Four of the 12 jurors who convicted medical marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal of federal cultivation charges stood beside Rosenthal Tuesday and called for a new trial, saying crucial facts had been withheld from them.
Just four days after they had found Rosenthal guilty, the jurors said they felt misled by the judge's refusal to let them hear that Rosenthal's motivation for growing marijuana was to supply medical patients.
"For the first time in my life, I find myself questioning the court system, " said jury foreman Charles Sackett III of Petaluma, reading a letter of apology to Rosenthal.
-------------------------
The judge decided guilt or innocence. This was not a trial by jury of Rosenthal's piers.
posted on February 6, 2003 12:10:09 AM new"The verdict was "the most horrible mistake I have ever made," said Craig of Novato as Rosenthal backers cheered. "We were only given half of the evidence."
Actually, the scope is much larger than that. The Uptight Federal Government is fighting Medicinal Marijuana use, since anyone can grow it and use it to treat themselves for pain, glacoma, cancer, AIDS side-effects and many other medicinal uses and drug comapnies, hospitals, and doctors stand to lose Billions of dollars a year from California, let alone the enitre USA.
Our government has been quick to punish anyone growing medicila marijuana in California and since the majority of voters there legalized it, this judge decided to hide those crucial facts, obviously hoping not to bais a jury.
But he or she erred. Big time.
There is simply no way that any trial on this issue such as this case represents that could possibily be held in the state of Claifornia and hoped it to be unbiased. It shoud have been moved out of state where medical marijuana use is not legalized and ALL of the facts of the case should have been allowed.
This will just be a backlash against the anti-Marijuana use stance of our government.
posted on February 6, 2003 05:12:08 AM new
Yes when the court stacks the deck ahead of time by saying basically that any evidence you might have is already ruled invalid before we start then why have a trial? It is a favorite tactic now along with presenting 87 charges so one or two will stick for sure.
"It sends a message to the public that the legal process is irrelevant" and could discourage people from serving as jurors, Little said."
Well - Duh - Kinda like making voting irrelevant because you control the outcome before the start.
Do you see the irony of blaming the jurors or the voters in either case for noticing the system is being manipulated? Why can't they just play nice and let us cheat?
posted on February 6, 2003 09:03:12 AM new
DeSquirel - what you may not know is that after California approved the medical marijuana law they put in measures to protect it from abuse, namely Use and Caregiver cards. You must apply for a "Use" card showing medical justification. By having a Use card you are allowed to have a certain number of plants and no more than a specified amount of cultivated marijuana on hand. Any additional must be sold to the medical marijuana clubs at a specified well below market price for sale to other members who choose not to grow. There are also Caregiver cards which also allow an individual to grown and possess for sale a specified amount of marijuana to be sold to indivuduals and or club. I couldn't find the state numbers but San Diego approved 3 pounds / 24 plants for use or 2 pounds / 48 plants for caregivers this week.
Rosenthal was not in violation of the state law. What is at question here harkens back to the civil war.... It's a matter of States Rights. Do the people of California have the right to pass a law legalizes the use of Medical Marijuana when the Federal government refuses to entertain the idea because they are paid hansomely by drug company loddyists not to.
IMO - I think that the judge definitely made reversable error when he refused to allow the mention that the State of California had authorized Rosenthal to do exactly what the Feds were prosecuting him for.
posted on February 6, 2003 09:17:21 AM new
I get it, Kalifornia wants it legal to grow pot, kill brain cells, reduce the IQ of the population. Makes for better Democratic voters. None of it will ever be abused or slip through all the regulations & be distributed on the street.
But restrict the the magazine capacity of firearms to 10 rds.
posted on February 6, 2003 09:43:19 AM new
::I get it, Kalifornia wants it legal to grow pot, kill brain cells, reduce the IQ of the population. Makes for better Democratic voters. None of it will ever be abused or slip through all the regulations & be distributed on the street. ::
Yes - and until 91- so did the medical community as a whole because they were prescribing it to pateints until the $30k a year, less effective pharmacutical replacement came out.
I seiously doubt that as you watch a good friend die of AIDS and find the only way that they are relieved of pain and able to develope any type of appetite is thru the use of Medical Marijuana that your first worry will be their IQ.
Yes, or course some will slip thru the cracks and hit the streets, just as morphine, amphetemines, and any other narcotic prescription drug has - Should we outlaw those as well?
When Clinton was President, Conservative Republicans were all for State's Rights and were angry about the Federal Government over ruling them.
Now that Bush is in power creating a draconian totalitarian governemnt, Conservative Republicans are all for Big Government and AGAINST State's Rights!
Bear, like other Conservative Republicans, have their head up their backsides when it comes to IQs.
posted on February 6, 2003 01:42:47 PM new
When it is Federally perscribed, fine & OK. If you can 100% guarantee that it will NOT be abused & sold on the street, OK.
You want to smoke pot, go north to Canada.
It is still illegal to grow, distribute & use pot. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state "You are hereby granted the use of illegal substances". What's next, cocaine, heroin, how about speed or meth?
If you want the right ot smoke pot, get it legalized.
Until then too bad.
Borilla, you really remind me of a cabbage, All head & no azz You shouldn't be allowed around any equiptment that requires a clear thought process to operate. See Below:
posted on February 6, 2003 01:56:53 PM new
When it is Federally perscribed, fine & OK. If you can 100% guarantee that it will NOT be abused & sold on the street, OK.
Just out of curiosity - which federally mandated product lives up to that guarantee? Name a presciption drug and give me two hours - I'll go buy it, on the street, right now. Name a weapon, give me a day, Those people that I bought the drug from.... they'll deliver it to me.
Let's not make terminal patients felons just because they want to lessen their pain at an affordable cost.
posted on February 6, 2003 01:57:46 PM new
>It is still illegal to grow, distribute & use pot. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state "You are hereby granted the use of illegal substances"
Shame on you, Bear! You, as a New Conservative Republican know exactly where it says that! To Wit:
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
posted on February 6, 2003 03:19:51 PM newthe Pursuit of Happiness
Hummmmm, don't think that is what they had in mind The people I KNEW that were pot heads were never very happy. When their supply ran out, they had to take UPPERS just to get through the day. Very depressed individuals.
Neon, OK I would like to place an order for a unissued BAR, when can I expect delivery?
posted on February 6, 2003 03:20:10 PM new
Neon, since you are pro pot, this must apply to you.
WASHINGTON -- Girls and young women get hooked on cigarettes, alcohol and drugs more quickly and for different reasons than boys and should receive specialized treatment that reflects that, according to a study released Wednesday.
Teenage girls often begin smoking and drinking to relieve stress or alleviate depression, while boys do it for thrills or heightened social status, according to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
"(Girls) get hooked faster, they get hooked using lesser amounts of alcohol and drugs and cocaine, and they suffer the consequences faster and more severely," said Joseph A. Califano Jr., chairman of the center.
posted on February 6, 2003 04:45:40 PM new
Bear - Let's not jump to conclusions here. Although I experimented with pot like most teens 20 years ago I found it be possibly the most boring and overrated experience of my lifetime. I'm not a drug and alcohol person. As a recreational drugs, I've never quite understood the thrill.
As a medical treatment, it's a whole nother story. I have watched two friends suffer thru the ravages of AIDS, 3 relatives die of cancer and another who is still going strong today battle thru 3 battles with two different types of cancer. Medical Marijuana does not have the same horrible side effects as many of the pain medications that are given to these patients. It does not bring on nausea, it does not eliminate appetite and thus further weaken it's patient, and it does not bring on the same physical addictions and a whole new hell for the survivor with withdrawal.
My surviving relative was in a car accident many years ago, after recouping from his injuries he had the distinct pleasure of dealing with a withdrawal from morphine addiction. After his first battle with cancer treatments and drugs and thrush and everything that came with it he vowed to never go thru it again. His last two battles have been accompanied by use of marijuana. Recovery has been quicker for him in these cases due to not being knocked out on pain meds (just a little loopy and silly), having the appetite (or munchies whatever you wish to call it) that kept him wanting to eat rather than being forced to eat, etc.
Do I want it sold freely in the streets, no - quite honestly stoned people irritate me.
Do I want the sick and dying to have legal access to something that can ease their pain, lessen their suffering and in some instances help speed their recovery at an affordable price? Most definitely
Legalization is a different issue and absolutely should remain separate.
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 6, 2003 04:50 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2003 09:02:25 PM new
Where in the Bill of Rights does it state "You are hereby granted the use of illegal substances". What's next, cocaine, heroin, how about speed or meth?
Actually the idea that we are all children who must be told what we can buy and use did not appear until about 1910.
Before that you could buy and use whatever drugs you wanted and the only restraints on them were the peer pressure of social disapproval.
Laws and constitutional amendments solve nothing if there is not social conscieousness.
The idea that all men were created equal did not hold back the practice of slavery or the denial of the vote to women until there was a suficient mass of people saying that's what it meant, and applied it that way.
There is obviously a large mass of people in California saying the suffering of patients that need pot is more important than the need to restrict it's use. When there are enough of them it will be done. In time these laws will look like the Jim Crow laws do to people today. Ignorant and abusive.
posted on February 6, 2003 09:38:39 PM new
There is a proper place for the FDA and federal regulation. Drugs should be of the best purity and side effects should be well known and dispensed along with the medicine. Food products likewise. To prevent fraudulent "Snake Oil" cures and truly deadly concoctions from unscienced and ignorant businesspeople, the FDA has done a wonderful job. For instance, in every study of vitamin pills, the purity and quantity of the more expensive vitamins has always failed lab analysis. Either the grade is too low to be useful or where there are multi-vitamins in one pill, the more expensive elements have been short-changed or left out altogether. it is fraud, pure and simple. Yet, the Health Food industry blows as much smoke at the FDA as the Tobacco Industry does. The FDA makes sense and should be in place.
But keeping people, anyone, from smoking MJ in the privacy of their own home is going too far, IMO. And now the People have made their voices heard in California and the Republican Federal Government doesn't like it. They have no reason other than it takes money away from the medical and drug industry. Boo hoo! State's Rights is a good thing, because the voice of the People have been locked out of Washington by the lobbyists. I'm for Democracy, Bear ~ what're you for -- a Dictatorship?
posted on February 7, 2003 02:51:25 AM new
Borillar writes:
"But keeping people, anyone, from smoking MJ in the privacy of their own home is going too far, IMO. "
Does that go for shooting Heroin, smoking crack, fondling small furry animals, kiddy porn, building bombs or nuclear devices in there own homes too?
Sometimes the laws suck. That's when you ban together and change them.
I Don't smoke pot anymore and I'm not a big supporter. I don't judge those that do. I don't believe it's the end all evil depicted by the government since the 1930s either. I do believe it has medical benefit and should be used by those it will help.
posted on February 7, 2003 07:30:12 AM new
I can understand some advancing & supporting the idea of of pot for medical purposes. My point is that it is still illegal.
These same people WANT registration of legal firearms by law abiding citizens from the federal government. But when {b]THEY[/b] want an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE for what ever use, they want the government to keep hands off.
It's a convient double standard. When smoking pot is made legal (if ever), I will fully support a persons right to toke up.
posted on February 7, 2003 12:45:50 PM newthe Pursuit of Happiness
Hummmmm, don't think that is what they had in mind
Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, in addition to tobacco, grew marijuana.
Why is marijuana illegal, yet two infinitely more deadly drugs are readily available?(alcohol and tobacco). Money, only money. You or I can very easily grow and process our own marijuana. Taxing it would be a nightmare. But alcohol! and tobacco! These were tailor made for corporate and government greed-heads!
Those people laying on the sidewalk in their own urine aren't there because of marijuana abuse. Those people in the hospital coughing up their lungs aren't there from marijuana abuse.
Now the guy standing behind the counter asking if you want fries with that. That could be from marijuana abuse......
.................................................
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Firemen, Police.
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Feb 7, 2003 12:47 PM ]
posted on February 7, 2003 01:11:49 PM new
>Does that go for shooting Heroin, smoking crack, fondling small furry animals, kiddy porn, building bombs or nuclear devices in there own homes too?
Colin, you are confusing religion and law. The law concerning MJ is nonsense. Your attempt to put smoking marijuana on a parr with kiddy porn and whatnot is also nonsense.
posted on February 7, 2003 04:26:12 PM new
Only to you Borillar,
posted on February 7, 2003 01:11:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverend Colin>Does that go for shooting Heroin, smoking crack, fondling small furry animals, kiddy porn, building bombs or nuclear devices in there own homes too?
Borillar>Colin, you are confusing religion and law. The law concerning MJ is nonsense. Your attempt to put smoking marijuana on a parr with kiddy porn and whatnot is also nonsense.
I never confuse Religion with law. Religion is a spirit that's different with every person. Th law is the law, Our law, like it or not.
Sorry if i hit home with something in my original statemant.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
www.reverendcolin.com
posted on February 7, 2003 04:34:29 PM new
>Sorry if i hit home with something in my original statemant.
No. That's not an emotional response from me. It's an observation that you are perceiving the law as a blanket -- a common practice in Fundamentalist religions concerning concepts and religious laws. That you've been spending too much time with your nose in the Bible and not enough time in your head to digest it is appearent with your point of view. Not a single scientist or medical person would ever agree with the thought that marijuana is in the same dangerous ballpark as heroin or cocain, let alone be a perversion as bad as someone scoping out kiddy porn. You are wa-a-a-a-a-y off-base with that one, amigo!
posted on February 7, 2003 04:45:01 PM new
You tell me I'm getting the law and religion mixed up? I believe you may be doing exactly that. I've read the bible, Trying to get through the Koran. Why? I want to know why people would be so involved with organize and unorganized religion.
I don't have my nose in a book most of the time. I work very hard at my own business. A motorcycle Shop and on line business.
rt67cycle.com
I'm very much against organized religion.
Now to get back to your observation. As I posted. The law is the law, Break it and pay the price. All those other things I stated were against the law (and some against Humanity).
Think before you write. I, (even the Reverend) makes that mistake too. That's why I use a spell checker.
posted on February 7, 2003 05:25:35 PM new
::;These same people WANT registration of legal firearms by law abiding citizens from the federal government. But when {b]THEY[/b] want an ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE for what ever use, they want the government to keep hands off.
It's a convient double standard. When smoking pot is made legal (if ever), I will fully support a persons right to toke up. :::
Only one problem - It IS legal in the state of California. Rosenthal was authorized to grow and distribute by the state of California.
The debate is whether or not the Federal Government can override a state law enacted via a majority vote of the people of the state of California.
When exactly do those of us living in this democratic country get to benefit from a democratic vote?
