marijuana.

Ed's daughter is going to be a hottie, there is a pic of her in the LATimes today.
 
2003-02-05 10:17:26 PM
How long is Ed going to jail for?
 
2003-02-05 10:17:27 PM
It was also because of jury nullification that untold numbers of Klansmen and other asshats got away with murder (literally, in come cases) in the persecution of blacks and other minorities.

Jury nullification is a power, not a right. There's a huge difference. (I have the right to bear arms. If I exercise that right and obtain a gun, I have the power to shoot you. In some circumstances--if you're trying to kill me--I may have every right to shoot you as well. In other circumstances--if you're doing nothing to threaten me or anyone else--I have no right whatsoever to do that. But the fact that I don't have the right can't stop me from exercising the power; it can only result in my receiving prison time or death after the fact.)

The power of jury nullification is a very dangerous one. It exists, among other reasons, because it would be more dangerous not to give juries that power--in order to prevent jury nullification, the deliberations of the jury would have to be monitored, and that would present a simply huge risk of governmental abuse.) But the fact that it exists doesn't mean that it's A Good Thing. The fact that it's sometimes used for good purposes doesn't mean that it's A Good Thing either.
 
2003-02-05 10:17:41 PM
Evidence should be presented for each side. Re the sorting out of facts, leave it to the jurors, and lawyers presentations. This was MAJOR evidence, not just an extraneous witness...
 
2003-02-05 10:18:57 PM
I hope the jurors sue the government for intentional infliction of emotional harm :)
 
2003-02-05 10:18:59 PM
1. submitted 2 or 3 days ago (no, I don't care, just making note)
2. Rosenthal is known as the "Guru of Ganja" (something to shoot for, kids!)
 
2003-02-05 10:19:07 PM


Hope this works...
 
2003-02-05 10:19:35 PM
CrazyCurt:

Absolutely... thats the problem with alot of higher-profile Libertarians, they come off as kooks. Not as much as, say, the Green Party (all of which ARE kooks).... but they still come off with that "third party radical stigma"

People like Bush, Gore, Clinton and the people who advise them know politics and know how to present a candidate.

And there's nothing wrong with this... you gotta make people happy, comfortable, able to relate to you...

Its unfortunate the third-party candidates / Libertarians aren't as savvy....
 
2003-02-05 10:19:50 PM
Where in the constitution does it grant the feds the power to regulate drugs?
---
Commerce clause.
 
2003-02-05 10:19:56 PM
Asshat *cough* i mean Tomasso said:
Anatole France once said, "the law, in its great equanimity, forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread to feed their children."


The only thing wrong with that is that the rich don't need to steal bread to feed their children. Almost all laws are designed to protect the richest investments. Not the poor peoples. Just look at the state of Kentucky where the Kentucky PUBLIC DEFENDERS are saying they can't take any more poor clients. WTF? This is your rational?

This guy was convicted on exactly the same principles that allowed the Federal Government to prosecute KKK members for lynchings and hate crimes when those crimes were perfectly legal in backwards states and localities.

How can you even begin to compare the two crimes? One of them obviously hurts others, (lynchings for all you asshats who can't tell the difference) and one is just as obviously a healing remedy. How is it that almost 20% of states have MEDICAL marijuana laws? Asshat.

2. no matter which state you are in, no matter what your local governor or mayor may claim, no matter what loony local laws may be passed which imply otherwise, you are breaking the law if you lynch a black guy for having sex with a white woman. If you do so, you are guilty of a federal crime.

Yes, but at the same time you are overlooking the fact that racial profiling, racial disparity, and racism are prominent parts of the american government and the judicial system. In fact, people who commit these crimes against people of color are often given awards for their service!

Welcome to the real world Tomasso, when the revolution comes, it's people like you who will be the first against the wall.
 
2003-02-05 10:20:11 PM
Mahaka75
does anyone know of anything we CAN DO for Ed?

Help Ed here
 
2003-02-05 10:20:28 PM


Totally bogus, dude.
 
Displayed 50 of 345 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report