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  
•       •       •

9248 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
 
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.
 
2003-02-05 10:20:50 PM
one of the grievances against king George III from the declaration of independance...

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury."

of course the biggest benifit of trial by jury is the government has to convince a very large majority of the population that a law is just in order to get a worthwhile convinction rate.

This case illustrates how such benifits are again being deprived from us.

Revolution anyone?
 
2003-02-05 10:21:17 PM
thanks MorteDiem
 
2003-02-05 10:21:36 PM
Unfortunatly we have shiatty judges that do their best to make sure jurors do not vote their concious (Sp?).
---
Thank God, because jurors aren't there to vote their conscience, they are there to make determinations of questions of fact. It's the Supreme Court's job to determine if a law is unjust, not Joe Sixpack, who could only name four amendments, at most.
 
2003-02-05 10:22:19 PM
02-05-03 10:20:50 PM Tpahl
Im in
 
2003-02-05 10:23:18 PM
Tomasso: I don't think anyone would mind near as much if they locked-up the Guv.
 
2003-02-05 10:23:21 PM
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th.

There, I just named 5 amendments :P
 
2003-02-05 10:23:49 PM
I really hope this dude also wasn't at fault for getting that poor girl pregnant that we all saw during the super bowl commertial.
 
2003-02-05 10:24:01 PM
Sex0r

Where in the constitution does it grant the feds the power to regulate drugs? Commerce clause.


then why did they go through all the trouble of passing an amendment to get alcohol illegal?
 
2003-02-05 10:24:12 PM
Ed Rosenthal's Amazon results

BTW, why haven't the authors of the Anarchist Cookbook been prosecuted? They've done a hell of a lot more damage to society than Rosenthal has...
 
2003-02-05 10:26:48 PM
People are so ignorant. You can't go around breaking the laws that you do not want to follow. The law may be asinine, so get it changed. The law may also very well be useful and important. I don't believe posting rates of speed is fair, if my car can go 150mph, I should be able to drive that fast. Right? Where does the government get the right to tell me how fast I can drive? This is basically your argument, that the government has no right to make laws that you don't agree with.

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.

Do you seriously think that the "Pharmaceutical Conspiracy" won't try to corner the market on medical marijuana? Hmmm, we can make billions with this newly legalized aid, or we can allow scumbags off the street to make some money... which should we choose...? This is the main point that people who advocate the legalization of marijuana seem to miss. They believe that it will allow "poor" people to make some cash through growing their own product and selling it. Major corporations will take over the industry. Remember tobacco? It too had roots as a medicinal aid. Big business will become the major provider of medical marijuana, and only business will benefit.

The only logical solution, according to what I have taken from Fark threads, is to overthrow the current government and to create a new, better one in its place. This new, improved government will be a socialist republic where all people have a say and everyone is represented.

I don't care what you smoke/drink/shove up your bum as long as it only effects you. You have no right to cause harm to another person or their property. If you want to smoke [insert choice here] go right ahead, but do it where those around you are ok with it. Smoking of all kinds should be banned from public places, like sporting events and such, because those who attend do not have much of a choice if you decide to smoke. As far as I am concerned you can do whatever you want, as long as it you are the one that all the consequences (good and bad) fall on.

/misguided rant
 
2003-02-05 10:26:50 PM
Haven't read any of the comments, just buzzing through here, but I think the judge acted properly based on the law. The law on the other hand smells fishy. I find it hard to swallow that a judge can withhold a mentally competant defendant's testimony. Even if the defendant has faulty reasoning, so long as the jury is made aware of what the laws say, it shoudln't matter.
 
2003-02-05 10:27:21 PM
Ya know they went after King when he spoke out on Vietnam.
 
2003-02-05 10:28:40 PM
CrazyCurt - great job

All in favor of a National Fark Party that believes in delving to the bottom of every issue and stiving to find truth through research and discussion post AYE

I am starting to believe the few people on this website that think are they only ones in this country who care (about anything).

I believe it all stems from a key difference in two philosophies, the first person the independant being (these stupidfarks who think their personal benifit is completion) and communial people (people who understand that people are to a country (the U.S. or the world community on a larger scale) as human body cells are to a person. If we all work together to try to help everyone and make as many people as possible, if we all have that goal then we can all be satisfied.

man... I hope someone understands that cause I don't have time to explain it fully....prolly look like the time cube guy
 
2003-02-05 10:28:51 PM
then why did they go through all the trouble of passing an amendment to get alcohol illegal?
---
/shrug. For one thing, the Commerce Clause, and the Constitution in general, is read more liberally in terms of giving the federal government more power over the states today than it was back then. States were much more powerful back then and the commerce clause was read much more narrowly.
 
2003-02-05 10:28:59 PM
to rehash my last thoughts...

All of you opposed to Medicinal MaryJane I ask to consider this: If you were undergoing cancer therapy, going through pain like you'd never experienced the likes of before, taking drug cocktails costing thousands of dollars, suffering daily the nausea effects of those drugs-would you smoke a little reefer for the pain and nausea? Or would you look in the mirror every morning youre actually able to get up and and think to yourself,"Damn hippie potheads", agreeing with our current federal drug policy? I challenge ANYONE who disagrees with medical legalization to provide valid reasoning as to why. Its a gateway drug?!? Would you give a rats ass if youor your brother/mother/sister were dying? Your beliefs would change with a quickness-mine did.
Silence is compliance. The simple truth of the matter is too many powerful industries(liquor, textiles, lumber, corrections, tobacco, etc.) stand to have their bottom line drop if the Federal government were to legalize-if only for medicinal purposes. A shift in federal policy would only serve to justify the belief unspoken by many that marijuana could possibly really not be the evil its made out to be. Its an idea propagated by big money with big lobbyists who donate big money to the re-election campaigns of people who, with that aid keeping them in office, will never change a policy that is simply more profitable to enforce than ever feasibly would be to change even if it is potentially better for a minority of suffering constituents. Big business wont risk letting that happen-it could be bad for shareholders.
On a recreational level, I belive Phillip Morris still has packaging from softpacks, hardpacks and cartons left from the early seventies in storage for their"Marlboro Golds"-what was to be their marijuana cigarette(coming from the last time there was a push to legalize-for general use). They likely will never see the light of day.
With regulation by the federal government the could regulate the dosage, toxicity, and distibution chain of said cigarettes-seriously. Consider the average recreational user pays, what, 40-50 bucks for a baggie of "good dope". With federal oversight they could regulate the flow of it, bringing it down to a wholesale price that essentially drive the "crime" aspect out of it-it just wouldnt be profitable for the pusher to sell. They could also tax it in pretty much any form, from cigs to hemp denim(which by the way lasts around ten times longer than cotton fibers). $5 pack of Golds with a $35 tax on them. same price for the user, just a redistribution of profits-from indirectly to directly into the public coffers. Hemp, a form with much less toxicity(about.5%)has innumerable valid commercial uses. Being that its a quickly renewing resource, paper mills could use it instead of cutting down old growth forests that treehuggers are so fond of, thus pacifying another group thats a thorn in the side of big government...Blame your friend Hearst for wanting to sell more newspapers for the paranoia that brought about these arcane laws in the first place and Big business and your own silence for them still being on the books. Free Ed Rosenthal.
Anyone care to comment?
 
2003-02-05 10:30:13 PM
Do you seriously think that the "Pharmaceutical Conspiracy" won't try to corner the market on medical marijuana? Hmmm, we can make billions with this newly legalized aid, or we can allow scumbags off the street to make some money... which should we choose...?

and Do you seriously think I will pay for some thing that (someday) I can legaly grow?
 
2003-02-05 10:32:30 PM
02-05-03 10:09:04 PM Chrisifa
*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


I hope you're talking about your country, otherwise wtf do you care. You don't live here anyway.
 
2003-02-05 10:33:39 PM
02-05-03 10:28:59 PM EveryoneLovesCleanUndies

I would comment, but that's perfect.
 
2003-02-05 10:33:46 PM
KickahaOta

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.


The remedy for that is a system of checks and balances. A local jurisdiction, whether in police or courts, that allows KKK'ers to murder people and get away with it is violating the 14th Amendment by denying the "equal protection of the law," making itself liable to federal civil rights intervention
 
2003-02-05 10:34:15 PM
Look, I support pot and the free practice of pot related activities, but doesn't anyone want to talk about the Civil War?

That was about state's rights too, but I don't see anyone leaping to the cause of slavery...
 
2003-02-05 10:34:33 PM
From the 2002 Federal Rules of Evidence:

"RULE 401: 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

"RULE 403: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury..."

My guess is that the judge didn't want to "confuse the issues." Then again, I'm not exactly acing my evidence class.
 
2003-02-05 10:34:47 PM
Theflyingdutchman

People are so ignorant. You can't go around breaking the laws that you do not want to follow. The law may be asinine, so get it changed.

they did change it. The feds are ignoring that fact.
 
2003-02-05 10:34:50 PM
Why is it that so many states have passed legislation to legalize pot for medicinal use, but there has been no vote on a federal level to do the same? Is it a matter of more signatures needed to get it on a federal ballot? NORML has been lobbying for legalization for years with little success. Maybe it's time all of the people who say they are for legalization (even if only for medical use) to stand up and say that enough is enough. There are many ways to let your views be know... Write a letter to you Congressman (or woman)... Write a letter to the President (not that he'll ever read it, 'cause we all know that he can't read)... or even write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. Whatever you do, the worst thing you can do is to sit there and be silent. If you want things to change, make it known.
 
2003-02-05 10:35:17 PM
EveryoneLovesCleanUndies

Well said.
 
2003-02-05 10:35:18 PM
Anyone care to comment?

yes, Hearst and his friends at DuPont are basically why hemp/weed is illegal. kinda ironic that the first two drafts of Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper.
 
2003-02-05 10:35:39 PM
No such thing as a federal voter referendum.
 
2003-02-05 10:35:59 PM
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you can't smoke weed

Thats because the constitution isn't a set of laws, its a set of guidelines and principles.

Federal law comes after it, then states, then cities, then your household (essentially).

What A LOT of people get wrong is the constitution is to be "interpreted" not "followed." Federal Law is to be followed. All laws under Federal Law are to be followed, as long as they don't contradict the laws above them.
 
2003-02-05 10:36:31 PM
...Joe Sixpack, who could only name four amendments, at most.

i can name 10 without even saying a number...bill of rights :-p
 
2003-02-05 10:37:09 PM
they did change it. The feds are ignoring that fact.
----
No, it just that the state law doesn't matter. When state and federal laws conflict, federal laws are supreme.
 
2003-02-05 10:37:13 PM
Sex0r
shrug. For one thing, the Commerce Clause, and the Constitution in general, is read more liberally in terms of giving the federal government more power over the states today than it was back then. States were much more powerful back then and the commerce clause was read much more narrowly.

In other words they are ignoring the constitution as it was written. Okay. I will accept that answer. Time for a revolution.
 
2003-02-05 10:37:21 PM
Twentythree:

Trying to pin slavery on states' rights ignores the many virtues of federalism.
 
2003-02-05 10:39:12 PM
So this guy could possibly get life for growing pot. Doesn't that seem a little excessive and cruel?

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
 
2003-02-05 10:39:13 PM
WhereMyHatIsAt:

Big whoop. Name every right in the Bill of Rights.
 
2003-02-05 10:39:55 PM
TwentyThree : ALL men (and women) are created equally. Slavery is bad, mmm-kay?
 
2003-02-05 10:40:31 PM
Impaler:

It may be cruel, but it's not unusual. That's an "and", not an "or."
 
2003-02-05 10:41:04 PM
In other words they are ignoring the constitution as it was written. Okay. I will accept that answer. Time for a revolution.
---
Umm...no, they aren't ignoring the way it was written. The Constitution doesn't say what activities fall under the commerce clause, it simply states that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, i.e. instrumentalities of commerce, channels of commerce and/or activities which affect commerce. The Supreme Court determines how far this right of the federal government extends.
 
2003-02-05 10:41:04 PM
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.

Every amendment in the bill of rights.
 
2003-02-05 10:41:09 PM
Hey, all I can say is the guy is pretty gracious for thanking the jurors when he might go to jail (justly or unjustly).

I wouldn't be so calm.
 
2003-02-05 10:41:11 PM
 
2003-02-05 10:41:46 PM
Makaha75:

The problem is it doesn't work that way. Read up on economies of scale. The larger the quantity one produces, the less each individual unit costs to produce (usually). This is why large corporations can charge less for the same product than a small startup can. By producing huge amounts, a company can sell you a product at a lower price than it would cost you to produce it yourself.

I don't care what the product is, legalization will just lead to more abuse, by both [some (not all)] individuals and abuse by the producers. The government will tax the fark out of the good, and the consumer will get farked over yet again. Plus tax revenues will be needed to set up rehab centers and anti-abuse campaigns. The easiest way is just to leave it illegal and skirt the law. If only the government dropped its useless war on drugs, and just gave me the money, everything would be perfect and everyone would be happy.

Oh, and why don't you grow your own produce, tobacco, grain, or cotton?

Exactly. Think next time. Ok?
 
2003-02-05 10:41:50 PM
All laws under Federal Law are to be followed, as long as they don't contradict the laws above them.

The constition is not to be interpreted as you say, but followed. It is the suupreme law of the land and it is quite clear about many things.

here is the tenth amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In other words drugs are a state issue. Any federal law that says otherwise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and should be ignored.
 
2003-02-05 10:42:32 PM
In other words drugs are a state issue. Any federal law that says otherwise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and should be ignored.
---
Try the Commerce Clause.
 
2003-02-05 10:43:33 PM
here's one for all of you. the recent round of marijuana ads are saying "it's more harmful than we thought." IIRC, the gov't is basically refusing to sponsor any research into any sort of medicinal value in MJ. so where are they coming up with the claim that "it's more harmful than we thought"???
 
2003-02-05 10:43:45 PM
Sex0r

When state and federal laws conflict, federal laws are supreme.

And when Federal law and the constitution conflict the constitution is supreme. And the federal law that you feel conflicts with the state law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Travis
 
2003-02-05 10:44:33 PM
That's an "and", not an "or."

and that's a "punishments" not a "punishment"
 
2003-02-05 10:44:51 PM
And when Federal law and the constitution conflict the constitution is supreme. And the federal law that you feel conflicts with the state law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
---
Explain how federal drug law conflicts with the Constitution in light of the COMMERCE CLAUSE.
 
2003-02-05 10:44:56 PM
Theflyingdutchman

You're kidding right? People in the south DO still grow tobacco, make moonshine, etc... all just so they don't have to pay tax or be "governed". People all over everywhere do. Plus, with a wealth of knowledge (from ed) already on hand, it would be foolish NOT to grow your own.
you don't smoke, do you?
 
2003-02-05 10:45:20 PM
Good luck with Tpahl, Sex0r.

:)
 
2003-02-05 10:45:32 PM
oh yeah. also saw something on the news yesterday about congress' analysis of the DARE program. their conclusion: IT DOESN'T WORK!
 
2003-02-05 10:45:40 PM
Oh, and why don't you grow your own produce, tobacco, grain, or cotton?

Exactly. Think next time. Ok?


Ever here of a garden? I brew my own beer.
 
2003-02-05 10:46:16 PM
Theflyingdutchman

legalization will just lead to more abuse

Do you have an explanation why drugs were not a problem UNTIL they were banned?
 
2003-02-05 10:46:47 PM
here is the tenth amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In other words drugs are a state issue. Any federal law that says otherwise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and should be ignored.


Here, you get a cookie for being the first intelligent poster.
 
2003-02-05 10:47:00 PM
Dutchman:
take your own advice before you post your unsubstantiable drivel...
 
2003-02-05 10:48:48 PM
Here, you get a cookie for being the first intelligent poster.
---
Try taking a class in Con Law.
 
2003-02-05 10:49:35 PM
It tink da only way to make this stupidity shrivel up and become history, is to prove that Medical Marijuana and Marijuana in general is not a threat to human beings, or, what threat does exist, is minimal and at a level tangent to that of alcohol or tobacco. There is so much Bullshiat research out there that states marijuana is a threat to the general populace for 'x' reason, and I tink that is why, moreso than any popular conspiracy, that marijuana is not re-evaluated for decriminalization.

Unfortunutley, this begs the question as to how to conduct unbiased research proving otherwise that would be accepted on a wide enough basis to change the law at a federal level.

Possibly using the results of foreign studies? I have no idea. This is a sticky morass of doo.
 
2003-02-05 10:50:52 PM
Tpahl, Young_fart:

The commerce clause is not overriden by Amend. X. You don't have to like it, that's merely the Constiutional rationale.
 
2003-02-05 10:52:02 PM
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the commerce clause apply only to interstate commerce??

If so, then why would the feds have jurisdiction over marijuana grown and distributed only in CA??

I think the federal drug laws, as they're being applied in this case, are unconstitutional.
 
2003-02-05 10:52:14 PM
Sex0r:

"Try taking a class in Con Law."

:)
 
2003-02-05 10:52:54 PM
Oh yes,
Thank you to those who took the time to read my Boobies-I for one DO try to think before I post(not so veiled reference). And thank you again to those who thought enough of it to post about it.
 
2003-02-05 10:53:06 PM
The wisdom of the laws making medical marijuana illegal aren't the debate here really. Whether anyone likes it or not, marijuana is an illegal drug, so therefore Rosenthal was guilty of the crime and deserved the conviction. The judge was also right to not allow the medical marijuana evidence, as that had no relevence to the legal standing of the case, but might gain Rosenthal sympathy from the jury and affect their decision. That would not have been right, as the conviction should be decided from a legal standpoint, not an emotional one.
Also, the federal government does have the right to make laws banning marijuana, the constitution provides for it to make the laws it deems necessary, and those laws always are superior to state laws. It has to be that way, if states could make their own laws contradictory to the laws of the federal government then you wouldn't have a country anymore, you'd have a loose union of states that may or may not decide to work together.
I'm not saying that the system is perfect, or that all federal laws are better than state laws that they contradict, but that's the way it works. From a legal standpoint, the jury's conviction and the judge's decision regarding the evidence were completely correct. If you disagree with the laws making this conviction possible, we are a democracy, the people do have the power to change things, even if forcing change sometimes does seem like trying to climb Mt. Everest with no arms.
It's not even close to a perfect system of government, but it's still better than most of the world has. Hell, you could be living in France where the government raises the white flags everytime a German farmer's stray cow wanders across the border.
 
2003-02-05 10:54:14 PM
OK, the judge probably did not allow the evidence to be presented for two reasons. One, in his view the breaking of a federal law is not a valid defense. Two, presenting that evidence would have probably created an uncomfortable precedent.

Look at it this way. If this guy gets off because he is a state liscenced grower of a controlled substance then that creates precedent that state liscenced growers can grow with out fear of federal law. This in turn weakens the power of the federal law because then a state can try to overtrun federal drug laws by using the 10th ammendment as an argument. This in turn could be used to further reduce the power of the federal government back to its status in the 19th century. This judge does not want his name attached to something that will in effect reduce the power and prestige of his own position.

So yes, justice was ignored so that federal law may reign supreme.
 
2003-02-05 10:54:36 PM
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the commerce clause apply only to interstate commerce??
If so, then why would the feds have jurisdiction over marijuana grown and distributed only in CA??
I think the federal drug laws, as they're being applied in this case, are unconstitutional.
---
No, it doesn't just apply to interstate commerce. Purely intrastate activites can have an effect on interstate commerce, as well.
 
2003-02-05 10:54:58 PM
the real problem is if a normal citizen does something he has nothing to really protect him, but if a celebrity or some rich asshat does something, they'll get a slap on the wrist and no jail time, ask wynona rider.
 
2003-02-05 10:55:43 PM
So yes, justice was ignored so that federal law may reign supreme.
---
Or, the judge didn't let in because it was clearly not relevant.
 
2003-02-05 10:56:03 PM
Sex0r

Explain how federal drug law conflicts with the Constitution in light of the COMMERCE CLAUSE.

It conflicts in the same way any potential federal alcohol law would conflict. This is why there was a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. You do realize that we have the same constitution now as we had back then right?

Anyways the commerce clause allows for regulation not banning.
 
2003-02-05 10:57:26 PM
Speaking of brewing my own beer, one of the homebrew shops by where I live also sells hydroponic(sp?) supplies. I don't know why though.
 
2003-02-05 10:57:29 PM
Powers of Congress, Section 8 U.S Constitution
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes"
 
2003-02-05 10:57:42 PM
Sex0r
Try taking a class in Con Law.

Why? So I can spout off the same pro government propaganda you are giving here? No thanks. I rather continue to think for myself.
 
2003-02-05 10:57:47 PM
FYI:

Ed Rosenthal had been deputized by the City of Oakland. So he was acting in the legal capacity of a city police officer, to enforce a relevant state law having to do with controlled substances (i.e., the state law legalizing medical marijuana).

Therefore, because Rosenthal was a duly deputized officer of the City of Oakland assisting in the implementation of the city's ordinance establishing a medical marijuana program, Mr. Rosenthal had official immunity from prosecution under *FEDERAL* law, namely USC Section 885(d), which states "no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed ... upon any duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof ... who shall be lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances." This law exists in order to protect cops who possess, grow, or use illegal drugs as part of an undercover operation, for example.

Judge Breyer would not allow this to be used as a defense, because he himself had ruled, in a similar case in 1998, that this section of US law (part of the Controlled Substances Act) could not be used to protect growers at the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative. He just thought that allowing it to protect growers would fly in the face of Congress' intent in passing the Controlled Substances Act. I happen to disagree-- after all, the law protects any officer or deputy involved in "the enforcement of ANY law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances."

Click here to read the legal brief by Rosenthal's defense team.
 
2003-02-05 10:58:01 PM
SchlingFo:

What "effects interestate commerce" is so broadly construed that it encompasses every aspect of modern life.

For example, restaurants in the South were desegregated using this argument:

1. Racist restaurant buys out-of-state meat and serves state to state travellers.

2. Blacks being denied service affected interstate commerce.

3. The federal power could be invoked via the Commerce Clause.

(I think I may have combined two cases, but you get the point).

Ed has to sell weed to one guy from Reno and boom, he's in "interstate commerce."
 
2003-02-05 10:58:35 PM
Oops, I suck, but here's the link.

http://www.green-aid.com/immunitybrief.pdf
 
2003-02-05 10:59:06 PM
ZTigerX
The wisdom of the laws making medical marijuana illegal aren't the debate here really. Whether anyone likes it or not, marijuana is an illegal drug,

Not medical marijuana in the state of CA. It is legal.
 
2003-02-05 10:59:40 PM
Anyways the commerce clause allows for regulation not banning.
---
Wrong. Regulation includes banning.

About conflicting in the same way as a ban on alcohol, you do realize that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and that the Constitution is constantly evolving. Quite simply, it doesn't conflict if the Supreme Court says it doesn't. They are the final arbitors of what the Constitution says. End of story.
 
2003-02-05 10:59:43 PM
No sir, I don't like it. And I also think California will be the next battleground for the 10th Amendment, but not because of marijuana.
 
2003-02-05 10:59:52 PM
Oh Man...

I was gonna post a really witty comment,

.

but I got high...

.

Igot high...

.
.
I got high.........
 
2003-02-05 11:00:23 PM
Anyone elsecrap themselves laughing while watching these commercials??
 
2003-02-05 11:01:04 PM
I just skimmed through this thread and gotta say how happy i am to live in Canada. I hope Ed comes here as a refugee to join Renee and Steve in freedom.

JUMP BAIL IF YOU CAN, ED! THE UNDERGREEN RAILROAD CAN TAKE YOU TO A FREE COUNTRY!
 
2003-02-05 11:01:07 PM
It's sad how ignorant people in this country are on this issue - and its *really* sad how people give you a blank stare when you point out how there are towns across America that are named after this crop (for example Hemp Hill, TX where some of the shuttle parts have been found).

But of all the dumb comments on this issue, one on here tonight has the take the prize! The one I'm talking about is the one that says its the "Commerce Clause" that allows the feds to outlaw drugs. Maybe you can explain to me exactly how is a plant that a person grows on their property, used by that owner for their own personal use on that same owners property, is in any way shape or form involved in Interstate Commerce? Then after you do that, maybe you can explain why oh why did Congress go through all the trouble of passing a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol? I mean if the Commerce clause is all they need, why go through the work of getting all of those States on board?

Oh wait..... I know --- its cause drugs and alcohol are different -- yeah..... that's it!!
 
2003-02-05 11:01:20 PM
i have one of Eds books. not only informative but sincerely entertaining while staying technical. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0932551254/qid=1044504002/sr=1-1 /ref=sr_1_1/103-8068662-3255840?v=glance&s=books
 
2003-02-05 11:01:59 PM
Tpahl:

"Why? So I can spout off the same pro government propaganda you are giving here? No thanks. I rather continue to think for myself."

I want to see marijuana legalized as much as Ed...but you have to know your way around the system you're fighting against. If pro-pot people are going to talk about this as a legal matter, they're gonna have to learn the language.
 
2003-02-05 11:02:03 PM
Sex0r
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the commerce clause apply only to interstate commerce??
---
No, it doesn't just apply to interstate commerce. Purely intrastate activites can have an effect on interstate commerce, as well.


So when the constitution says, To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

they appearantly did not mean Among, but actual within. us common folk do not understand what they mean because we have not taken a constitutional law course like Sexor suggests we all do. Like I said already, I will pass if this is what it will make me say!
 
2003-02-05 11:02:48 PM
Sexor,

No, it doesn't just apply to interstate commerce. Purely intrastate activites can have an effect on interstate commerce, as well.

Dude, that's some bullshiat, weak reasoning.

Hell, if they want to stretch it that far, they could say that my plucking my nosehairs has an effect on my productivity, and therefore my financial output.

That will affect intrastate commerce, and then interstate commerce.

Hell, they could legislate ANYTHING with that kind of reasoning.

What bothers me the most about this are the attempts to silence people.

Washington DC had an item on the ballot that would've allowed for the legalization of medical marijuana. Some legislator from a southern state managed to get a bill passed that prevented government funds from being used to count votes on any law that would repeal or reduce penalties for illegal drug use/possession.

They passed a law that took away the people's right to vote on an issue.

It really makes me sick to even think about it.

Oh, and the exit polls showed that the bill would've passed.
 
2003-02-05 11:03:17 PM
Look at it this way. If this guy gets off because he is a state liscenced grower of a controlled substance then that creates precedent that state liscenced growers can grow with out fear of federal law...This judge does not want his name attached to something that will in effect reduce the power and prestige of his own position.

OR if the guy gets convicted while having the defense of being a liscenced grower, that sets precedent that the state can't liscence growers. The judge doesn't want to weaken those types of cases. That's how I'm going to look at it. MMMMM denile.
 
2003-02-05 11:03:40 PM
But of all the dumb comments on this issue, one on here tonight has the take the prize! The one I'm talking about is the one that says its the "Commerce Clause" that allows the feds to outlaw drugs. Maybe you can explain to me exactly how is a plant that a person grows on their property, used by that owner for their own personal use on that same owners property, is in any way shape or form involved in Interstate Commerce? Then after you do that, maybe you can explain why oh why did Congress go through all the trouble of passing a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol? I mean if the Commerce clause is all they need, why go through the work of getting all of those States on board?
---
Listen, farktard, I'm telling you the way it is. Have you taken a Con Law class? Have you gone to law school? Have you passed the bar exam? Somehow I doubt so since you can't even comprehend what I'm telling you.
 
2003-02-05 11:03:57 PM
Sex0r federal drug laws are a clear breach of the 10th ammendment. The federal government does not and should not have the ability to prosecute wholly intrastate drug transactions in a state where those transactions are legal. If the government can prove that the growing of medicinal marijuana does have an impact on interstate comerce then they should show it... because I can see no logical impact that it could have.
 
2003-02-05 11:04:08 PM
I'm impressed Ohjeez. Someone on our side (seems like it anyway) who actually knows law.
 
2003-02-05 11:04:42 PM
Wow there's been alot of somewhat intelligent things being said, and in a marijuana thread no less! I thought all potheads were supposed to be stupid!!
 
2003-02-05 11:04:45 PM
Dude, that's some bullshiat, weak reasoning.
---
Tell it to the Supreme Court, because that's the way it is.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2003-02-05 11:05:25 PM
DC residents have no inherent right to vote. They are not a state. They are the seat of the federal government, ruled by Congress.
 
2003-02-05 11:08:09 PM
I suggest everyone read Civil Disobedience. We have a duty to not follow unjust laws. At one time Slavery was a law. Please tell me how anyone could argue that because it is law means it must therefore be moral, and more importantly, if the law clearly violaties our God given rights to Life, Liberty, Property(Or pursuit of happines, John locke's original wording) then it should be obvious that the constitution has already been violated.
As long as my actions only affect me, they should remain legal. Speeding is a poor excuse for a straw man argument. When you speed you endanger the lives of others on the road. When you drink, smoke tobacco, smoke marijuana you put yourself at a harm, and possibly your relationships. As long as those remain the only possible dangers such acts should remain legal. When you endanger others by drug/alcohol use in a way that would endanger others it should be illegeal. That is why it is illegal to be publicly drunk, to smoke in public buildings, etc...
The best argument against marijuna as it stands now is that you are endangering others by the mere purchase of such articles because they tend to come from proffesional criminal regimes.
That being the only danger, if it can be proven that you grew your own marijuana, I can see no harm to anyone, state or private. The point of having a criminal justice system is to prevent the damage to the public and state and to incapacitate/remove/rehabilitate the people that do put the state and public at danger.
Clearly, I believe that marijuana at best should be a civil offence, not a crime. Let me ask you a question is smoking marijuana more like Rape, battery, forgery, assault, reckless driving, murder, burglary, theft or is it more like Speeding, building without proper permits, lack of car tabs, and other non "criminal" offenses?
 
2003-02-05 11:09:31 PM
Millay

I think the pro pot people HAVE fought this in a legal manner and what has happened is the laws are IGNORED. I think the only way left is for people to not learn the language of our masters (the .gov), but to start voting their concious on juries. lie about your views on the drug war if you have to get on the jury (since juries are supposed to be reandom) and then refuse to convinct if they are guilty of a drug law. Prosecutors love to brag about their conviction rates. when they get below 90-95% they lose their reputation. All it takes is one juror in 12 to throw the case out. that means a very small minority of people can reap havoc on these prosecutors convinction rates. once this happens they will tell the cops to stop arresting these people and wasting everyones time and money on these stupid cases. That is where the pressure to repeal prohibition came from.
 
2003-02-05 11:10:25 PM
Sex0r federal drug laws are a clear breach of the 10th ammendment. The federal government does not and should not have the ability to prosecute wholly intrastate drug transactions in a state where those transactions are legal. If the government can prove that the growing of medicinal marijuana does have an impact on interstate comerce then they should show it... because I can see no logical impact that it could have.
---
Listen, you guys are getting hung up on "interstate". Your strict definition of what is interstate is not the definition of what the Supreme Court uses.

The case that was the basis for their interpretation was a farmer who only grew corn for his *own personal use*. I can't recall the exact details, but he was prosecuted by the government for violating a federal law based on the interstate commerce clause. (It may have had to do with subsidies or something, but the details aren't important). His argument was that since he didn't sell the corn and it was for his own use, it couldnt be interstate commerce. The Supreme Court rejected his argument, and stated that when you look at the *cumulative effects* of this guy growing his own corn and others growing their own corn, then it would affect interstate commerce.
 
2003-02-05 11:10:29 PM
Richiep:

"Maybe you can explain to me exactly how is a plant that a person grows on their property, used by that owner for their own personal use on that same owners property, is in any way shape or form involved in Interstate Commerce?"

Go to www.findlaw.com. Type in this cite:

317 US 111

Or this case name:

Wickard v. Filburn.

Commerce Clause can be used to screw anybody, anywhere.
 
2003-02-05 11:10:38 PM
SchlingFo: Got a link to that bill that the southern legislator got passed? We can get that repealed. We just have to know about it to pressure OUR legislators.
 
2003-02-05 11:11:27 PM
Sex0r:

Wow. Thought of it at the same time!
 
2003-02-05 11:11:34 PM
Guys, if you're really into this, go to law school and get that degree. Anybody can get one. Seriously! As long as you've got the money, there's a law school out there that will pass you. I used to work for this guy that owned the company, and he had this cretin kid that worked in the warehouse, yet treated the employees like he was some kind of prince. Turns out daddy had sent the boy to school to be a lawyer, and they passed him. But the bar would not pass him. He tried the exam so many times that they told him to stop coming back.
 
2003-02-05 11:12:04 PM
Sex0r
Listen, farktard, I'm telling you the way it is. Have you taken a Con Law class? Have you gone to law school? Have you passed the bar exam? Somehow I doubt so since you can't even comprehend what I'm telling you.

No. He seems to understand quite clearly. Just because you took a class and a professor told you their opinion, does not mean their opinion is right.
 
2003-02-05 11:12:17 PM
if the law clearly violaties our God given rights to Life, Liberty, Property(Or pursuit of happines, John locke's original wording) then it should be obvious that the constitution has already been violated
---
Dude, that's from the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legally significant document.
 
2003-02-05 11:13:33 PM
No. He seems to understand quite clearly. Just because you took a class and a professor told you their opinion, does not mean their opinion is right.
---
It's not their opinion, IT'S THE GOD DAMN LAW. Christ, you guys are dense. Lay off the dope.
 
2003-02-05 11:14:07 PM
ZAZ

Yeah - that's absolutley right. They have on their plates in DC "taxation without representation" and not because they are patriotic (as in quoting history). DC people have a very limited ability to control what happens in their own district, and only until recently, did they even have the right to have a mayor. No doubt why they kept electing Marion Barry, just to piss everyone off.
 
2003-02-05 11:14:46 PM
People who feel that corporations whose main goal is to make profits for their investors will not jump on a highly profitable product are retarded. Seriously re-farking-tarded. It happened with alcohol and tobacco. Where there is money to be made, corporate America will be there. Not only does the company itself try to profit, so does the government. Do you seriously think that the government will not tax the fark out of marijuana? If you don't you are more retarded. The current system is perfect, except for wasted war on drugs money.

About abuse, certain people will always abuse substances, mostly caucasians males (refer to stats on alcohol abuse). And as a government has a duty to promote and improve the well being of its members, it will have to set up treatment centers for abusers.

Most people here are really stupid, not understanding basic facts about economics and politics. Where there is money to be made, corporate America will be there.

Impaler, yes I have "here"d of a garden. Where do you get the seeds for your garden and ingredients for your beer? Does Jesus or Allah send you them on a cloud? Because you never go to market, right?

Thapl, I was more referring to abuse by corporations than increased individual abuse. A false price floor would be instituted to raise already bloated profits, but that is more of the book learnin' which you don't fancy. And by your logic, space travel and internet regulations should also be a state issue, right? Neither is in the constitution. As for drugs not being a problem until they were banned, that is the most ignorant thing I have ever read; why would they be banned them.

Makaha75, you have convinced me that we need no government. If people can produce their own alcohol without being "governed" then surely society can run itself without a hierarchal structure.

please respond on how I know nothing about such issues and how your best friend's uncle Kirby saw in a magazine that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes and that the government is not needed and we would all be a lot happier without it. I expect as much. i understand that no one will change their views or even consider another view because this is america and you have a right to be ignorant. Too bad your ignorance might shortly get you sent to a foreign land to die (assuming you are in the ideal age range).
 
2003-02-05 11:15:08 PM
Tpahl:

If pro-pot people want to win, they have to find some way to appeal to the sort of neo-Federalist majority on the Supreme Court. Jury nullification is for nutbags, and changes only individual cases, not the law as a whole.
 
2003-02-05 11:15:54 PM
Sex0r

Listen, you guys are getting hung up on "interstate". Your strict definition of what is interstate is not the definition of what the Supreme Court uses

the constitution does not say interestate. It says 'amongt the several states' You and your Con Law class have deemed this to include BANNING people from growing a plant in their backyard.
 
2003-02-05 11:17:15 PM
Ok. So they're talking about a federal law? How does one get a federal law off the books? One way is to go through the courts. Only the Supreme court can remove a federal law, but how does one get to the Supreme court? From a lower court, so on and so forth. Now at some point, there must be a trial by Jury.

I wonder if the judge left out the evidence so that Rosenthal would be forced to appeal, and hopefully make it up to the Supreme Court so that this silly law can be repealed.
 
2003-02-05 11:17:33 PM
the constitution does not say interestate. It says 'amongt the several states' You and your Con Law class have deemed this to include BANNING people from growing a plant in their backyard.
---
/sigh bangs his head into the desk.

Please tell me how "amongst the several states" is different from interstate.
 
2003-02-05 11:17:46 PM
I would assert that the Decleration of Independace clearly indicates the desires and wishes of our forefathers. And while not everyone who signed the Decleration drafted the constitution (7 people who signed assisted in the draft), it must surely have been in their minds.
That is the legal defense, but that is not the most important defense. You seem to ignore the fact that there IS something more important than the Constitution, something that goes above the constitution, and what the constitution was formed to protect. Our Basic Human Rights.
 
2003-02-05 11:17:56 PM
For everyone who thinks it is wrong to put marijuana growers and users in jail, here are some sites to try visiting.

One thing you can do is to vote Libertarian, visit:
libertarian.org for an overview of libertarianism and the Libertarian Party platform for a more detailed, issue by issue explaination.

If you disagree with libertarians on some issues, but would still like to see marijuana legalized, visit:
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws or The Marijuana Policy Project, for some non-partisan marijuana legalization groups.

If you would like to take individual action, write your representatives at every level of government whether it be city, county, state, or federal.

If you do not believe that marijuana should be legalized, do some more research, maybe you will change your mind. Reading the information available at the websites above is a good start.

If you still have good reasons for marijuana to remain illegal, join or create an organization to help fight its legalization.

Whatever cause you support, be active, help make a difference.
 
2003-02-05 11:18:21 PM
SexOr: You've actually brought up all the points I need to know to start a good discussion at my work (Washington Defender Association) and find out what exactly we can do to remove those pesky feds from my home. Much obliged.
 
2003-02-05 11:18:30 PM
You and your Con Law class have deemed this to include BANNING people from growing a plant in their backyard.
---
And it's pretty clear that regulations includes BANNING or the assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional.
 
2003-02-05 11:19:15 PM
Bullshiat laws require bullshiat tactics to enforce them.


Free weed. Tax the hell out of it. Put the proceeds toward public education.

Crack down on traffickers of physically addictive drugs. Take their assets, sell them, and put the proceeds toward public education.

Increase the taxes on currently legal physically addictive drugs. You know where it should go...


Increase the level of current thought in common education circles, and the War on Drugs will be over within 2 generations.
 
2003-02-05 11:20:17 PM
Perhaps we can all agree that we no longer live in a free country.
 
2003-02-05 11:21:09 PM
Considering the case presented here ; it would appear that the judges ruled that since the product was being sold within a state for profit, it would have an effect on interstate commerce.

While this ruling allows the commerce clause to be used to prevent one from growing and selling pot (even within the borders of one state), i fail to see it's relevance to federal drug laws which explicitly outlaw growing pot.
 
2003-02-05 11:21:14 PM
Look at jury nullification and its effects on alcohol prohibition.
 
2003-02-05 11:21:59 PM
Perhaps we can all agree that we no longer live in a free country.
---
What made you think this country was ever free, or any other for that matter? The US has always been a nation governed by the rule of law.
 
2003-02-05 11:23:30 PM
Prosecutors have to be one of the lowest form of life out there... then again they are lawyers, aren't they.
 
2003-02-05 11:23:42 PM
Fylingdutchman:

Your position on drugs indicates to me that (1) you've never tried them or (2) you did, couldn't handle/didn't like them and now seek to enforce that view on the world at large.

Neither position gives you a great standing in this debate.
 
2003-02-05 11:24:25 PM
Theflyingdutchman
And by your logic, space travel and internet regulations should also be a state issue, right?

*Pulls this out of butt*

'em, was doing research a while ago and came upon that certain aspects of commerce and criminal prosecution are regulated by the states (regarding internet) and vary as such. Sorry, can't be more specific - magic 8 ball not working. However, now that I think of it, this had something to do with the sale of "bootleg" - IE - illegal merchandise (as in copywrite violation).
 
2003-02-05 11:24:52 PM
Flyingdutchman: You are weak. Go home. Find a new thread. Preferably one with Boobies, because you obviously need to chill out and won't smoke a bowl.
 
2003-02-05 11:24:56 PM
Millay
Neither position gives you a great standing in this debate.

he's not debating, here throwing a tantrum...
 
2003-02-05 11:25:07 PM
Ohjeez: Nice post.
 
2003-02-05 11:25:10 PM
Clevershark:

Lowest form of life is the plaintiff in a torts case.
 
2003-02-05 11:27:26 PM
EveryoneLovesCleanUndies - exellent point
 
2003-02-05 11:28:45 PM
Tpahl, its legal in CA as a state law, but not as a federal law, and the federal law has to take precedence. Whether the federal law should exist or not isn't relevant, marijuana is illegal in all 50 states because of it.

I dunno about this Commerce Clause thing, but I believe that laws like this are more under the elastic clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) which basically says that Congress can make any other laws it deems necessary which aren't denied by the Constitution. As the Constitution does not have anything that could be considered a ban on Congress making anti-drug laws, the federal government does legally have the power to ban Marijuana

Elastic Clause:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United Sates, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
 
2003-02-05 11:29:09 PM
Where do you get the seeds for your garden and ingredients for your beer

If I grew pot, I would get the seeds from the pot I grow. What's your point? The reason people don't grow/make a lot of the things they use is becuase it is cheaper/easier to buy them. That would not be the case for a lot of people when it comes to pot.

It doesn't matter. So what if corporations sould pot? And people are aware that the government would tax it. Hell that's a selling point people use to try and legalize it.
 
2003-02-05 11:29:11 PM
Oh my dear SexOr....

Factard?? You're soooo smart and that's the best you can do? Did you think of that the same time you came up with you handle with the word "sex" in it instead of something a little bit more intelligent? (I mean being you are obviously so much smarter then I am!)

To answer your question I have never taken a law class but I once was elected to political office and I even once ran for Congress (oh the nerve of people like me... a non-member of the bar running for Congress!!!)

Now please... before you get offline to look at, or kiss, or whatever it is you do to you very own copy of Black's Law Dictionary (or whatever it is that someone likes you does that makes you so sanctimonious) let me say I'm sorry!!! I mean after all... who am I... a mere mortal... just a member of the "farmers and mechanics" class of people, to have the nerve to think that I have a right to be a congressional representative? I should know that only lawyers should be allowed to be the "law makers!!"

Now that I admit that you're sooooooo much smarter then I am, will you please help me by answering my question? Ohhhh please??? Why did Congress pass the 18th Amendment??? Please Please PLEASE.... share your great wisdom with us!
 
2003-02-05 11:30:29 PM
How many of the farkers that are currently biatching have a law degree? Who here has passed the bar? I think the judge was probably following the letter of the law, which is - as I understand it anyways - that pot is illegal under federal law, no matter what state law says. So change the laws. Don't biatch at the courts.
 
2003-02-05 11:30:48 PM
Millay -- I don't know about that... both recklessly use the legal system, but only one of them can cause you to be imprisoned and potentially murdered by the state...
 
2003-02-05 11:30:50 PM
In Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the Court upheld federal regulation of wheat grown and consumed on a family farm in order to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559-561; Morrison, 529 U.S. at 610-611.

If they grow their own wheat, they would be less likely to buy wheat from out of state.
 
2003-02-05 11:31:08 PM
What made you think this country was ever free, or any other for that matter? The US has always been a nation governed by the rule of law.

I don't think the founders would approve of a government telling a man he can't grow corn on his own property.
 
2003-02-05 11:31:23 PM
As an attorney, I just have to say... There is nothing more farking annoying than a snot-nosed smug law student (i.e SuxOr, Millay) who just LOVES explaining and justifying federal laws that f.uck with basic human rights.

The commerce clause was never intended by those who drafted the Constitution to grant what has basically become unlimited power to the Federal Gubment over all affairs of the states and the citizens living in them.

But hey, if you get lawyers involved, go ahead and throw common sense out the window. After all, the law is just too damn complicated for Joe Sixpack to understand.

Bastards. These are the f.uckers who make a living off the law by using it to suck the blood out of everyday commoners. They should be ashamed, but lack the soul.
 
2003-02-05 11:32:07 PM
The Elastic clause makes it quite clear that it can make laws only dealing with 'Powers vested by this Constitution'. They are not given the power to ban any particular substance in the constitution.


Also in regards to your comment, 'As the Constitution does not have anything that could be considered a ban on Congress making anti-drug laws'

It DOES have just such an article. the 10th amendment.
 
2003-02-05 11:32:25 PM
I_Hate_Iowa -- something tells me you didn't bother reading the article, dude.

Under federal law the judge couldn't have kept evidence about the defendant's status out of the trial.
 
2003-02-05 11:32:44 PM
Sex0r
I disagree, see my previous post:

02-05-03 11:21:09 PM Franky17
Considering the case presented here ; it would appear that the judges ruled that since the product was being sold within a state for profit, it would have an effect on interstate commerce.

While this ruling allows the commerce clause to be used to prevent one from growing and selling pot (even within the borders of one state), i fail to see it's relevance to federal drug laws which explicitly outlaw growing pot.
 
2003-02-05 11:33:05 PM
in keeping with this flame war, I would like to mention that I am going to 'burn one'

Thank you.
 
2003-02-05 11:34:32 PM
Now that I admit that you're sooooooo much smarter then I am, will you please help me by answering my question? Ohhhh please??? Why did Congress pass the 18th Amendment??? Please Please PLEASE.... share your great wisdom with us!
---
I already explained it earlier! English motherfarker. Do you speak it?

The Constitution was interpreted more narrowly back then. The Republic was still fairly new and states rights were strong. Over time, the Supreme Court has broadened its interpretation of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause in particular. Under the current interpretation of the commerce clause, an amendment would be UNNECESSARY because the power to ban marijuana is within the federal government's right under the Commerce Clause. Read Wickard. Read this brief.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/00-151/2000-0151.mer.rep.ht ml
 
2003-02-05 11:35:54 PM
Oops... my mistake, the article seems to have been badly phrased.
 
2003-02-05 11:36:09 PM
This is what I meant to say, but I'm stupid so I forgot.

The judge didn't let the defense be heard because it wasn't relevant. I say it wasn't relevant because what you think has nothing to do with how the law affects you. Saying, "My state law says it was all right, even though the federal law says I can't do it," is the same thing as saying, "I didn't know." Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. And the judge obviously did the right thing because the jurors made their decision based on facts; it is not their job to decide whether the law is just or not in a criminal trial. It is the job of judges to decide that in lawsuits.
 
2003-02-05 11:36:48 PM
I disagree, see my previous post:
---
I did see your previous post, and the case is addressing the farmers growing of wheat for his own personal use.
 
2003-02-05 11:36:56 PM
BlobBrain:

I was trying to explain why the Commerce Clause "unlimited power to the Federal Gubment over all affairs of the states and the citizens living in them." And I agree with you that it has.

But as an att'y, do you brief cases, or just go in there and use "common sense"? Ya gotta play the game.
 
2003-02-05 11:37:00 PM
Got to collect them all...
 
2003-02-05 11:38:59 PM
*Kicks himself for getting involved in a political argument/mini flame war*

Oh well, I always enjoyed a good argument online, and its a better alternative than sleeping
 
2003-02-05 11:39:18 PM
So, how do we ensure that only BlobBrains become lawyers?
 
2003-02-05 11:39:19 PM
Just to confuse things...

Is it not legal to grow marijuana in Alaska for personal use/consumption - and has this not been the case since the 1970's? Or do they not count because you can only really enjoy yourself up there for like 90 days out of the year or if you are high?
 
2003-02-05 11:39:39 PM
Sex0r
This is the second sentence in the web page I linked to:

He sought to enjoin enforcement against himself of the marketing penalty imposed by the amendment of May 26, 1941,1 to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938,2 upon that part of his 1941 wheat crop which was available for marketing in excess of the marketing quota established for his farm.

The phrase "available for marketing" means to me, that he was selling the wheat.
 
2003-02-05 11:39:52 PM
If pot is legalized the tobacco industry will get a hold of it and start adding cyinide and ammonia to add flavor and maybe add nicotine to make it actually addictive. That might be worse than the current state of pot.
 
2003-02-05 11:40:08 PM
Oo, oo! Law! ..so funny.

Slavery was perfectly legal at one time. What did people do? Ignore the bullshiat laws protecting it. Subvert them. Work to change them.

law!=justice

The drug war is a gross waste of lives and money. Oh yeah, and an utter and complete failure, to boot.

Give it up.
 
2003-02-05 11:40:22 PM
Clevershark:

It's hard being a prosecutor--you have to win, defense just has to not lose.
 
2003-02-05 11:43:55 PM
Yes, but you also have to win cases you don't believe in. Which is why the common thought that lawyers have no souls.
 
2003-02-05 11:44:12 PM
If they ever put me on ANY jury involving marijuana -- the guy walks.
 
2003-02-05 11:46:43 PM
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.
-Henry David Thoreau

Shouldn't the city officials that sanctioned the grow operation be charged with conspiracy based on the law and the judges interpretation?

Just a random question.
 
2003-02-05 11:46:48 PM
Millay:

F/uck the Constitution. Are you part of the solution or part of the pollution?

Millay, I know the rules, and challenge them. I refuse to let my inate sense of what is obviously right and what is obviously wrong go by the wayside.

They don't teach social justice in law school. That is a big part of why our law school crank out soulless corporate asslickers. And evil mutherf/uckers who will prosecute (and it IS a choice who does and does not get prosecuted--it is NOT a simple matter of getting every law breaker) a healer and peacefull man like Ed Rosenthal.

The commerce clause, since the Warren court, has been seriously abused. I'm not saying they didn't have good intentions, but look where it has gotten us.

And despite the wise words of Sux0r, the Constitution does not allow the Feds to toss Ed Rosenthal in prison for life for growing pot. An evil and twisted interpretation of that document, on the other hand...

Thanks for lectures, Sux0r. The devil will be waiting for you after you graduate, and will gladly give you a BMW and a nice piece of ass for your soul.
 
2003-02-05 11:46:56 PM
Twenty-five to life? How do ordinary people see this on the news and just accept it as right and good? Smug puritanical bastards, the whole blank-faced lot of them. What we need is a modern-day Moses to inflict locusts upon these nazis: "Let my people go"

Jesus wept. The guy grew plants. How can this verdict - and every one like it that has ever been handed down, and the laws that made them possible - be seen as anything other than screaming, babbling, lip-flapping, hair-ripping, wall-humping insane?

fark it. Obey, submit, go back to sleep.
 
2003-02-05 11:46:57 PM
RavinDave - Better lie through your teeth when they screen you.
 
2003-02-05 11:47:08 PM
Asmodai:

And no defense att'y has ever taken a case they don't believe in?

Amend. VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall...have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

Sometimes, both prosecutors and defense attorneys have to take the good with the bad.
 
2003-02-05 11:47:36 PM
Franky17

"The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding. The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated."

"The Act includes a definition of 'market' and its derivatives so that as related to wheat in addition to its conventional meaning it also means to dispose of 'by feeding (in any [317 U.S. 111, 119] Â form) to poultry or livestock which, or the products of which, are sold, bartered, or exchanged, or to be so disposed of.' 13 ****Hence, marketing quotas not only embrace all that may be sold without penalty but also what may be consumed on the premises.**** Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as 'available for marketing' as so defined and the penalty is imposed thereon. 14 Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat either within or without the quota is sold or intended to be sold. The sum of this is that the Federal Government fixes a quota including all that the farmer may harvest for sale or for his own farm needs, and declares that wheat produced on excess acreage may neither be disposed of nor used except upon payment of the penalty or except it is stored as required by the Act or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture."

...

"The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution . ... It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.' United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119 , 62 S.Ct. 523, 526."

...

********Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. 26 The same consideration might help in determining whether in the absence of Congressional action it would be permissible for the state [317 U.S. 111, 125] Â to exert its power on the subject matter, even though in so doing it to some degree affected interstate commerce. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'********
....
*****************The maintenance by government regulation of a price for wheat undoubtedly can be accomplished as effectively by sustaining or increasing the demand as by limiting the supply. The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the [317 U.S. 111, 128] Â scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial. National Labor Relations Board v. Fainblatt, 306 U.S. 601 , 606, et seq., 307 U.S. 609 , 59 S.Ct. 668; United States v. Darby, supra, 312 U.S. at page 123, 61 S.Ct. 461, 132 A.L.R. 1430.************
 
2003-02-05 11:47:50 PM
well i'll be tickled pink. Sex0r was correct:

Wheat produced on excess acreage is designated as 'available for marketing' as so defined and the penalty is imposed thereon. 14 Penalties do not depend upon whether any part of the wheat either within or without the quota is sold or intended to be sold. The sum of this is that the Federal Government fixes a quota including all that the farmer may harvest for sale or for his own farm needs, and declares that wheat produced on excess acreage may neither be disposed of nor used except upon payment of the penalty or except it is stored as required by the Act or delivered to the Secretary of Agriculture.
 
2003-02-05 11:47:52 PM
Oh my dear dear dear SexOr....

Why are you so filled with rage?? No one is after you... relax and the nightmares will go away!! LOL

But seriously... your argument only supports what Thomas Jefferson said. Do you know what I'm referring to?

BTW... that's also why I have changed the way I look at life, I know this country can not be turned around. I tried to be part of a movement for a few years to do just that. All Governments go through a cycle and our government is going through it just like every other one has in history. No government ever lasts forever - this one will ultimately collapse from its own weight.
 
2003-02-05 11:48:33 PM
yeah, i just found that part.
 
2003-02-05 11:48:44 PM
Youraddresshere

Shouldn't the city officials that sanctioned the grow operation be charged with conspiracy based on the law and the judges interpretation?

great point - better yet, what does the fact that they aren't tell you?
 
2003-02-05 11:48:56 PM
BlobBrain:

After I graduate, a classmate of mine and I would like to go into practice together and solely defend drug cases. However, we have no idea how feasible this is. Any thoughts?
 
2003-02-05 11:48:57 PM
Good luck getting on a jury. I've never been called for jury duty. blah.
 
2003-02-05 11:49:56 PM
*Takes a moment to point out that this is all futile, everyone will find something to disagree with or nitpick about anything that someone says*

That being said, I will continue to be part of the problem, not the solution.

The 10th amendment allows the states to make laws, such as those regulating drugs. However, it does not forbid Congress from also making laws regarding this, which under Article VI, Clause 2, take precedence over the state laws. I'm not really sure that the 10th amendment even applies to this in the first place though. Hell, I'm a Farker, not a constitutional scholar. The best solution would be for the Federal Government to get out there and tell the State Governments to STFU with their laws like this since there are federal laws on the books that say otherwise.
 
2003-02-05 11:50:19 PM
I_Hate_Iowa,

The judge didn't let the defense be heard because it wasn't relevant. I say it wasn't relevant because what you think has nothing to do with how the law affects you.

The defense WAS relevant. There is a federal law that prohibits the civil/criminal prosecution of government official for carrying out their official duties. However, the judge decided to suppress the evidence and ignore that federal law.



 
2003-02-05 11:51:10 PM
Millay

Get your money up front, don't get hooked on meth or crack, and you will cash in.
 
2003-02-05 11:52:28 PM
Why are you so filled with rage?? No one is after you... relax and the nightmares will go away!! LOL
---
Haha. No rage here. I just get annoyed when people talk out of their arse, and unlike Franky17, won't even take the time to read what the law really is.
 
2003-02-05 11:52:31 PM
BlobBrain:

So enough people choose not to plead out to make it viable?
 
2003-02-05 11:53:58 PM
Millay: Just a question... Whats the average caseload for a prosecutor? per year
 
2003-02-05 11:54:29 PM
Interesting point on the sanctioning of the growing by city officials. As I said in my last post, the real problem that created this issue with the conviction was a state law that conflicts with a federal law. It should never have been passed in the first place, and once it was passed the federal government should have done something about it instead of letting a conflicting law exist.
 
2003-02-05 11:54:34 PM
Like I said before, stop the war on drugs, and get to what's important, start the war on tobacco. Almost everyone hates tobacco smokers. Also we're almost there.

/sarcasm.
 
2003-02-05 11:55:12 PM
Sex0r

If I am not incorrect, that is an argument that was used in bleeding fuedal ENGLAND to levy fines against farmers who ground their own wheat, ie, avoided paying a sanctioned mill a "tax" to grind wheat for them. As in, the farmers only had cursory authority to dispose of their own crops, or process the crops.

I find something vaguely un-American about that.
 
2003-02-05 11:55:39 PM
It should never have been passed in the first place, and once it was passed the federal government should have done something about it instead of letting a conflicting law exist.
---
There's nothing really the fed could do...they can't make a state take a law off their books. They had to wait for an opportunity for it to be settled in the courts.
 
2003-02-05 11:55:53 PM
youraddresshere
i think he could sue on those grounds, normally i don't preach sueing but in this case...
 
2003-02-05 11:56:07 PM
Millay,

Oh, you are only going to work with them AFTER they get busted? Is that what a corporate Enron lawyer would do?
 
2003-02-05 11:56:43 PM
Asmodai:

No idea. I go to law school in a town of 20,000--these prosecutors do not seem overworked, from what I hear. But NY, Chicago, LA? Who knows.
 
2003-02-05 11:57:41 PM
If I am not incorrect, that is an argument that was used in bleeding fuedal ENGLAND to levy fines against farmers who ground their own wheat, ie, avoided paying a sanctioned mill a "tax" to grind wheat for them. As in, the farmers only had cursory authority to dispose of their own crops, or process the crops.
--
Somehow I doubt that the intent of the law in feudal England was to benefit peasants by artifically inflating the price they could sell their crops for, thus increasing their income.
 
2003-02-05 11:58:22 PM
Millay,

Where do you go to law school?
 
2003-02-05 11:58:57 PM
As a side note, I don't personally agree with marijuana being completely legal, but I do believe that the federal government should allow the states to make their own laws regarding legality of drugs. I maintain that Congress has the power to make the laws, I just don't think they should, it's not a matter that strictly pertains to national welfare and therefore should be decided by individual states.
However, in the current state of the laws Rosenthal was guilty of a crime.
 
2003-02-06 12:00:24 AM
"If the law say that, then the law is an ass." -- Dickens (Oliver Twist)
 
2003-02-06 12:01:03 AM
BlobBrain:

No. It's just that all my friends I know who got busted didn't want to fight it--they wanted to plead out and avoid court and a fight at all costs. I get the impression that some people don't want to spend the time, money, and emotion on the whole trial court --> appeal --> appeal --> type-thing. So I assumed that it was a small number of people actually retaining counsel on drug busts.

What do you mean, after they get busted? What should I do before? "Structure" their finances? Money laundering is a little iffy.
 
2003-02-06 12:01:31 AM
sexor

True - the benefit of the peasant was not the intention - the disposition of the crop took precedence over the benefit of the peasant. English law, from what little I understand, USED to have many tenets such as this all the way up until the 1950s. It amazes me that this is something that is relevant in American law.
 
2003-02-06 12:01:33 AM
People, let's remember that this states' rights vs. union issue is what led to a civil war once. I believe the Feds are opening up a huge can of worms with these types of issues.

On the one hand, they impose regulations and requirements on the states, and then force the states to bear the financial burden of implementing those edicts. Such heavy-handed abuse of power is what causes cracks to form in empires.

The intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the states is supposed to be used sparingly - this is what the original Constitution envisioned. Lincoln took a huge whale-shiat all over this concept by attempting to force his supreme will on the states, and his successful conversion of the U.S. from a republic into an oligarchy was the ultimate expression of that will, one purchased with the lives of countless Americans.

Don't fool yourselves: slavery be damned, he would have sold his own mother into bondage to ensure that Washington, D.C. was the ULTIMATE authority on all matters. This was necessary, not to free black slaves, but to fill the coffers of the white industrialists who paid for his campaign.

I don't give a damn if the South hates the unionists for taking their slaves away from them - such barbarism was dealt its just deserves. But at the moment, despite the best intentions of the average American, a good chunk of the world, while loving us as people and embracing our culture, hates our country bitterly. And Bush, our precious, half-witted Fuhrer, is attempting to use Lincoln's tactics to impose the federal government's will on the rest of the world, much as Lincoln did on the South.

He will find that may be a much bloodier goal. Some things never change.
 
2003-02-06 12:01:59 AM
Sex0r:

Penn State. Third tier baby!
 
2003-02-06 12:02:03 AM
Sheeple...(you know whom you aren't):

Look to history and you'll find the reasons the laws we now debate the validity of were enacted. Once you reach that point, educate yourself. Understand how the past affects the present and the effect of open minds on the future, not just your own. Your actions, or lack of, create the history that is yet to become.

I'm going to bed. Good Luck, no need to stoke the flames, it's plenty warm in here
 
2003-02-06 12:03:29 AM
ZTiberX

If you are a man, and f/uck your boyfriend in Georgia, you are guilty of a crime.

Congratulations. I'm so glad it comes down to a cold analysis of law regarding Ed and his wife and children, who will have to make do while he does hard time for helping the sick and dying. The Feds did their job on you, thats for sure.

Roll over, boy! Here's a cookie.
 
2003-02-06 12:04:22 AM
ZtigerX,

He wasn't guilty of a crime. Federal law dicatates that government officials can not be held civilly or criminally liable for carrying out their official duties.

Or does that federal law only apply to people the federal government likes??
 
2003-02-06 12:04:35 AM
People, let's remember that this states' rights vs. union issue is what led to a civil war once.

Damn right. Will again.
 
2003-02-06 12:05:35 AM
Sex0r:
Penn State. Third tier baby!
--
Heh. Unless you're planning on a six figure salary while working 70+ hours a week, tiers are overrated. I went to a tier 1 school, and quite honestly, I wish I would have taken Toledo (tier 3 or 4) up on their offer of a full scholarship so I wouldn't be $60,000 in debt. While the name on your JD may help landing your first job, what's important is what you do after that.
 
2003-02-06 12:05:50 AM
hmmmmmm...
cookie!
 
2003-02-06 12:06:49 AM
Sex0r cuts and pastes the entire US Code in 3, 2, 1...
 
2003-02-06 12:07:30 AM
Well, at least the electoral college survived the 2000 election. Eliminating that would have been a pretty big blow against state's rights.
 
2003-02-06 12:07:34 AM
Sex0r cuts and pastes the entire US Code in 3, 2, 1...
---
Unfortunately, my LEXIS password is at work.
 
2003-02-06 12:07:49 AM
Milly

Money laundering? You don't launder money. But you make certain your client knows the law, the consequences, but it goes beyond that.

Your client deserves to know how they choose who they go after, what red flags they look for, etc.

After all, a drug dealer is supposed to be entitled to an attorney, just like Kenneth Lay.

Speaking of Kenneth Lay, he will probably read about Rosenthal while sunning on a carribean beach somewhere. Rosenthal will be busting rocks. Thank god the Constitution is protecting us!
 
2003-02-06 12:08:23 AM
I've got Lexis access :)
 
2003-02-06 12:08:49 AM
my LEXIS password is at work

:(

Lexis Nexus - :)
 
2003-02-06 12:10:28 AM
Glad to see the Feds have their priorities in order. By the way,
where is Osama?
 
2003-02-06 12:11:15 AM
BlobBrain:

That sounds reasonable enough. But how do these clients contact me then? And do most people in the drug trade get advice *before* they get busted?
 
2003-02-06 12:13:01 AM
Glad to see the Feds have their priorities in order. By the way,
where is Osama?
---
I agree. Let's shut down the government until we find Osama.
 
2003-02-06 12:13:17 AM
Seems like an obvious place to advertise legal defense services would be with a bail bondsman.
 
2003-02-06 12:13:34 AM
I think there is a big problem with drug laws in general and it has nothing to do with legalization. Seeing that I cannot obtain drugs that are available by perscripion only, why are some drugs more illegal than others? If marijuana or any other drug for that matter is found to be beneficial, a doctor should be able to perscribe it. If the doctor is perscribing something that doesnt work, they should be penalized not by the DEA but by their board of examiners. Possibly if it is serious enough they should loose their license. The problem is criminalization and putting an extra stigma on drugs that are commonly abused.
Whether or not weed is legalized,
 
2003-02-06 12:13:53 AM
Seems like an obvious place to advertise legal defense services would be with a bail bondsman.
---
Or those advertisements in bathroom stalls.
 
2003-02-06 12:14:10 AM
How the hell do anti-sodomy laws have any relevance to either me or this post?

And yes, it is a cold analysis of law. The law by definition is cold and analytical, it has to be. A man that steals $50 in food to feed his family is guilty of the same crime as the man that steals a $50 VCR to watch porn tapes. You can say the man who stole the food had a necessary reason for doing it, but someone is still out $50 because of it. Thats why the sentencing is done by a human judge, to consider these factors, and there are also parole boards, sentence reductions, etc. A crime must be a crime, regardless of justification, or every damned criminal will have excuses of why they were justified and shouldn't be convicted. Sure, its unfortunate that the food stealing man would be arrested and charged because he had to feed his family, but damnit, he broke the law. Complaining about how a good man was imprisoned is useless, he broke the law, whether you think that he should be punished for breaking it isn't the point. If you don't like the fact that he was charged for breaking that law, than exercise your farking democratic powers and work to change it.
 
2003-02-06 12:14:51 AM
Young_Fart:

Only if the bail bondsman sponsors a Little League team.

/possibly obscure
 
2003-02-06 12:15:24 AM
Only if the bail bondsman sponsors a Little League team.
---
Chico's Bailbonds.

/tanner
 
2003-02-06 12:15:46 AM
that being said, I think the judge did interpret the law correctly but I take issue with the law itself.
 
2003-02-06 12:16:03 AM
Law has more in common with religion than it does with justice.
 
2003-02-06 12:16:39 AM
Sex0r:

Yeah, anyway...not planning on the bling-bling and the 70+ hour work week. I have a wife and theoretical kids whose company I'd like to enjoy. Where'd you get the sheepskin?
 
2003-02-06 12:16:49 AM
Schling, that official duty was bestowed upon him by a law which is not legally valid as a federal law contradicts it.
 
2003-02-06 12:17:21 AM
Only if the bail bondsman sponsors a Little League team.


You stumped me. Bad News Bears ?
 
2003-02-06 12:17:52 AM
Sex0r:

Yes, Chico's!
 
2003-02-06 12:17:55 AM
Millay,

Ohio St.
 
2003-02-06 12:18:59 AM
Young_fart, Sex0r:

We are keepers of the 70's flame indeed.
 
2003-02-06 12:20:28 AM
Sex0r:

You want JoePa? You can have him. Does Ohio have bar privilege?
 
2003-02-06 12:20:37 AM
BlobBrain, if you're referring to that anti-sodomy law as a crime that its absurd for someone to be convicted of, then I agree, and the law should be changed.
I never agreed with the federal law on this matter, I stated earlier that this is a matter better left up to the states to make individual laws on. I agree that the federal law would be better off abolished and the matter left up to the states. But until that happens, people like Rosenthal are guilty of crimes.
 
2003-02-06 12:20:48 AM
Millay:

Most of my point centers around the fact that one ought to obey the laws of their city/state/nation unless they are immoral or unethical (meaning that the law is unjust or contrary to conscience). You simply cannot make this case for marijuana, just as I cannot make the case for speeding. Comparisons to slavery are very disrespectful; being forced to work for little or no pay is nothing like not being allowed to smoke you favorite plant. If you can argue why a ban on growing marijuana is unjust or contrary to conscience (either immoral or unethical) then you will prove your point to me (ergo prove that the law ought not be followed), but so far you (along with all the other posters) have only resorted to biased facts [though I would have to say I doubt there are many unbiased facts regarding this issue], no valid statistical proof, and a little conjecture. I am more against the standard argument of the possibility of wealth redistribution through marijuana growth and sale, because that will not happen, than against marijuana itself. Considering as even if marijuana was legalized, the restrictions placed upon it would be much more harsh than current tobacco restrictions.

Just prove that the law is unethical or unjust. That is all I ask. This thread was about a man being arrested for committing a crime. He should have been arrested, there is a law currently on the books that says what he did was illegal. One cannot pick and choose which laws to follow; if he or she does, the system will collapse.
 
2003-02-06 12:21:05 AM
ZTigerX: "Complaining about how a good man was imprisoned is useless, he broke the law, whether you think that he should be punished for breaking it isn't the point."

And so they nailed Jesus to the cross, and then played dice for his clothes.

Right. I shouldn't complain about Ed Rosenthal being tossed into prison in violation of common sense and human rights. Screw him and his family. And f/uck Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and anyone else with the gall to break the law.
 
2003-02-06 12:21:40 AM
Obviously this guy broke the law...what relevance to that does his occupation have? It's like showing special prefernce to a legal gun dealer when he goes off and breaks gun laws by selling outside the parameters of the law...nonsense. I don't think the jury should have known about his occupation, that knowledge could have worked either for him or against him depending upon the juror - either way that could lead to the intent of the law being obscurred = mistrial...Jurors should stick to evaluating the evidence before them and makeing decisions based solely upon that evidence presented; under the guise of the governing laws/statutes involved.


/*tosses 2 more cents into the change pot*
 
2003-02-06 12:23:46 AM
Come on. Comparing people who were denied basic human rights to people who want to light up some doobie is ridiculous.
 
2003-02-06 12:25:09 AM
Sux0r:

So, they teach which human rights are suitable for Joe Sixpack and which aren't at Ohio (lower bar passage rate than Cinci) St. Law School?
 
2003-02-06 12:30:11 AM
theflyingdutchman -"Comparisons to slavery are very disrespectful; being forced to work for little or no pay is nothing like not being allowed to smoke you favorite plant."

What else could you call the process by which an otherwise law abiding citizen is reduced into a prisoner with few rights?

Justice implies fair treatment and proportional reward/punishment. The pot head has stolen nothing. He has hurt no one, save (perhaps... it is shaky, and pot compares quite favorably to alcohol and tobacco, two legal substances) himself. Why should his freedoms be taken away? Is the punishment in measure with the crime?

No.
 
2003-02-06 12:33:38 AM
Best Book in the Whole World

The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice


Lotsa nice history.
 
2003-02-06 12:34:13 AM
Pot can harm the user, but why should the law against pot be far more harmful to the user than pot itself?
 
2003-02-06 12:35:04 AM
flyingdutchman:

Continuum argument: marijuana is less harmful than currently legal drugs. To punish a lesser harm than X with a greater punishment than X is unjust. This is why involuntary manslaughter is not as big a deal as premeditated murder.

Coercion argument: you yourself admit that facts on weed are murky and rarely unbiased. Given that the harm can't be ascertained, it is unjust for the government to fine and imprison people with no hard facts. You go to jail based on majoritarian fiat, and not the good kind of majoritarian fiat.

Slavery again: there's something about the human moral compass that makes it clear that if huge, huge numbers of people violate a law, the law is probably unjust or at best superfluous.

Contrary to conscience: conscience is personal and subjective. Once you posit that personal conscience is to be the guide to what laws are to be followed, it is unjust to disregard a decision of conscience one has made. Because if you do, what does one's conscience mean anyway?

Well, it's a start.
 
2003-02-06 12:37:34 AM
SexOr:

Clearly, the Supreme Court has decided that drugs can be regulated under "interstate commerce", but that doesn't mean people can't question the logic or motives behind that reasoning.

As you mentioned, the SC has broadened the power of the federal government, but do not forget that these decisions can be reversed. So "end of story" is inappropriate.

What is so disturbing about the use of the interstate commerce clause to block people from growing a plant for personal use is that there is absolutely no "commerce" being interfered with. Since there is no sale, and for that matter no possibility of an opportunity cost to a licensed marijuana distributor. The use of "commerce" is merely a excuse for legislating morality.

Personally, I feel that the most important element in this debate (and one that is largely ignored) would be the ninth amendment. If someone is sick and in pain, or unable to eat, that person in my opinion has a fundamental right to take whatever reasonable measures necessary to feel better. Eating and relieving pain are rights that are so basic that they should certainly considered within the realm which Alexander Hamilton concerned himself when he drafted the ninth amendment. Taking medication and judging for yourself which medications are appropriate should be the right of anyone in a civilized nation. It shouldn't even be about the States' rights, it is a basic human right to take care of yourself. And the ninth amendment states that the list of rights in the constitution is not to be construed as all-inclusive. Hamilton knew exactly how the people running the government in this era would think, but the only amendment that clearly describes how the rest of the document should be interpreted is usually ignore, and typically (and ironically) by the people who believe in a "strict" interpretation of the founders' original intent.

The feds only seem interested in States' rights when it comes to putting something offensive on a flag, but when the voters overwhelmingly approve a measure protecting a basic human right (like the death with dignity act in Oregon), suddenly it's important for some bureaucrats to decide how cancer victims should suffer, and to which pharmaceutical company they write their final checks.

It's disgusting. Government doesn't belong there, but as you mentioned... looks like that's where we are today thanks to the Supreme Court.
 
2003-02-06 12:37:54 AM
2 cents:

This pile-of-crap case is the reason why i distrust a lot of what the federal government does. The fact that a Federal judge instructed the defense that it could not use the evidence that this man was acting on the assumption (at least in this case) that what he was doing was perfectly legal as dictated by the city of Oakland. it DOES farking matter!
 
2003-02-06 12:38:22 AM
It's a farking PLANT, for chrissakes....
.<
 
2003-02-06 12:38:27 AM
ZTigerX - I agree that the premise of defederalizing marijuana laws sounds good...But what then happens to people who traffic marijuana across state lines? It is for reasons related to this and the 5th and 14th amendments that there are federal laws pertaining to marijuana.

The legislators felt that by cultivating or selling "large" amounts of marijuana, that person would not only be doing harm to the people of the state in which the offense occurred, but that harm had the possibility of being so prolific that the federal government could also be affected. They applied this info to the Constitution and found a way to squeeze it in...Do I agree with the cultivation aspect of federal marijuana laws?, nope; but that's the way it is.

/*4 cents total in the pot*
 
2003-02-06 12:41:14 AM
ooops, did i miss the flamewar?

Alcohol does more damage to society than any other drug out there. Period.

*as i drink my Guinness with the little rocket-widged thingy*
 
2003-02-06 12:42:48 AM
Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK all were punished for breaking laws. Not necessarily laws that were just, but laws nonetheless. Jesus practiced and taught Christianity. The Roman Empire which killed him eventually converted to Christianity themselves, and had ended persecution of Christians long before. Gandhi wanted independence from India from the British (at least, I'm pretty sure thats what Gandhi fought for, I must admit I never paid much attention to anything about him). India gained independence from the British. MLK wanted civil rights for blacks. Blacks now have civil rights and the necessary laws to protect them. (Now the issue is more with getting people to recognize that and act fully in accordance with these laws). Nelson Mandela wanted an end to apartheid and was imprisoned. Aparteid ended, and he because president of South Africa. Ed Rosenthal grew weed and will be imprisoned for it. What will happen in the future regarding growing weed is uncertain. My point is that where these people challenged laws that were truly wrong and suffered for it, the laws were changed later. If growing weed is an unjust law that Rosenthal is being punished for breaking, it'll probably be changed. I'm not entirely sure where I'm going with this, I kinda wandered without ever making a clear point, but basically I maintain that Rosenthal did commit a crime and should be punished for it. If it's wrong that he's being punished then you should work to change it.
 
2003-02-06 12:44:24 AM
Goodnight, everybody.
 
2003-02-06 12:47:28 AM
um, tiger, i think it should be pointed out to you that JESUS WAS A JEW!
 
2003-02-06 12:47:54 AM
Appreciate the kudos and/or flames folks, glad I could oblige.

Hmm, a National Fark Party? That works on so many levels.
 
2003-02-06 12:48:24 AM
ZTigerX

..."Jesus practiced and taught Christianity. The Roman Empire which killed him eventually converted to Christianity themselves..."

I thought the Jews killed Jeebus?

Regardless your last two sentences in your last post were dead on...
 
2003-02-06 12:48:31 AM
It is amazing what one Senator and a bunch of misinformation can do.

How much do we spend on the drug war, again?

I don't particularily like cocaine, opium, heroin, or pcp, but Weed is pretty damn mild. As for it being a gateway drug. Well hell, how many people had a cig before having a beer? OBVIOUSLY cigs are a gateway drug as well! So is Asprin!
 
2003-02-06 12:51:05 AM
Theflyingdutchman
Most of my point centers around the fact that one ought to obey the laws of their city/state/nation unless they are immoral or unethical (meaning that the law is unjust or contrary to conscience).

I completely agree.

If you can argue why a ban on growing marijuana is unjust or contrary to conscience (either immoral or unethical) then you will prove your point to me

This is the point that I would make, and I am unawaree of any serious agency/firm etc. taking this tact (although this does not mean one exist). It's bloody time consuming, ergo - not likely to be pursued.

I would not argue the validity of the prosecution of said law, nor would I argue states rights. I would simply argue that the Federal law itself is invalid, because of the research relied upon to determine that Marijuana is a harmful "drug", and therefore as such poses such a threat to the public that it requires regulation, (federal intervention). I would also argue that the entire farce that is Marijuana regulation, is based on the same biased, moral/religious climate that inspired the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's, and is thereby a self fulfilling prophecy that has resulted in the unjust imprisonment of millions of persons within the United States.

Then I would shred their arse, statistic by statistic, case by case.

I don't see that attacking the enforcement of the law is the way to go - I think attacking the research that causes the law to exist is the way to go.

But that's very big bucks.
 
2003-02-06 12:51:47 AM
By jailing local growers, the gov't is forcing dealers to get their crops from shadier, violent cartels abroad... thus the gov't is supporting terrorism.

I hope this judge chokes on his own vomit. :)
 
2003-02-06 12:54:23 AM
SeXor... you don't think it's a "basic human right" to choose what goes into your own body?

And logically, if the government has to right to tell you what you CAN'T put into your body, it has the right to tell you what you MUST put into your body. So, can we then conclude that you would have no problem if congress, in say a bizarre attempt to promote equal rights for gays, passed a law that says that all men MUST swallow human sperm at least once a week?

Of course this is absurd - but then again isn't outlawing a certain PLANT (something that nature if left alone would grow at times) absurd too?
 
2003-02-06 12:54:59 AM
Chichomang

You have a valid point which I can agree with in some ways. Hell, thats why we have elected representatives who meet and decide whether or not the federal government will regulate drugs like marijuana.

I now officially withdraw from this thread before I waste more time on a futile argument that won't change anyone's opinion. I leave with a concise statement of what I belive regarding this case, rip it apart as you'd like.

1.Under the current interpretation of the constitution, Congress has the power to ban drugs like marijuana.
2.Because there is a federal law banning marijuana, California's state law is moot.
3.Therefore, it is illegal everywhere in the United States to grow, possess, etc. marijuana.
4.Ed Rosenthal grew marijuana, therefore he broke the law.
5.As he broke a law, he should be punished for the law.
6.The evidence regarding medical marijuana was irrelevant to the case, as the federal law prevents it from being legal, even in California under the state law, so the judge was right to not allow the defense to present it.
7.The government of California was stupid to pass a law which contradicted a federal law, and the City of Oakland was stupid to give a permit based on an invalid law.
8.You can argue all you want about whether Congress should really be able to regulate marijuana, or whether the punishment is just, or how Rosenthal was a good person. In the current state of the law and interpretation of the Constitution everything in the case went exactly the way it should. I emphasize current because the validity of the conviction or the federal law could well change in the future with different laws or constitutional interpretation.
 
2003-02-06 12:57:30 AM
Chichomang,

Nope, Jews couldn't find an appropriate crime in thier lawbooks, so they turned him over to the Romans to deal with him. Which they did. a lot of Radical Jews got put down like that.

"Oh Jesus? You mean that nice young Jewish kid that got nailed to a board?"
 
2003-02-06 12:57:30 AM
I apologize for my incorrect labeling of Jesus as a Christian. That was wrong, but the underlying point of the example I used him in is still valid.
 
2003-02-06 12:58:21 AM
7.The government of California was stupid to pass a law which contradicted a federal law, and the City of Oakland was stupid to give a permit based on an invalid law.
8.You can argue all you want about whether Congress should really be able to regulate marijuana, or whether the punishment is just, or how Rosenthal was a good person. In the current state of the law and interpretation of the Constitution everything in the case went exactly the way it should. I emphasize current because the validity of the conviction or the federal law could well change in the future with different laws or constitutional interpretation.


points 7 and 8 contradict each other. Passing those laws is a very good way to start a push for national legalization.
 
2003-02-06 12:58:34 AM
02-06-03 12:48:31 AM
Aias
It is amazing what one Senator and a bunch of misinformation can do.
How much do we spend on the drug war, again?
I don't particularily like cocaine, opium, heroin, or pcp, but Weed is pretty damn mild. As for it being a gateway drug. Well hell, how many people had a cig before having a beer? OBVIOUSLY cigs are a gateway drug as well! So is Asprin!


Don't forget Flintstone vitamins :)

Seriously though, I'm a little foggy on this one. Not reading the article will do that to ya...anyway; could the argument not be made that since his immediate government (state) ruled that he be allowed to grow, that he was under the impression that he was in the right? Should the feds not take issue with the state, as opposed to the individual following this states laws? Fill me in here...thanks
 
2003-02-06 01:02:29 AM
Actually, the Civil war settled the issue of whether state laws could trump federal laws, but I just think that they might have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. There are some things that are best left up to the states...

I understand the arguments for Federal law covering interstate transactions, but if it is local, let it stay local (in my book).
 
2003-02-06 01:04:20 AM
The funny thing about our legal system is that there are no imutable laws.... wack schite, yo.
 
2003-02-06 01:06:20 AM
ehhh, easier to blame the jews.


/kidding...I swear
 
2003-02-06 01:09:16 AM
Jikel_Morten - it is the citizens responsibility to know the laws which he lives under; the feds can't go around warning everyone everytime they are about to do something illegal...Words for the Day = Personal & Responsibility
 
2003-02-06 01:09:46 AM
I hope all 50 states legalize medicinal marijuana before federal law makes it legal. Mainly because we will see the DEA, realizing its impending unemployment, become a bunch of raving loons.
 
2003-02-06 01:10:44 AM
i go with your point just wanted the facts straight, in fact, aias it was the jews that killed jesus, the romans couldn't find anything wrong with him and tried to set jesus free, the jews wouldn't have it though.
 
2003-02-06 01:11:19 AM
The DEA would still have plenty to do...been to Harlem or Brooklyn lately, and Columbia, Peru, etc. don't give a damn about medicinal marijuana
 
2003-02-06 01:12:01 AM
I knew it!!!
 
2003-02-06 01:13:31 AM
Ed should have just stood up in the court and yelled "I'm an officer for the city of Oakland's medical marijuana program". Seriously. The judge would have been pretty pissed off and maybe found him in contempt, but that's not too serious of an offense I think. Meanwhile, the jury would have been told to ignore this information, but hopefully their sense of fairness would have forced them to consider it when reaching their verdict.
 
2003-02-06 01:17:16 AM
Fortheloveof,

I don't want to split hairs, but looking at this thing from a scriptural AND historical sense it could be argued either way. The fact remains that the followers of Jesus of Nazereth said that he was crucified, a very Roman execution. If they, as a strong occupying force, pressured into it, who knows, but they (metaphorically) pulled the trigger.


Ah, who would have thunk you would have gotten your dose of Ancient History on a Pot Thread?
 
2003-02-06 01:19:57 AM
Good point Cichomang. I'm still going to imagine the chief of the DEA wearing a tinfoil hat and speaking in tongues.
 
2003-02-06 01:21:50 AM
BillyTheCondescendingSheepherder,

Unfortunately that most likely would have ended in a mistrial.
 
2003-02-06 01:25:41 AM
aias,
king james
mark 15; 7-15

roman done, jew pushed

and no i'm not typing all that in :)
 
2003-02-06 01:30:58 AM
I don't want to split hairs, but looking at this thing from a scriptural AND historical sense it could be argued either way. The fact remains that the followers of Jesus of Nazereth said that he was crucified, a very Roman execution. If they, as a strong occupying force, pressured into it, who knows, but they (metaphorically) pulled the trigger.

Metaphorically, we all killed Jesus.
 
2003-02-06 01:31:16 AM
Fortheloveof,

We are going to have to disagree on this one... no sweat. I am coming from a standpoint that the Bible is a great piece of literature and is not texturally accurate to the events that may have taken place at the time. Especially since those who were codifing and writing comentary were becoming Roman, and later highly discriminatory against Judaism (due to a whole butload of factors mostly dealing with the fact that a schiteload of double-standards existed in regaurd to usuary)...

Oh well... I am familiar with the text I have an NIV, KJV, and NASV here.

goodnight all
 
2003-02-06 01:35:45 AM
ah, in that case i'll agree with you, we were starting from different places. i was assuming you were going to, for the sake of arguement go with the bible as the source of the answer but you are right no way to know now, no problem. :)
 
2003-02-06 01:42:21 AM
Impaler - Libertarian?
 
2003-02-06 02:00:47 AM
Our legal system is farked up.
 
2003-02-06 02:02:17 AM
Ah... so what Sex0r is saying is that the facts of the law say that the federal government is in the right. But the people believe the law to be incorrect. The framers of the constitution had built our system to make it so that if the people feel a law to be tyranical they can cast it aside.

In the case of marijuana growing... if you find yourself on jury duty on a case involving marijuana growing, hang the jury. As a juror you do not have to give a reason for voting guilty or innocent. In the matter of common law courts you are expected to vote not only by the given facts but also by your conscience.

Is it just for a man to go to jail for 85 years for growing a plant... when a murderer would likely only get 25?

Is it just for a person to go to jail for 10 years for selling hydroponic equipment that happens to be used by a marijuana grower?

Pretty much the judge and the prosecutor will tell you that you have to decided based only on the facts of the case. That is false... nobody can keep you from deciding by your conscience.
 
2003-02-06 02:07:44 AM
Legalize it already.
 
2003-02-06 02:14:01 AM
It's sad that someone can go to prison for the rest of their lives for growing plants. If they were Triffids then OK. But, they aren't are they?! It's really pathetic that marijuana is considered a terrible "drug", but Vicodin, the most prescribed drug of all, is just dandy. Hell, you can actually OD on Vicodin. However, one has a medicinal use and the other doesn't I guess. Oh, that and the fact that you can grow marijuana (it's a damn plant remember) which makes it hard for the pharmaceutical industry to patent and control distribution and prices with their vice-like grip. But, we all know that the government doesn't really care about the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical and health care industry. They just care about we the people.
 
2003-02-06 02:16:00 AM
dang.

i came back to this thread after a long time gone and it's all the fault of the jews?!?!

that sucks.

btw: if any other jewish farkers know who i have to speak to about my ZOG / International Banking royalties, can you please e-mail me. my cheques are not being forwarded.
 
2003-02-06 02:20:29 AM
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." (First Inaugural Address Monday, March 4, 1861)

"The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." (17 September 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH)

Abraham Lincoln
 
2003-02-06 02:22:50 AM

Just prove that the law is unethical or unjust.


I'll take a whack at this one. I won't argue that MJ is much safer than alcohol or tobacco or that there's a medical necessity--I'll get right to the heart of the matter.

It's very simple concept, really, the concept of Individual Sovereignty--which, IMHO, people were basically aware of long before Locke and the Enlightenment That is, law is not something imposed by God or some king with Divine Right or some Infallible Source of Truth or anything like that. It's because a group of free men and women agree to follow a certain set of rules to keep humanity from falling into anarchy and chaos.

IMHO, the basic idea behind the Constitution and Declaration of Independence is that we're basically free to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in our own damned way as long as we don't infringe on the right of others to seek the same. The ol' "your right to swing your fist stops at my face" idea. If I smoke pot or drink alcohol and drive an automobile, I'm endangering others, so the State has a legitimate right to stop me. However, if I partake of any vice (banana-peel smoking, prairie squid sex, worshipping "Bob" Dobbs, whatever), alone or with other consenting adults, it's nobody else's damned business, period. That's what the 10th Amendment is all about.

There's precious little in the Constitution regarding laws governing victimless, consensual behavior. So, therefore, it's beyond the Fed's jurisdiction--at least according to the Bill of Rights. That's why they had to have the Volstad (sp?) Act to override the 10th Amendment. Now, they use the Commerce Clause and other legalistic gobbledegook to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights.

To me, the whole War on Drugs thing is merely the Fed government trashing the Bill of Rights to protect the legal drug pushers in the tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical companies (did anybody say Ritalin?). That's why they throw billions at the Partnership for a Drug-Free Amerika and spend heavily on campaign contributions. It also supports the growing privatized prison business (don't we have the highest prison population in the world?) and a whole 'addiction recovery' business. Police departments make off like bandits with seized and forfeited property.

It's not a Liberal vs. Conservative matter for me. It's more of a Libertarian vs. Corporate Fascism issue for me. I'm surprised at how many of the Religious Right are willing to throw away their Civil Rights to the evil, Machiavellian, greedy, power-hungry, corporate drones in D.C. just because they laughingly claim to be Christians...
 
2003-02-06 02:23:43 AM
Couple of things: the judge was right to exlude the evidence. It was a federal trial and state law isn't a valid excuse.

But, had the jury known (and, in fact, had the jury NOT known) it could have done whatever the hell it wanted. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: is OJ Simpson in jail?
 
2003-02-06 03:55:35 AM
On 02-05-03, at 11:17:56 PM, Farker YNada officially posted the most rational statement I have ever seen on Fark.com.

Minutes later, at 11:20:17 PM, Farker Young_Fart officially posted the most irrational statement I have ever seen on Fark.com.

YNada, you are the winner.
 
2003-02-06 04:43:41 AM
Ohjeez:

Good post! The judge is probably right in that Congress did not intend that application, but it does say that, after all, and is really quite clear about it!


Asmodai:

You got lost on Tomasso's post. The quote from Anatole France is one you should agree with, and in fact did agree with when you thought you were disagreeing! France is being ironic. He is saying that it is disingenuous to claim that the law treats the rich and poor equally, even though that seems to be true if you view it on a superficial level.

Also, Tomasso didn't equate those two crimes. He was simply showing you that you don't really want States' Rights, because IF California has the right to override Federal Law, then so does Alabama, and we all know what Alabama will do if and when that right is given to them.

Some ba-a-a-d stuff.

In other words, if you want to legalize marijuana, you need a different tactic other than to make an irrelevant local law which will be ignored by the feds.

There are several courses of action for people who support legalization of weed:

1. Test the Federal law in the courts.
2. Test the California law in the courts.
3. Vote for people who agree with you.
4. Continue to support NORML and other groups who support sane marijuana lagislation.
5. Disobey the law and take your chances.
6. Vacations in Amsterdam.

Personally, I would love to see weed legalized and taxed, getting the profits out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of the people.

In the meantime, the Feds should stop these prosecutions until all the legal and constitutional contradictions have been resolved.
 
2003-02-06 05:12:58 AM
Psycat = best comment in thread
 
2003-02-06 05:26:07 AM
BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA.

Is anybody going to read the stuff down here, I did not.
What were we talking about anyways?
 
2003-02-06 05:33:39 AM
Thanks, Youraddresshere!
 
2003-02-06 09:15:49 AM
So, they teach which human rights are suitable for Joe Sixpack and which aren't at Ohio (lower bar passage rate than Cinci) St. Law School?
---
Since when is smoking dope a human right? And sorry, OSU had the highest passage rate when I took the bar, so stop talking out of your arse, numbskull.
 
2003-02-06 09:16:56 AM
Eat it, BlobBrain.

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Admissions/tabulations/02jul/
 
2003-02-06 09:19:55 AM
Psycat... I agree with Youraddresshere. If only there were a few thousand more people that could and would THINK like you have clearly done about liberty (the founding concept of this nation) things would start to change. The problem is government schools try to program kids NOT to think, and the result is that each generation there are less people like you.
 
Bf+
2003-02-06 09:38:15 AM
justice?
 
2003-02-06 10:42:36 AM
to JDJoe-- You either have your head in the sand or you're a farking idiot, because if you believed that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, you'd be against the war on drugs, which is primarily a war on marijuana. In the name of the war on drugs, the Feds have been disregarding the Constitution for years with illegal search and seizure, prevention of free speech, and even the use of the U.S. military against its own citizens. CrazyCurt is right on the money. The war on drugs is a frightening example of just how out of touch with the people the juggernaut of our Federal government has become. Here is a case where a judge actually prevents the simple facts of the case from being divulged to the jury, and you're not outraged by that? When the justice system breaks down, we are all screwed.
 
2003-02-06 10:42:43 AM
Our legal system is broken. Law is supposed to be based on perceived morality, not vice-versa.
 
2003-02-06 10:44:10 AM
i.e. to what I just said...the judge shouldn't hide evidence because the "system" prematurely decides that it is immoral.
 
2003-02-06 10:54:14 AM
Tpahl: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?).

Yup...they'll actually try to tell you you have no right to do so, which technically should be illegal, since we have the right to decide whatever the fark we want as human beings. We rule the system, not the other way around. Want to make a judge or prosecutor go red in the face with frustration? Mention jury nullification. They'll argue with you until the sun goes down, completely unable to come to grips with the fact that in a jury trial, the jury ultimately has all the power and has every right to wield it.
 
2003-02-06 11:44:22 AM
I have been smoking from my bong while reading all of these comments,

I will now comence to shoot my friend, run over a girl on a bike in my car, get a girl prgnant, and sexually assault a teenage girl, al the while while funding terrorists.

WOW, I guess its not harmless
Those GD, piece-of-s**t, motherfarking ads really piss me off, I need another bowl
 
2003-02-06 12:14:38 PM
I was the joint(max. security prison) for 18 mos for conspiracy to distriute a controlled substance: marijuana.

It was for $20 dollars worth of grass. I wasn't selling it. I talked about it. That was in 1992. I thought that was f*cked then.

Ed Rosenthal has done more for the sick and dying of the Bay area than most social service agencies in that area.

Another example of the sad truth behind the War on Drugs. I can't help but think that if more people 18-30 would vote we could put an end to this sh*it.

Just another Prisoner of the Drug War...........
 
2003-02-06 12:19:47 PM
02-06-03 12:14:38 PM FallenAngel
I was the joint(max. security prison) for 18 mos for conspiracy to distriute a controlled substance: marijuana.

It was for $20 dollars worth of grass. I wasn't selling it. I talked about it. That was in 1992. I thought that was f*cked then.


There is your justice Amerika. There is your justice.
I'm sorry man.
 
2003-02-06 01:46:20 PM
When a person is on trial, that person is not the only one on trial. the LAW is also on trial.

Yes the jury does have the power and the right to not convict someone if they believe the law is unjust and/or the defendant was prosecuted unfairly.

it's not amerely a case mathematics, of Growing Pot = Guilty. if that is so, then why even have a trial to begin with? the trial is there for a jury of the defendants peers to decide if he deserves the punishment set forth by the law, and if the law is just or not.
 
Bf+
2003-02-06 04:15:58 PM
War on justice.
 
2003-02-06 04:39:08 PM
I never really thought that people listened when the government flat out lies about MJ. But now after reading a few (not all) of the comments here, I realize that there are far more people buy those anti-pot commercials then I thought.
This guy was working WITH the city of Oakland. He was not concealing anything he was doing, he did it with the city's blessing. The prosecution basically wanted the jury to think this guy was a big time drug dealer. And with the judge they got for the case, they succeeded.
The feds like going after these people because it is easier to arrest the sick and dying than the real drug dealers. They can get their arrest numbers up without actually getting any drugs off the streets.
Think of this, if the DEA really did its job well and eliminated illegal drug use in the US, would we need them anymore? Who works hard at putting themself out of a job? Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it is not working for marijuana either.

Get more info from all sides www.cannabisculture.com
 
2003-02-06 05:07:16 PM
Late comment, I know.

I just saw a very STUPID commercial, the one where a kid takes the tobacco out of four cigarrettes to smoke. The comercial said that one joint is equal to four cigarrettes, and thus is UNHEALTHY. Of course, what they didn't say is that many smokers smoke a PACK a day while marijuana users often smoke just ONE joint for the same effect. So really, unless people only smoke three or less ciggs a day, smoking one joint is still healthier.
 
2003-02-06 05:33:27 PM
Can't we all jes' remeber-dat-he-woulda-done-bettah-wid-
dat-jury-iffin-he-only-flashed-'em-a-big-smile-wid-a-
few-of-dem-gol'-teefs-from-mah-cah-trunk-conseshun-at-
de-swap-meet along?
 
2003-02-06 05:56:57 PM
Chipaku:

When a person is on trial, that person is not the only one on trial. the LAW is also on trial.

Unfortunately, by restricting the introduction of key evidence this trial was reduced to nothing more than just another drug trial. It challenged nothing. The jurors were instructed that growing MJ is illegal under federal law, the prosecution showed undeniable proof that he was growing, the defense was unable to present the circumstances under which he was growing, and a hole-in-one conviction followed. Big surprise. The law was NEVER on trial here.
 
2003-02-06 06:58:19 PM
I hope that both the judge and prosecuting attorney in this case die a horribly slow and excruciatingly painful death from rectal cancer.
 
2003-02-06 10:54:59 PM
Thanks, richiep!
 
2003-02-06 11:05:20 PM
Unfortunately, by restricting the introduction of key evidence this trial was reduced to nothing more than just another drug trial.
---
Key evidence? The fact that California has a medical marijuana law is irrelevant. a) the federal statute is supreme; and b) ignorance of the law is no excuse, i.e. his ignorance that the federal law was in fact the law, is no excuse.
 
2003-02-06 11:29:09 PM
Think I'll have a T-shirt made tomorrow. With a big pot leaf on the front and the words "Free Ed Rosenthal" on the back.
 
2003-02-06 11:33:25 PM
SexOr:

When you are done banging your head on your desk, maybe you can explain to me how the same government that tells me every day that drug dealers are terrorists can justify taking a plant away from a cancer victim by claiming that people growing thier own marijuana are "exerting a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce."

So, drug dealers are terrorists, but the federal government has to make sure that cancer victims don't cut into their business?? What the hell is that???
 
2003-02-06 11:34:51 PM
Did anyone else catch Connie Chung tonite with the two jurors.
 
2003-02-07 05:02:00 AM
Sex0r:

Key evidence? The fact that California has a medical marijuana law is irrelevant.

Exactly. Thus, no law was challenged. The system rages on. Yippie!

Mogu73:

Yes, I did catch Connie Chung and thought about this thread. I'm glad the jurors are making noise. Ultimately this may be a very good thing.
 
Displayed 345 of 345 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report