Marijuana Hero Ed Rosenthal Convicted: Faces 5 Year Minimum at Age 58

[subgenius]

Marijuana hero Ed Rosenthal, 58 years old, was convicted a marijuana charge yesterday and faces a minimum of 5 years.
Since he was charged with a Federal crime, the lackey judge refused testimony that he was starting plants to distribute to medical marijuana clubs, which is legal under state law.
So much for the party in power's claim of respect for "states' rights."
The rape of America goes on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/01/national/01MARI.html?th

[ssibal]

Being within the bounds of state law does not exempt you from Federal law.

[Baggle]

Quotes taken from http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n087/a04.html

Rosenthal's attorneys presented evidence that the DEA gave assurances to local medical marijuana activists that they would respect California's medical marijuana laws. Several Oakland city officials, including the city attorney and the former head of the Oakland Police Department's Narcotics Division, also testified in pre-trial hearings that they were never told told by the DEA that they were violating federal law and could be subject to federal prosecution.
Sad...they promise to respect a state's rights, not to intervene, and then go ahead and bust a guy with charges with a sentence of up to 85 years in prison.

The City of Oakland sought to protect medical marijuana providers using a provision in the Controlled Substances Act which allows local municipalities to deputize agents of the city and immunize them from civil and criminal liability. This legal exception, known as 885( d ), protects law enforcement agents who possess, buy or sell drugs in the course of their duties.
Ya know, I was saddened deeply by this ruling, and attributed it to California merely going overboard in testing the limits of state rights. After all, you can't have a state law that denies a federal law, can you? As it turns out, state and federal law, as far as Ed Rosenthal's case, were in harmony. I guess it's okay that the DEA busted Rosenthal for possession, but they have set a precedent now....if a locally ordained officer is given the immunity to possess marijuana under the Controlled Substances act, section 885d, the feds better prosecute them, too. It seems like they've chosen to ignore their own rules. Does this mean that there can be no more undercover cops dealing mj on the corner of a poor neighborhood and then busting all of the folks there and seizing their property?

Judge Breyer rejected the estoppel argument asserting that DEA assurances not to prosecute were hearsay. He also ruled that Oakland city officials were not authorized to relay such assurances and that lack of swift enforcement action by federal law enforcement did not imply consent.
I suppose the fact that the DEA does not give any sort of criminal defense, but it sure does put yet another stain upon their already marred image. More evidence that you can't trust those who are assigned by the Federal Gov't to protect you. It's too bad.

I also find it apalling that no mention was allowed to be made about Rosenthal growing these plants for people in need of medicine, even if no mention could be made about Prop 215(which legalizes medical mj in California). This was his motivation in his crime. Even rapists and murderers are allowed to tell the jury WHY they committed the crime they committed...even if that doesn't make it legal. It's just too bad, really. The whole reason we have a jury system in the first place is to give the jurors the power to decide what is going to be done with the law....follow it or not. I cannot remember the exact incident, but I do recall learning in my early US history class that the event that triggered this whole system was the carting off of Americans to be tried in England because the English knew that if the trial was held in America, the Americans would go free. This is why we are garaunteed a jury of our peers....right? I seem to remember Paul Revere(I think...?) respresenting these guys?

Sorry for the rambling, but this result really saddens me. Hopefully it will help to draw public attention to this important issue. Although it seems like most news agencies are putting this story of a 58year old man growing medicinal marijuana for dying people being given a maximum of 85 years in prison, wayyyy on the back burner. It's too bad. Or maybe this will be turned over on appeal, and things will turn out for the best. I honestly do not know. We shall see.

My heart goes out to those dying people and those compassionate city officials who must be ridden with guilt right now because of this verdict. I also hope Rosenthal's family, his wife and adolesent daughter, the very best. We will eventually win this. They will have to tell the truth about marijuana one day.....won't they? :confused: :(

Baggle

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal
Being within the bounds of state law does not exempt you from Federal law.
What about the issue of the purported position of the administration regarding states' rights?
What about justice? Fairness? Reason?
:confused:

[Nasarius]

There's always the appeal. Maybe Rosenthal will get a judge who isn't such an ass next time.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

What about the issue of the purported position of the administration regarding states' rights?

How do you know that was their position? The claim was made by the defense, but it was thrown out. Regardless, I always thought that Federal laws had higher precedence than state laws.


What about justice? Fairness? Reason?
:confused:

I do not see the justice, fairness, or reason for ignoring Federal laws.

[Checkmite]

"Hero"? :rolleyes:

[corplinx]

As Nelson Mundtz would say, "Hah haaa". After seeing marijuana destroy the life of my father I like to know if that makes him a pot "hero" too.

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
So much for the party in power's claim of respect for "states' rights."

Did you ever think they really meant it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Being within the bounds of state law does not exempt you from Federal law.

That's not what the Constitution says.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I do not see the justice, fairness, or reason for ignoring Federal laws.

Where is the justice, fairness, and reason in preventing sick and dying people from getting the medicine they need?

Can you look these people (http://www.LP.org/av/mmad2.wmv)¹ in the eye and tell them they have to suffer and die?

¹1.25MB Windows Media file

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
As Nelson Mundtz would say, "Hah haaa". After seeing marijuana destroy the life of my father I like to know if that makes him a pot "hero" too.

This guy was trying to save lives, not destroy them.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


That's not what the Constitution says.

Really? Where does it say that state law overrules Federal law?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Where is the justice, fairness, and reason in preventing sick and dying people from getting the medicine they need?

Can you look these people (http://www.LP.org/av/mmad2.wmv)¹ in the eye and tell them they have to suffer and die?

¹1.25MB Windows Media file

Since when was marijuana the only cure for sick and dying people?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


Since when was marijuana the only cure for sick and dying people?
In some cases it is the only effective treatment. You really can't lump all "sick and dying people" in together.
For some there is no cure. No hope. No relief. Not even marijuana.

[subgenius]

Another thread points out promising research that cannabinoids may actually be anti-lymphoma agents.
http://www.cerebral.org/Maps/msg03724.html

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


Since when was marijuana the only cure for sick and dying people?
I guess he could look them in the eye and......
Pretty cold.

[corplinx]

Explain to me why medicinal marijuana must be used versus a pill/liquid based on the same chemical produced under normal pharmaceutical processes. I know there are THC based treatments for glaucoma now that do not involve lighting up. Medicinal marijauna makes me think of you needing morphine to kill pain and the doctor giving you a bag of poppy seeds.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

In some cases it is the only effective treatment. You really can't lump all "sick and dying people" in together.
For some there is no cure. No hope. No relief. Not even marijuana.

Exactly what cases is marijuana the only effective treatment. And what do you mean by only effective treatment? Only way to relieve pain? Only way to survive. I seriously doubt that there are any cases where marijuana is the only way for the patient to live or even live without pain.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

I guess he could look them in the eye and......
Pretty cold.

Maybe you two need to look at the big picture. We have enough problems with marijuana as it is to be making easier for the abusers to get it.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


Exactly what cases is marijuana the only effective treatment. And what do you mean by only effective treatment? Only way to relieve pain? Only way to survive. I seriously doubt that there are any cases where marijuana is the only way for the patient to live or even live without pain.
The research is voluminous. You can do it or not. I don't care.
Here's a start, but I get the sense that you are a hard hearted/headed individual that can't/won't be changed.
http://www.medmjscience.org/
http://www.maps.org/mmj/russo2002.pdf
http://www.rxmarihuana.com/

[subgenius]

Here's a copy of Oregon's law and the debilitating conditions for which they have found it to be effective.
http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/oaps/mm/475a.htm
Let's hope you never suffer from any of these, but if you live long enough eventually you get something.
By the way, I have an incurable, degenerative neuro-transmitter disease similar to Parkinson's.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


Maybe you two need to look at the big picture. We have enough problems with marijuana as it is to be making easier for the abusers to get it.
Far more problems from it being criminal.
More people die in one day from being in prison for it than have died from using it in all recorded history.

[Baggle]

Originally posted by corplinx
As Nelson Mundtz would say, "Hah haaa". After seeing marijuana destroy the life of my father I like to know if that makes him a pot "hero" too.

Now that all depends....did your father volunteer his services to providing marijuana as a pain killer/nausea suppressent to the sick and dying? Specifically those suffering from MS and AIDS when there is little or nothing else that may help them? I guess if he did, then the answer is yes. If he didn't, then the answer is no. Or were you being sarcastic?

Of course marijuana will ruin lives. So will sex. So will the internet. So will Dungeons and Dragons. The problem lies not within these specific things, but within a single gene. This gene has been dubbed the "alcoholism gene." Of course, this doesn't mean that it causes only alcoholism, but addiction in general. If either/both of your parents were alcoholics/addicts(to generally non-addictive substances. Anybody can become addicted to Opiates(many pain killers) or Cocaine, Nicotine, etc), you've got a 50% chance of having the gene yourself. In this case, it'd be wise to steer very clear of activities that have a possibility of being abused. If you do not steer completely clear of them, keep them in check, and do not try and forget your problems by using them. This will only lead to even more of a chance of dependence. Native Americans are especially at risk. Those of Jewish and certain south-east Asian ancestries are not carriers of this gene, and are therefore not alcoholics/sex addicts/internet addicts/etc.

So, really, if your father ruined his life with the stuff by means of addiction(defined as continuing an activity even though it is disrupting more important aspects of your life), then it was just chance that lead him to marijuana. He could have just as easily become an alcoholic, sex addict, or addict of anything else that has any chance of abuse.

Or did you simply mean that your father ruined his life with Marijuana because he was jailed because of it? If this is the case, you're involved in a logical fallacy....Circular logic. It's bad because it's illegal. It's illegal because it's bad.

In whatever case, my condolences go out to you and you have my sympathies, even if you are relishing in other people's pain, which I personally find detestable.

If you meant none of these things, please clarify and I'll try to continue with you from there.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Originally posted by ssibal
Maybe you two need to look at the big picture. We have enough problems with marijuana as it is to be making easier for the abusers to get it.

What problems are there with Marijuana that do not DIRECTLY stem from it being illegal? I'll be happy to debate you on the issues if you simply clarify your point. I'll also be more than happy to readily accept any real problems you can point out, as long as they are in accordance with fact and can be verified in some way.

-Baggle

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by subgenius
More people die in one day from being in prison for it than have died from using it in all recorded history. As much as I think marijuana should be legalized immediately - do you have any backup for that claim? As far as I know, few people die from using the drug as such, but smoking (whatever) isn't too good to your lungs. :confused:

How many people being in prison for smoking marijuana die per day , and for what reasons? :(

[Baggle]

Originally posted by ssibal
Exactly what cases is marijuana the only effective treatment. And what do you mean by only effective treatment? Only way to relieve pain? Only way to survive. I seriously doubt that there are any cases where marijuana is the only way for the patient to live or even live without pain.

Marijuana will not save lives...neither will Vicodin or Morphene or Codeine or.....you get the idea. Marijuana's mainly touted benefits are that of it being a nausea suppressent, appetite enhancer(both special worth to AIDS patients/caner patients undergoing chemotherapy, who have an excessive loss of appetite, and can't keep food down much of the time when they DO manage to eat), and pain killer(usually for those affected with Multiple Schlorosis). Marijuana is the current best bet for these people suffering from these problems. If something better comes along, I honestly doubt those patients would pass up the better medication just so that they can get a Marijuana high. It just doesn't make sense that people would make their lives more miserable just to keep smoking Marijuana, which is less addictive than Caffeine. BUT, even if something better DID come along, those people should still have the right to stick with Marijuana, whether it is less effective or not. I have the right to (stupidly)take homeopathic medication for my headaches EVEN THOUGH it does NOTHING. I have the right to take whatever medication I choose for my condition, be it the most effective or not. This should be especially true for those things which present a very low chance of harm to my body.

Of course I am no doctor, and I know only what I've read. However, I am guessing that I've read more on the subject than you have. Go do some real research on it, and if you find something based in fact that still supports your opinion, let's take it from there.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Originally posted by Bjorn
As much as I think marijuana should be legalized immediately - do you have any backup for that claim? As far as I know, few people die from using the drug as such, but smoking (whatever) isn't too good to your lungs. :confused:

How many people being in prison for smoking marijuana die per day , and for what reasons? :(

I'll try to field this one....

Smoking cigarettes is proven to be bad for your lungs to the point of causing death. This is a fact. Marijuana smoke has many of the same substances that tobacco smoke has. This is a fact. HOWEVER, it is not a fact that smoking Marijuana is bad for your lungs to the point of causing death, or even cancer, or even emphasema(sp?). Actually, I've read that it is thought that Marijuana may not even be able to cause emphasema at all(although I cannot validate this). My point being, even if Marijuana smoke DOES do the same harm to the lungs as tobacco smoke, it is impossible for us to know, since the DEA must sign off on any study that is to be done with Marijuana, and the DEA doesn't really like to give that permission very often...especially since if evidence was indeed found to support the idea that mj has medicinal purposes, mj would then have to be re-scheduled as a Schedule II drug, which would decrease penalties related to Marijuana.

But, let's assume for a moment that Marijuana smoke is just as bad as tobacco smoke, or worse. Because of the HIGHLY addictive nature of nicotine, tobacco users are MUCH more likely to inhale MUCH more smoke from their cigarettes than Marijuana users from their instrument of choice. A Marijuana user takes three deep hits from a joint/bong/pipe/etc and is done for 3-6 hours, depending on the quality of the Marijuana. After this, most folks are done for the evening. A cigarette smoker may smoke a half pack or more a day. There will be MUCH more contact from the smoke to the lungs with tobacco smoke than Marijauna smoke.

This is without mentioning that Marijuana does not have to be smoked to get the effects from it. Marijuana can be consumed in a tea or in food, or even absorbed through the skin. If Marijuana were in fact legalized, I'd recon we'd see a lot of this being marketed, since it could be mass produced without fear of the law. These methods of using Marijuana do absolutely no harm to the lungs at all.

As far as prison goes, I cannot provide you with the statistics for this. I can only use logic to assume that being inside of a prison with convicted murderers/rapists/etc has a much higher likelihood of killing you or at least doing a good deal of psychological/physical damage(read: rape) than from sitting at home toking up. Again, I cannot verify this logic with statistics, but it seems reasonable, don't you think?

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Also, Bjorn, I believe subgenius meant more people die in one day in prison than from all people ever recorded overdosing on Marijuana. If this is not true, it is only a matter of time before it becomes true. If only one person that is in prison for Marijuana-related non-violent crimes has been killed in prison in the past 50 years, which is highly unlikely, there are still .000547945205 people who die every day in prison because of Marijuana laws. This is more than those who have overdosed from Marijuana in all of recorded history, which is zero. I'd assume that more than one MJ offender has been killed in the prison system in the past 50 years for whatever reason. To join gangs, the guy wouldn't give up his fruit cup or milk, the murderer didn't like the way the guy looked, or the murderer was simply a psychopath. This is prison we're talking about....not the nicest place to be; especially in the United States.

-Baggle

[OdderMensch]

Really? Where does it say that state law overrules Federal law?

I'll try this one, thou Constutional Law is hardly my area of expertise.

Amendment 10 : 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.

It makes no mention of the power to control or outlaw certain intoxicants. That's why the 18th amendment was required for prohibition.

on what right did the congress begin this silly war? Why, the power to regulate and tax inter-state commerce of course.

[Baggle]

Originally posted by ssibal
I always thought that Federal laws had higher precedence than state laws.


Read my initial post. The city of Oakland was acting in accordance with federal law, specifically citing the Controlled Substances Act, section 885d.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Really? Where does it say that state law overrules Federal law?

I'll try to feild this one, thou Constutional Law is hardly my area of expertise.

Amendment 10 : 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.

It makes no mention of the power to control or outlaw certain intoxicants. That's why the 18th amendment was required for prohibition.

on what right did the congress begin this silly war? Why, the power to regulate and tax inter-state commerce of course.

Hmm...interesting...

So if this is the reasoning they use to enforce prohibition of Marijuana, how is it that they justify their actions unless the Marijuana product itself is crossing state lines? This was obviously not the case with Ed Rosenthal. I'm legitimately curious about this. I've never known these specifics.

Thanks for the interesting information.
-Baggle

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by corplinx
Explain to me why medicinal marijuana must be used versus a pill/liquid based on the same chemical produced under normal pharmaceutical processes. I know there are THC based treatments for glaucoma now that do not involve lighting up. Medicinal marijauna makes me think of you needing morphine to kill pain and the doctor giving you a bag of poppy seeds.

Advantages of crude, smoke MJ vs the pill forms available now.

1) Dosage control. When the symptoms subside, stop smoking. If they return, smoke some more. Also many who have taken the pills say it makes you feel wasted. Pure THC can have some nasty side effects but in it's crude form some other chemicals act as stabilizing agents.

2) Immediatecy of effect. Smoke is inhaled into the lungs, passeed into the blood and has an immediate response. Pills must dissolve in the stomach and can take a while, and suppositories are evan slower.

3) Logic. The main use of medical MJ is appetite and nausea control. Try taking a few pills when you can't hold down water.

4) cost. Medical MJ could be as good as free to anyone with some soil and sunlight. Given the high cost of cancer treatments and the HIV drugs this should be a welcome change.

edited cause I spell gud.

[OdderMensch]

So if this is the reasoning they use to enforce prohibition of Marijuana, how is it that they justify their actions unless the Marijuana product itself is crossing state lines? This was obviously not the case with Ed Rosenthal. I'm legitimately curious about this. I've never known these specifics.

AFAIK This issue has never gone before the high court. If you notice all the recent ruleings have been on side issues (such as the use of a three judge court)

I hope they take this before the Supreme Court, as is I don't belive it have a Constutional leg to stand on.

[Baggle]

Well, if anybody can bring this issue to the Supreme Court, I suppose it would be Mr. Rosenthal. Of course, what would you like to bet that the S.C. will decline to hear the case in the event that it ever does reach them? :mad:

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


Advantages of crude, smoke MJ vs the pill forms available now.

1) Dosage control.
2) Immediatecy of effect.


Dosage? What scientific measurement do you apply to joints and lids? Thats not metric for sure. If anything dosage control is worse since your relying on someones feeling and inaccurate amounts.

Look, if medicinal marijuana is so great, I am sure it can be given in a sublingual form, injected, put in an inhaler, or other means that are fast acting have have much better dosage control. Why give someone pure marijuana with all the bad stuff thats in it? The last thing someone terminally ill wants is a bad smoker's cough in addition to all their other ills.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


The last thing someone terminally ill wants is a bad smoker's cough in addition to all their other ills.
Au contraire oh horned one, that's the least of their worries.
There are plenty of meds taken on an as needed basis determined by the patient, and why the fu*k are you worried about it and quibbling with people with serious diseases? We've got more pressing problems to deal with than someone else trying to control our health care. Thought you were a kind of government hands-off kind of guy. Guess you know better whats good for the seriously ill and suffering. Hope its not you too soon.

[RandFan]

I campaigned for the law to make medical use of marijuana legal and of course I voted for it. I am not satisfied to only allow for medical use. We need to stop this stupid vendetta against drugs. Get the dealers out of prison and allow for a product no more harmful (arguably far less harmful) than alcohol to be legal.

That being said, I was here when the initiative passed. I remember that the Federal government said from day one that it would not recognize it. I remember the outcry and debates. There may well have been mixed signals from the DEA but anyone involved knew that it was a risk to try and break federal law.

Ed is intitled to a defense but I don't buy it because I was quite certain that the federal government would move to protect it's interests (I'll let you decide what those interest are) regarding this issue.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Baggle
Also, Bjorn, I believe subgenius meant more people die in one day in prison than from all people ever recorded overdosing on Marijuana. If this is not true, it is only a matter of time before it becomes true. If only one person that is in prison for Marijuana-related non-violent crimes has been killed in prison in the past 50 years, which is highly unlikely, there are still .000547945205 people who die every day in prison because of Marijuana laws. This is more than those who have overdosed from Marijuana in all of recorded history, which is zero. I'd assume that more than one MJ offender has been killed in the prison system in the past 50 years for whatever reason. To join gangs, the guy wouldn't give up his fruit cup or milk, the murderer didn't like the way the guy looked, or the murderer was simply a psychopath. This is prison we're talking about....not the nicest place to be; especially in the United States.

-Baggle Baggle, thanks for interesting answers.

I wasn't thinking about overdosing, I was just curious about how dangerous marijuana smoking is to your health compared to being in prison (presumably without smoking).

Statistics for e.g. lung cancer are not available, partly for reasons you pointed out, partly because many marijuana users are also cigarette smokers.

As for the dangers of being in prison: My impression is based on American movies, in which one is bound to be raped within the first couple of days, ususally by the leader of a mean gang of bodybuilders. I have no idea at all about the truth.

On a more serious thought, the decision to put people in prison for certain crimes does not at all consider the chances of surviving inside compared to surviving if allowed to continue the crime. I could mention a long list of crimes that are of no physical risk for those who commit them, but still will put them in jail if cought.

Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons, e.g. that keeping it illegal finances terrorism, according to the authorities. Or something like that. :p

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by corplinx


Dosage? What scientific measurement do you apply to joints and lids? Thats not metric for sure. If anything dosage control is worse since your relying on someones feeling and inaccurate amounts.

Most of the thing medical MJ do for you are subjective, pain relief, nausea control, ect. Since in its pill form you get say 500mg of THC what if thats not the right amount, you get 500 more mgs. people who use crude smoke MJ just toke till they feel beter, then stop.


Look, if medicinal marijuana is so great, I am sure it can be given in a sublingual form, injected, put in an inhaler, or other means that are fast acting have have much better dosage control. Why give someone pure marijuana with all the bad stuff thats in it? The last thing someone terminally ill wants is a bad smoker's cough in addition to all their other ills.

The best way I knowof is called a vaporizer, however you can't manufacture them legally (AFAIK) because it has no dual use (ie evey bong sold in the US is for 'tabacco use only' ;) )

[Baggle]

Look, if medicinal marijuana is so great, I am sure it can be given in a sublingual form, injected, put in an inhaler, or other means that are fast acting have have much better dosage control.
Well, there is Marinol, a synthetic THC in pill form. I'm sure you've read all of the posts in this thread, so I won't need to point out that there are difficulties with pure THC, MJ's active ingredient, while including none of MJ's other ingredients, which are thought to help to stabilize the effect. Of course, maybe if the DEA allowed more science facilities to actually do research on MJ, then we'd have some better alternatives. But as I've already pointed out, if those research facilities did find any concrete medical use for MJ, the DEA would be obligated to re-schedule the drug to Schedule II instead of Schedule I, the classification where the very worst drugs(heroine, etc) are categorized, where it currently is. To keep the drug in Schedule I, the DEA has to claim that marijuana has a high chance of abuse(define...?) and has no accepted medical use. This are both obviously untrue, unless the definition they want to use for a "high chance of abuse" is "you can use it to feel good," in which case junk food could be made illegal. It's a big circle. You can't have it because it has no medical uses. We won't allow tests for medical uses because you can't have it....ad naseum.

Why give someone pure marijuana with all the bad stuff thats in it? The last thing someone terminally ill wants is a bad smoker's cough in addition to all their other ills.
I've already pointed out the difference between cigarettes and marijuana, even if the smoke from both is exactly the same, which it isn't. Reread that post, please. Not to mention the fact that somebody who is dying from AIDS or MS probably is less concerned about a smoker's cough, which they are unlikely to develop unless the patient is also an avid cigarette smoker, than they are with their ability to ingest food or remedy their painful muscle spasms. As I've also said, but as nobody has addressed, even if smoking the substance is THE most ineffectual method there is for receiving the medication, who are you to tell the patient that they cannot receive their medication in this form if they choose?

So, the health risks are very minimal compared to smoking tobacco, the effect has yet to be replicated in the USA in another form(because of the DEA disallowing it), and the substance obviously helps those with certain medical problems. So what other issues are left to be discussed in whether it should be allowed or not? Let's stop using the same debunked arguments over and over and move on, please; it contributes nothing to the thread. I am not a sore loser. If we get into an debate and I've lost on a point, I'll gladly concede. That hasn't yet happened in this thread.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Thought you were a kind of government hands-off kind of guy.

I am. I am also for medicine being made in traditional and controlled ways.

Personally, I think pot is one of the best things we have going. If you want someone who speaks english to roof your house, paint your house, or lay your carpet, I would say 90 percent of the time they will be a stoner.

So, my brother was a "flooring person" (aka he layed carpet). I asked him one day, after realizing all of his coworkers I had met were total stoners including him, if all carpet layers were potheads. He replied, "No, some are alcoholics".

I think its great that we have a drug that robs people of their drive and ambition. That way we have people who can speak good english working all of the shittiest jobs there are.

The only real victims I see are high schoolers. You know the ones. They discover pot and all of sudden their grades drop or they drop out. Then they are delivering pizzas, painting, flooring, or roofing while their friends are going on to college.

I think pot should be decriminalized but I could be wrong. Remember all the kids who got ahold of regular cigarettes back in high school? Imagine them all with joints. Its a tough call. Despite what I have been hearing lately, pot _is_ a gateway drug. Especially during dry seasons. When the local supply is dry, the dealers will often sell people xanax or other pills in lieu of pot. I should know, my father was one of those people. And yes, good ole' nonaddictive pot had people calling and wigging out because they "needed" pot even though there wasn't any. Solution? Pop a xanax. Withdrawal from xanax made his kidneys fail once btw. Xanax is a bad thing to abuse.

Anyway, my father was busted twice for dealing pot and those two times he actually was able to quit for a while (dealing and smoking). Unfortunately, people kept pulling him back in. If anything, getting arrested might be some people's only hope of getting out of the "lotos eaters".

My brother right now is on methadone for taking oxycontin (which a pot dealer sold him during a dry spell). He is now 30 and has no college degree or work skills besides laying flooring. Mind you, laying flooring kills your back and knees after about 8 years. Now he is on methadone and trying to clean up, but now he has no future to look forward to.

So, as you might be able to tell, I have thought about decriminalization of pot a lot. Especially as I watched the cops tear apart my room when I came home while they were busting my dad. As chance would have it, I got to see this both times it happened and was lucky to shown up after it started instead of being there when showed up.

[Baggle]

corplinx,

I hate to sound callous, and I am sorry that addiction has affected so many of your family members. You should be very cautious of any sort of substance, legal or otherwise, for the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread re addiction...you have a 50% chance of having the gene yourself.

With that said, nearly all problems you've mentioned with MJ can be directly attributed to it being illegal. Dry spells? There would be no such thing if it were either decriminalized or legalized. If tobacco or alcohol were illegal, and there were "dry spells," you'd see the exact same things happening. People who are alcoholics(in the generic sense of the word...ie they have the gene) are going to become addicted to any substance that can be abused in any way. People with the alcoholism gene may become compulsive over-eaters, even though food is not addictive. It's just the way these people are.

As far as it being a "gateway drug," I'm not so sure you should be so confident in that assertion, as researchers who study it surely are not. As a matter of fact, a brand new "gateway drug" study was just published by Australian researchers, studying the habits of identical twins. The found that those twins who used Marijuana as teenagers were more likely to try other drugs. Just what everybody wanted to hear, right? Well, it gets a bit deeper than that. The researchers did NOT draw from the results that Marijuana itself leads to use of other drugs. Rather, the researchers implied from the results that the fact that Marijuana is illegal may play a significant role in it leading to other drugs. Because the people who buy Marijuana may be A) bigger risk takers, B) unafraid of the law, C) involved with drug dealers who supply other, more harmful, drugs, they are more likely to get involved with other, more dangerous drugs. The people who are not risk takers by nature, who are afraid of the law, and who do not associate with those who deal in illegal drugs are nowhere near the harsher drugs, and probably wouldn't know how to get them even if they wanted them. Isn't this explanation much more likely as to why Marijuana may lead to other substances?

As far as killing ambition goes...I think you may not completely understand how Marijuana works. In the short term, yes, Marijuana CAN cause loss of ambition, "couch lock", etc. The type of Marijuana that causes this type of reaction is called "Indica." There is another another type of Marijuana, called "Sativa," which can give more of an uplifting, motivational high. It all depends on the strain. Even with this being said, there is no evidence that Marijuana has long lasting ambition-loss side-effects. The effects/side-effects of Marijuana disappear after a few hours in all but the most chronic of smokers, who may be affected by the adversely drug for up to 24 hours, although the high certainly will not last so long.

It seems that a majority your problems with the plant are tied directly to the fact that it is illegal.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Yes yes, I used to listen to the stoners at my dad's house espousing about how pot was great and the problems with it were because it was illegal. They would read high times and sit there preaching to each other.

If I had a dime for every time I heard "and it cures glaucoma!".........

[Baggle]

Ad hominem?

Run of out anything useful to say? I could respect you much more if you'd bring up intelligent points or concede defeat....one or the other.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Sorry if you took it that way. I was just making smalltalk. Anyone who has hung around stoners long enough can sympathize with the "every dime i heard....glaucoma".

[Baggle]

Maybe they(the stoners) had some valid points after all. Can you honestly think of any of the problems you mentioned with Marijuana that cannot be directly atttributed to the fact that the plant is illegal? I think I was justified and correct in every rebuttal I made to your points.

This is a skeptic's forum, after all. Coming into discussions with pre-conceived notions of what is true/false and not being willing to budge on issues goes against the whole purpose of this forum, IMHO. Seems like that is what is happening here. As I said, I have no problem with conceding defeat if a point is made that I cannot truthfully refute. This hasn't happened yet. If at all possible, I'd very much like to continue this little debate. These are things that need to be said, and there are too many myths/half-truths that need to be debunked. Thanks for participating thus far.

-Baggle

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Sorry if you took it that way. I was just making smalltalk. Anyone who has hung around stoners long enough can sympathize with the "every dime i heard....glaucoma".
Broad over-generalization. Didn't hear that more than a couple of times it in 35 years. That, of course, like your experience is anecdotal. The plural of anecdote is not data.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Really? Where does it say that state law overrules Federal law?

I'll try this one, thou Constutional Law is hardly my area of expertise.

Amendment 10 : 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.

It makes no mention of the power to control or outlaw certain intoxicants. That's why the 18th amendment was required for prohibition.

on what right did the congress begin this silly war? Why, the power to regulate and tax inter-state commerce of course.

What about Article 1, Section 8:
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 States, or in any department or officer thereof.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Baggle


Read my initial post. The city of Oakland was acting in accordance with federal law, specifically citing the Controlled Substances Act, section 885d.

-Baggle

But the judge threw it out, even though it may have been a loophole.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


What about Article 1, Section 8:

Circular reasoning. There's no mention of regulation of intoxicants as one of the foregoing powers.
Is this the Land of Liberty or not?

[ssibal]

I really do not want to get into a long debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal or not. Personally, I am not comfortable with another dangerous and abusive substance legalized, thus making it easier for people to ruin each others lives. I will admit this is purely based on anecdotal evidence. Which is why if there is ever a vote to legalize it I will vote NO, simple as that. From my experience the costs outweight the benefits. If you want to push for it, the go ahead but you will recieve no support from me. Frankly, I think this country has some of the most irresponsible people in the world. Not the type I would want it to be easier to put another controlled substance in their hands.
Now as for medical marijuana, I do not deny that it has some medical uses and that perhaps it is the best medicine for some situations. However, I have seen no evidence that it is the ONLY solution for any situation. There are alternatives to marijuana even though they might not be as effective. Perhaps I am cynical after being approached by so many burn outs who want me to sign their medical marijuana petition and spend more effort explaining how it would be a loophole for getting high rather than the actual medical need for it. I know not everyone who pushes for it is like this but I just could not support something that I think would ultimately have more negative consequences than positive.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Baggle
This is a skeptic's forum, after all. Coming into discussions with pre-conceived notions of what is true/false and not being willing to budge on issues goes against the whole purpose of this forum, IMHO.

Wow? Really? Your problem is, you want someone to be right and someone to be wrong. Not only that, you seem to need a good dose of your own medicine. Put that in a zig zag and roll it.

Sometimes I really don't feel like argueing with people. But what the hey, I'm putting you on ignore anyway. Cannabis is one of those topics like abortion or gun control that have a fanatical people both for and against armed with their own sets of statistics and data. Neither side is ever willing to budge (like you want). Neither side will admit its data is false, inconclusive, etc. The one thing these topics do bring up is "debates" between the fanatics that lead _nowhere_.

Mind you, I said I was for decriminalizing pot. As well as other drugs. We can always use more carpet layers.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal
I really do not want to get into a long debate about whether or not marijuana should be legal or not.
.............. but I just could not support something that I think would ultimately have more negative consequences than positive.
Gonna be working to put tobacco smokers and boozers in jail?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

Gonna be working to put tobacco smokers and boozers in jail?

Tobacco smokers? They do a good enough job of killing themselves. But I do vote YES for any new laws to get them away from me (though avoiding them is not a problem). As for alcoholics/drunks, I think any crime commited while intoxicated should have much harsher penalties.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


Tobacco smokers? They do a good enough job of killing themselves. But I do vote YES for any new laws to get them away from me (though avoiding them is not a problem). As for alcoholics/drunks, I think any crime commited while intoxicated should have much harsher penalties.
C'mon, I mean put them in jail for using?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

C'mon, I mean put them in jail for using?

No, just like I do not proactively work to keep marijuana illegal, I will not proactively work to put people in jail for smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. Though, I would not oppose it in the case of alcohol.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


No, just like I do not proactively work to keep marijuana illegal, I will not proactively work to put people in jail for smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. Though, I would not oppose it in the case of alcohol.
God Bless America.:confused:

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Really? Where does it say that state law overrules Federal law?

10th Amendment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Since when was marijuana the only cure for sick and dying people?

One example: marijuana is the only known substance that will reduce levels of adrenaline in the body. According to the world's leading adrenal cancer researchers and doctors, medical marijuana is the only thing that can stop adrenal cancer from becoming fatal within five years.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Explain to me why medicinal marijuana must be used versus a pill/liquid based on the same chemical produced under normal pharmaceutical processes.

Because medical marijuana is cheaper, safer, and has fewer side effects.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I seriously doubt that there are any cases where marijuana is the only way for the patient to live or even live without pain.

Peter McWilliams didn't live a year after the Feds forced him to give up his medical marijuana. You spit on his grave, you hateful misanthrope.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Maybe you two need to look at the big picture. We have enough problems with marijuana as it is to be making easier for the abusers to get it.

We didn't have these problems with marijuana until the government made it illegal! :rolleyes:

[Baggle]

Originally posted by corplinx


Wow? Really? Your problem is, you want someone to be right and someone to be wrong. Not only that, you seem to need a good dose of your own medicine. Put that in a zig zag and roll it.

Sometimes I really don't feel like argueing with people. But what the hey, I'm putting you on ignore anyway. Cannabis is one of those topics like abortion or gun control that have a fanatical people both for and against armed with their own sets of statistics and data. Neither side is ever willing to budge (like you want). Neither side will admit its data is false, inconclusive, etc. The one thing these topics do bring up is "debates" between the fanatics that lead _nowhere_.

Mind you, I said I was for decriminalizing pot. As well as other drugs. We can always use more carpet layers.

Ignorance at it's finest. You are putting me on ignore because I am a "fanatic" with my own set of statistics and data and I am "[n]ever willing to budge." All this, and yet I mentioned MULTIPLE times that if you could bring forth any evidence at all that would honestly counter mine in any way(anecdotes do not equal data), that I would gladly concede. I said this many times. Did you even read my posts? You never once claimed that any of my data was lacking, and if you would've said so, and could show me with rational logic, I would've gladly given you the point. I tried to make it unmistakably clear the whole time that I do not want to be seen as a fanatic, and I was willing to listen to any evidence provided. You provided none. Zero. Zip. Yet you still claim that I am unwilling to listen to your data....what data? If anything, you're unwilling to refute, or even LISTEN to mine. If you want me to be unable to form any further points, debunk my arguments and/or my data. Tell me where the evidence is lacking, and tell me where I've made logical fallacies. You haven't done this to any extent, while I've repeatedly done this to your arguments. Tell me where studies have been done that point to MJ being addictive, or causing CLS(Carpet Layer's Syndrome), etc. You will not because you can not.

I did not do make these arguments to settle a score or make you hurt, but because that's what this board is for; to discuss, like rational people, politics and current events using logic. You lost a simple debate and you got upset, and now you put me on ignore, not willing to hear anything else I'll ever have to say on any topic? Inexcusable and hurtful. If anybody is a fanatic, it is you, and if you continue with this course of actions(putting those on ignore who you disagree with, or who provide facts you do not like), you are no better than any given member of any given woo-woo forum who ban a JREF member as soon as they show up with facts.

It may be irrational of me, but this sort of makes me lose a tiny bit of the great respect I had for nearly every regular poster on this board. I am not a regular poster, but I've lurked here for about a year now, and I feel like I know many of the people here, even if nobody knows me. I knew that this is a place I could come to where thought, reason and logic ruled the day, and not anecdotes or personal emotions. I knew that if there were holes in my logic or inconclusiveness in my data, it'd be pointed out here, and I could either win or be defeated in various debates based on the merit of facts and logic, and nothing else. This clearly is not always the case, and I find that very disappointing, as I was having a lot of fun writing into this thread....the first thread I've ever truly participated in here, by the way. Perhaps it will be the last, and there really is no "holy grail" of logical debating on the internet without a heavy-handed moderator present, as I thought this forum was....I am rambling, and apologize, but corplinx, just know that you have brought shame upon this forum with your poor sportsmanship and irrational fears of reason with certain subjects. It's too bad. If I do continue to participate in other threads here, you really are missing out on some great debates and some great learning experiences(for me, at least). This is your loss. I am a great friend to have, and a great sport. I have no problem conceding defeat, and I try my hardest to stay away from personal attacks....I'll shut up now.

-Baggle

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
As much as I think marijuana should be legalized immediately - do you have any backup for that claim?

Every study I've checked on the matter has been unable to find even a single death that is directly attributable to marijuana.

[shanek]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
Really? Where does it say that state law overrules Federal law?

I'll try this one, thou Constutional Law is hardly my area of expertise.

Amendment 10 : 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.

It makes no mention of the power to control or outlaw certain intoxicants. That's why the 18th amendment was required for prohibition.

on what right did the congress begin this silly war? Why, the power to regulate and tax inter-state commerce of course.

See? OdderMensch admits that he's not an expert on the Constitution, and even he came to the correct answer. The Constitution isn't some mysterious document that can only be understood by an elite who have passed a government test. It's a plainly worded document that anyone can understand.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


What about Article 1, Section 8:
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 States, or in any department or officer thereof.


(emphasis mine)

Okay, now all you have to do is show where in the Constitution the government is vested the power to regulate marijuana.

[OdderMensch]

they could get that power here :

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

But they don't have the balls to pull it off. :p

when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

for the experts out there, what is meant here by Conventions? Would it be possible to circumvent the legislature of a state by holding a convention where a proposed amendment is passed?

edited to add
hmmm it seems you'd need a three fourths majority form both houses to propose to amend the Constution by Convention, not bloddy likely in any case. :(

[subgenius]

Baggle:
"It may be irrational of me, but this sort of makes me lose a tiny bit of the great respect I had for nearly every regular poster on this board. I am not a regular poster, but I've lurked here for about a year now, and I feel like I know many of the people here, even if nobody knows me. I knew that this is a place I could come to where thought, reason and logic ruled the day, and not anecdotes or personal emotions. I knew that if there were holes in my logic or inconclusiveness in my data, it'd be pointed out here, and I could either win or be defeated in various debates based on the merit of facts and logic, and nothing else. This clearly is not always the case, and I find that very disappointing, as I was having a lot of fun writing into this thread....the first thread I've ever truly participated in here, by the way. Perhaps it will be the last, and there really is no "holy grail" of logical debating on the internet without a heavy-handed moderator present, as I thought this forum was....I am rambling, and apologize, but corplinx, just know that you have brought shame upon this forum with your poor sportsmanship and irrational fears of reason with certain subjects. It's too bad. If I do continue to participate in other threads here, you really are missing out on some great debates and some great learning experiences(for me, at least). This is your loss. I am a great friend to have, and a great sport. I have no problem conceding defeat, and I try my hardest to stay away from personal attacks....I'll shut up now."
----------------------------
Don't shut up and don't go.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

God Bless America.:confused:

Uhm......no.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


One example: marijuana is the only known substance that will reduce levels of adrenaline in the body. According to the world's leading adrenal cancer researchers and doctors, medical marijuana is the only thing that can stop adrenal cancer from becoming fatal within five years.

The only known substance that will reduce adrenaline levels? I will have to research that one though I must point out that the body naturally has the ability to reduce adrenaline levels. They can always research into the enzyme or whatever that does it naturally. As for marijuana being the only solution for adrenal cancer, that is not true. There are already treatments for it that do not involve marijuana.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Peter McWilliams didn't live a year after the Feds forced him to give up his medical marijuana. You spit on his grave, you hateful misanthrope.

Misanthrope? Hahaha.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


The only known substance that will reduce adrenaline levels? I will have to research that one though I must point out that the body naturally has the ability to reduce adrenaline levels. They can always research into the enzyme or whatever that does it naturally. As for marijuana being the only solution for adrenal cancer, that is not true. There are already treatments for it that do not involve marijuana.
The body has the ability to do a lot of things. Sometimes disease prevents the body from doing those things. Are we clear on the concept of disease now?
He didn't say it was the only solution to adrenal cancer. Read the posts before responding. Saves time.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


We didn't have these problems with marijuana until the government made it illegal! :rolleyes:

I was not referring to legal problems.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


See? OdderMensch admits that he's not an expert on the Constitution, and even he came to the correct answer. The Constitution isn't some mysterious document that can only be understood by an elite who have passed a government test. It's a plainly worded document that anyone can understand.

I find it ironic that you claim it is plainly worded for anyone to understand yet there is so much disagreement and controversy concerning it.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek



(emphasis mine)

Okay, now all you have to do is show where in the Constitution the government is vested the power to regulate marijuana.

Just read the foregoing power to provide for common defense and general welfare of the U.S..

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

The body has the ability to do a lot of things. Sometimes disease prevents the body from doing those things. Are we clear on the concept of disease now?

And the point of this was?

He didn't say it was the only solution to adrenal cancer. Read the posts before responding. Saves time.

He said:

medical marijuana is the only thing that can stop adrenal
cancer from becoming fatal within five years.

That simply is not true.

[Baggle]

Originally posted by ssibal
I was not referring to legal problems.

Then what problems were you referring to? Clarify your points so that they may be debated/refuted/accepted. You doing this will save us a lot of time since we won't have to guess which problems you are talking about. Please use studies whenever possible, and do not offer anecdotes as evidence. This will make things easier to discuss.

Thanks.
-Baggle

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
The only known substance that will reduce adrenaline levels? I will have to research that one though I must point out that the body naturally has the ability to reduce adrenaline levels.

Not if you have functioning adrenal cancer.

When you do your research, check out the late Dr. Vincent DeQuattro, who was one of the leading adrenal cancer researchers in the world, and see what he had to say.

They can always research into the enzyme or whatever that does it naturally.

Maybe; but until then, why sentence adrenal cancer sufferers to death just because you don't like the medicine they need?

There are already treatments for it that do not involve marijuana.

Like??? The other treatments I've read about are for the cancer itself, not for the adrenaline levels.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


Misanthrope? Hahaha.

Yes, misanthrope. You don't even trust doctors to prescribe a medicine.

I also noticed you ignored the point I made, how author Peter McWilliams died nearly a year after the Feds took away his medical marijuana. Before that, he was on the road to health; almost immediately after having the marijuana taken away, his AIDS and his non-hodgkins lymphoma were able to accelerate.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


I was not referring to legal problems.

Nor am I.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I find it ironic that you claim it is plainly worded for anyone to understand yet there is so much disagreement and controversy concerning it.

Maybe the disagreement and controversy comes from people wanting it to mean something other than it says, ya think??? :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


Just read the foregoing power to provide for common defense and general welfare of the U.S..

I did. Read the part that I emphasized.

[Baggle]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
they could get that power here :


But they don't have the balls to pull it off. :p

when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

for the experts out there, what is meant here by Conventions? Would it be possible to circumvent the legislature of a state by holding a convention where a proposed amendment is passed?

edited to add
hmmm it seems you'd need a three fourths majority form both houses to propose to amend the Constution by Convention, not bloddy likely in any case. :(

Which is part of the beauty of the Constitution, IMO. Although I am not a scholar by any standards, it is clear to me that the authors of this lovely document knew that willynilly major change = bad, and if we really wanted/needed major change enough, we'd have to do a whole helluva lot of work to get it. This has only happened a few times in the past 200+ years. Of course, this whole thing goes out the window when government decides that it does not need to follow the rules any more, and decides that there are loopholes that were not before seen, which gives them more power than they previously had. If Congress wanted to do things the way they were intended, and vote to ban Marijuana, how many state legislatures would really vote in favor if they listened to a logical debate and provided current evidence re the harms/strengths of Marijuana beforehand? Of course the President would probably lobby for the proposed Amendment to also ban Cocaine, Heroine, kiddy porn, puppy killing, etc, and ram it through. Your state voted no? What's wrong with you? You want to do Cocaine and look at kiddy porn while you kill puppies? Etc...

Will the fight ever really come down to a logical debate with provided evidences on both sides that will be looked at by an impartial panel to decide on the issue? Or will propoganda still educate everybody? "x% (forget the exact number) of people responsible for car crashes test positive for Marijuana in their system." Okay...fair enough...but 85% of those people also test positive for ALCOHOL in their system, which impairs motor skills countless times more. And of those 15% left over that didn't have Alcohol in their system, how many of those got into accidents directly because of the Marijuana? There are a lot of accidents where people test positive for NO drugs.

The burden of proof is on the government, and they fail to provide the evidence every time, just like the opponents of decriminalization in this very thread. It's quite sad.

-Baggle

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Baggle


Then what problems were you referring to? Clarify your points so that they may be debated/refuted/accepted. You doing this will save us a lot of time since we won't have to guess which problems you are talking about. Please use studies whenever possible, and do not offer anecdotes as evidence. This will make things easier to discuss.

Thanks.
-Baggle

The problems with drug abuse, pretty much the same as with alcohol abuse. And I will repeat what I said previously, which is that my position is based solely on anecdotal evidence. I am not interested in trying to convince anyone on this subject matter. Marijuana is currently illegal and I think it should stay that way.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek

Maybe; but until then, why sentence adrenal cancer sufferers to death just because you don't like the medicine they need?

Because it is not sentencing them to death. They certainly do not need marijuana, there are alternatives.



Like??? The other treatments I've read about are for the cancer itself, not for the adrenaline levels.

I was talking about other treatments for the cancer.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


The problems with drug abuse, pretty much the same as with alcohol abuse. And I will repeat what I said previously, which is that my position is based solely on anecdotal evidence. I am not interested in trying to convince anyone on this subject matter. Marijuana is currently illegal and I think it should stay that way.
Regardless of the facts and suffering of humans.:confused:
Nothing more to say to you or hear from you, thanks for sharing, bye.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, misanthrope. You don't even trust doctors to prescribe a medicine.

No, I do not trust drug addicts or those who sell drugs to not abuse the medical marijuana law.

I also noticed you ignored the point I made, how author Peter McWilliams died nearly a year after the Feds took away his medical marijuana. Before that, he was on the road to health; almost immediately after having the marijuana taken away, his AIDS and his non-hodgkins lymphoma were able to accelerate.

On the road to health? I do not consider anyone with full blown AIDS on the road to health. But your point, he took marijuana so he could keep in all the pills he had to take right? And there is no legal drug to do that? Marijuana may be better than the legal 'alternatives' but its still illegal under Federal law.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


Maybe the disagreement and controversy comes from people wanting it to mean something other than it says, ya think??? :rolleyes:

Maybe, do you think you fall into that category?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


I did. Read the part that I emphasized.

What about it? So it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, was that your point? I never said it was.

[subgenius]

To ssibal:

http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/oaps/mm/welcome.htm

Leave suffering people alone. Go torture the healthy.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by subgenius

Regardless of the facts and suffering of humans.:confused:
Nothing more to say to you or hear from you, thanks for sharing, bye.

You know, you remind me of those anti abortion people that hold up a giant picture of a dead fetus trying to make people feel guilty. That does not work with me.

[OdderMensch]

prohibition is a good idea right? and that includes alcohol, nicotene, and all currently illegal drugs correct?

What makes you think prohibition of alcohol will work any better now then it did in the past?

What of the millions of smokers that will have to go cold turkey? We would have a 'nichead' problem for decades. And why stop there? Caffine has mood altering properties so it's good by starbucks, loads of suger can cause hyper-activity so lets shut down the local krispy kream while we're at it.

Don't get me wrong, the only argument i can't defeat in this game is people that what the goverment to regulate every aspect of people lives, well tough, our laws don't work like that, can't work like that and will never work like that.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by ssibal


You know, you remind me of those anti abortion people that hold up a giant picture of a dead fetus trying to make people feel guilty. That does not work with me.
Do you have anything more to add? We hear your position. Thank you.

[Baggle]

ssbil,

If your only "evidence" is anecdote, then you have no evidence.
If you are unwilling to consider anything else because of your personal belief system, then you are, like it or not, a woo-woo, at least with respect to this. If anecdotes are the last of the opposition I have to face in this thread, I feel very proud to have won my first real debate on these boards. :D

Better luck next time.
-Baggle
PS: the reason all of the stoners you see are losers is because those are the people who don't CARE who knows that they smoke pot. The productive pot-heads keep it a secret, and you can bet on that. Anecdote successfully demolished ;)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
prohibition is a good idea right? and that includes alcohol, nicotene, and all currently illegal drugs correct?

What makes you think prohibition of alcohol will work any better now then it did in the past?

I did not advocate prohibition for alcohol and tobacco.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Baggle
ssbil,

If your only "evidence" is anecdote, then you have no evidence.

Right, no evidence to convince others. But then again, I already said I was not interested in doing so.

If you are unwilling to consider anything else because of your personal belief system, then you are, like it or not, a woo-woo, at least with respect to this.

I do not want to consider anything else because frankly I do not care about this issue. I have my position, you have your position, leave it at that. I already stated that I am not interested in discussing the problems that result from use and abuse of marijuana.

Now, if you want to discuss whether or not marijuana is the only solution for certain medical conditions or the issue of Federal law versus state law I have no problem. These are the original issues I was interested in talking about, not about what problems marijuana use/abuse creates.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal


I did not advocate prohibition for alcohol and tobacco.

So why marijuana? Marijuana isn't anywhere near as addictive as alcohol or tobacco nor is it anywhere near as harmful. So what's the diff?

Originally posted by shanek


So why marijuana? Marijuana isn't anywhere near as addictive as alcohol or tobacco nor is it anywhere near as harmful. So what's the diff?

His position seems to be that he isn't interested in the facts or the debate over them; he simply wants to state his opinions and move on.
:rolleyes:

[OdderMensch]

or the issue of Federal law versus state law I have no problem. These are the original issues I was interested in talking about, not about what problems marijuana use/abuse creates.

ok then, the voters of several states have spoken and they wish for MJ to be legal for medical use.

The Constution states that any power not granted in the constution, nor denied by it to the states, is retained by the states, or by the people.

Since the people of the states have spoken, thier will shoud overrule federal law UNLESS it can be shown the Consttution DOES PROVIDE this right to the federal govrnment.

I do not belive it does, so please show me where I am wrong.

[OdderMensch]

Originally posted by shanek


So why marijuana? Marijuana isn't anywhere near as addictive as alcohol or tobacco nor is it anywhere near as harmful. So what's the diff?

people who don't complian about alcohol or tabacco, but will vote to keep MJ illegal, I just don't get it. Its like haveing two rabid pitbull tearing up your house, then complaining when I want to bring in my old, tame labador. :rolleyes:

[ssibal]

Originally posted by shanek


So why marijuana? Marijuana isn't anywhere near as addictive as alcohol or tobacco nor is it anywhere near as harmful. So what's the diff?

I agree that it is not as addictive as tobacco. Now alcohol is a different matter, though I will conceed that it is not (but it is close). As for it being harmful, it may not be harmful in the sense that it will kill the user, but abusing it could lead to the deaths of others (like alcohol [though alcohol can kill the user]). But to anwser your question, I am not advocating for marijuana to be illegal. I do not have to, it is already illegal. I am just stating that I agree with it being illegal and in the case of medical marijuana, I feel it is unnecessary to legalize it when there are legal alternatives available (even though they may not be as good as marijuana). If marijuana were legalized I would not protest and demonstrate against it, but I would lobby for tougher punishments for crimes committed under the influence.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by OdderMensch


ok then, the voters of several states have spoken and they wish for MJ to be legal for medical use.

The Constution states that any power not granted in the constution, nor denied by it to the states, is retained by the states, or by the people.

Since the people of the states have spoken, thier will shoud overrule federal law UNLESS it can be shown the Consttution DOES PROVIDE this right to the federal govrnment.

I do not belive it does, so please show me where I am wrong.

Well, I think it does based on Article 1, Section 8. The relevant portions are:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
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 States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Now, I say the drug law would apply to Congress' power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Even though the current law is not a tax law, there is a stipulation that tax money should go towards the general welfare. And the law, in my opinion, provides for the general welfare.

[subgenius]

ssibal:
"I feel it is unnecessary to legalize it when there are legal alternatives available (even though they may not be as good as marijuana)."

------------------------------
Easy to say when its someone else's health/life. Where is the compassion/empathy?

[OdderMensch]

'cause in real life i'd be jumping up and down, waveing my arms and screaming :D j/k

Would you care to explain how imprisoning a 58 year old man for growing plants on his own property, in acordance with the laws of his state, aids our common defense?

Or how dening people a medicine that, many doctors, and several states, belive will help them stay alive another day, or even simply improve thier quality of life, is a benifit to the general welfare of the nation?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
'cause in real life i'd be jumping up and down, waveing my arms and screaming :D j/k

Would you care to explain how imprisoning a 58 year old man for growing plants on his own property, in acordance with the laws of his state, aids our common defense?

Or how dening people a medicine that, many doctors, and several states, belive will help them stay alive another day, or even simply improve thier quality of life, is a benifit to the general welfare of the nation? in accordance with the laws of his state

How the federal law can overrule the state law in this case is still my main question, and I haven't seen anyone on the board explaining it well. I hope this case goes all the way to the SC! :(

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Bjorn
in accordance with the laws of his state

How the federal law can overrule the state law in this case is still my main question, and I haven't seen anyone on the board explaining it well. I hope this case goes all the way to the SC! :(
Problem is the criminals on the current Supreme Court.
Another question is a matter of policy why would a party dedicated to states rights do this, and why in a time of real problems would you devote any resources to this?
On a cost effectiveness basis its stupid.
On a human level its cruel.

[Baggle]

As for it being harmful, it may not be harmful in the sense that it will kill the user, but abusing it could lead to the deaths of others ...

Okay, ssbil, abusing ANYTHING can lead to the deaths of others. Abusing McDonald's fast food while driving can lead to the deaths of others, and I'm sure it has...but is it statistically signifigant? I'm going to have to ask for evidence supporting this claim.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77579,00.html

SAN FRANCISCO — Jurors who convicted a man of cultivating marijuana and other federal drug charges say they would have acquitted him had they been told he was growing it for medical purposes for the city of Oakland.
"I really feel manipulated in a way," juror Pam Klarkowsky said. "Had I known that information, there is no way I could have found that man guilty."

Front page of the topstories section of FoxNews.com. I'm impressed and quite pleasantly surprised.

-Baggle

[Baggle]

"I feel it is unnecessary to legalize it when there are legal alternatives available (even though they may not be as good as marijuana)."

Wow! :eek:

So now you say that even though a better medication may be available for certain things, that because of your personal belief system, it should not be allowed to be used. Ssbil, I've read your comments in other threads, and I must say, you really do not seem to be this woo-woo (can I use that as an adjective? Guess I can now...) when discussing/debating other issues. Why the "my personal belief overrules logic" hard line here? Honestly, the responses are getting more ridiculous every day.

-Baggle

Originally posted by Baggle
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77579,00.html




Front page of the topstories section of FoxNews.com. I'm impressed and quite pleasantly surprised.

-Baggle

On appeal, he's outta there.

On the surprise and pleasure, that makes two of us. :eek:

OK, you conservatives, time to step up to bat. Read this story and tell me this isn't the clearest States' Rights case you've ever seen.

[Baggle]

I was just thinking...

Any MD has every right to prescribe and/or recommend whatever it is they choose, even if participating in the treatment will only compound problems, especially when not augmented(as happens all too often) with REAL medication. Homeopathic medications, Acupunture, prayer, etc are all examples of this. And yet if an MD tries to recommend Marijuana, a substance with MUCH more positive research results than either of those two mentioned "treatments", the case must go to court because of the controversy. Granted, recommending Marijuana and keeping free of legal entanglements for MDs has stood up in court, but just the fact that it had to go there in the first place when homeopathy and acupunture are free to roam sort of creeps me out. Never really thought of it in those terms before. [/ramble]

-Baggle

[Baggle]

On appeal, he's outta there.

Ya know, even without this, I can think of another way to possibly win the appeal.

I am not a lawyer, but doesn't the fact that potential jurors were disqualified from being able to sit on the jury because of the way they have voted in the past(on Prop 215, CA Medical MJ law, specifically) sort of nullify the whole case? If I were a prosecutor or judge, could I dismiss jurors in a rape case because I found out that they had voted for reduced sentences for rapists in the past? Could I even ask them this question? I can see it coming from a back/forth lawyer selection process, of course, but on an official level? Or did I read the reports about this wrong?

Answers appreciated. The question is legimate.

-Baggle

[Bjorn]

From the original article in NY Times:

The jury foreman, Charles Sackett, 51, a landscape contractor in Sebastopol, Calif., said the jury was largely sympathetic to Mr. Rosenthal's predicament. But, Mr. Sackett said, jurors were left with "no legal wiggle room" because of the decision to exclude any discussion of Proposition 215.This made me think that the jurors knew the facts and background about the marijuana farming, but were not allowed to consider those facts because he was tried under federal law.

And now this:

"I really feel manipulated in a way," juror Pam Klarkowsky said. "Had I known that information, there is no way I could have found that man guilty." They weren't told at all? :mad:

On the surprise and pleasure, that makes two of us. - make it three! :)

This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice, compounded by an outrageous miscarriage of justice.

This must not stand. This is not a partisan issue; this man was convicted in a kangaroo court, and the jurors themselves are outraged that they weren't told the facts.

This cannot be allowed to stand, or you'll find me over in the destroy-the-federal-government camp. I have never heard anything so outrageous in my life as that Fox article.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
I agree that it is not as addictive as tobacco. Now alcohol is a different matter, though I will conceed that it is not (but it is close).

No, it isn't close. Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six drugs for addictive properties:

1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Average
----------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------
Heroin 2 2 1 2 1.75
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 2.5
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 2.75
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 5.25
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 5.75


BENOWITZ RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Average
----------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------
Heroin 2 2 2 2 2
Cocaine 3 1 1 3 2
Nicotine 3 4 4 1 3
Alcohol 1 3 4 4 3
Caffeine 4 5 3 5 4.25
Marijuana 5 6 5 6 5.5

(Source: "Relative Addictiveness of Drugs," The New York Times, 2 August 1994)

Caffeine is more addictive than marijuana.

As for it being harmful, it may not be harmful in the sense that it will kill the user, but abusing it could lead to the deaths of others

Well, you can say the same thing about cars, baseball bats, or many other things.

But to anwser your question, I am not advocating for marijuana to be illegal. I do not have to, it is already illegal.

Uh, no, sorry. You don't get to claim victory just because the government happens to agree with you.

I feel it is unnecessary to legalize it when there are legal alternatives available (even though they may not be as good as marijuana).

And to hell with the sufferers, huh? They have to suffer with less effective drugs because you don't like marijuana?

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
Well, I think it does based on Article 1, Section 8. The relevant portions are:

There's not one word about drugs in those passages.

Now, I say the drug law would apply to Congress' power to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

The Constitution specified what those terms mean, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with people ingesting drugs.

[shanek]

ssibal:

Let's say you have a family whose mother is dying of cancer. She has, at most, six months to live. The doctors say there are two choices:

1) Put her in a medically-induced coma, where the family cannot do anything except just watch her die; or

2) Give her medical marijuana, and at least allow her to stay relatively lucid for her last few months of life, during which she can visit with family and friends, talk about old times, she can prepare herself for death, and the family can spend a little more time with her and have some more memories of her after she dies.

Would you really deny this family the second option?

[fishbob]

No, it isn't close. Dr. Jack E. Henningfield of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco ranked six drugs for addictive properties:

code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 = Most serious 6 = Least serious

HENNINGFIELD RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Average
----------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------
Heroin 2 2 1 2 1.75
Nicotine 3 4 2 1 2.5
Alcohol 1 3 3 4 2.75
Cocaine 4 1 4 3 3
Caffeine 5 6 5 5 5.25
Marijuana 6 5 6 6 5.75


BENOWITZ RATINGS

Substance Withdrawal Reinforcement Tolerance Dependence Average
----------- ---------- ------------- --------- ---------- ---------
Heroin 2 2 2 2 2
Cocaine 3 1 1 3 2
Nicotine 3 4 4 1 3
Alcohol 1 3 4 4 3
Caffeine 4 5 3 5 4.25
Marijuana 5 6 5 6 5.5--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(Source: "Relative Addictiveness of Drugs," The New York Times, 2 August 1994)

------------------------------------------------

Notice that this survey did not include level of impairment (or some other measure of how useless the substance makes the user).

Legalize all of them. Tax the bejeebers out of all of them. Punish the heck out of those who put others at risk when impaired.

Problem solved.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bjorn


>>The jury foreman, Charles Sackett, 51, a landscape contractor in Sebastopol, Calif., said the jury was largely sympathetic to Mr. Rosenthal's predicament. But, Mr. Sackett said, jurors were left with "no legal wiggle room" because of the decision to exclude any discussion of Proposition 215.<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>is made me think that the jurors knew the facts and background about the marijuana farming, but were not allowed to consider those facts because he was tried under federal law.<<


The jurors only needed to know that they had the sovereign right to ignore the law and to ignore the instructions of the judge on the law, and to vote their conscience -- a thing that today's courts require you to check at the court house door, along with their brains.

I forgot - what were we talking about?

[ssibal]

How about this, I would have no problem with marijuana being legal for medicine or even your average citizen if it was legally treated in the similar manner as alcohol. Meaning if you drive or commit any crime while intoxicated you face harsher punishment. I would have no problem with this. To my knowledge, no such punishments currently exist even though it is illegal. If people were to be held accountable for their abuse of the drug, I would have no problem with it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
Notice that this survey did not include level of impairment (or some other measure of how useless the substance makes the user).

They did include intoxication, which isn't a measure of addiction so I didn't include it.

Legalize all of them.

Yes!

Tax the bejeebers out of all of them.

No!

Punish the heck out of those who put others at risk when impaired.

Abso-friggin'-lutely!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The jurors only needed to know that they had the sovereign right to ignore the law

That right (jury nullification) hasn't really existed in our court system for years. Although it's a crucial part of the Trial By Jury system, Judges tell the jury otherwise and never let defense attorneys argue it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ssibal
How about this, I would have no problem with marijuana being legal for medicine or even your average citizen if it was legally treated in the similar manner as alcohol. Meaning if you drive or commit any crime while intoxicated you face harsher punishment. I would have no problem with this.

In that case, we're actually in agreement.

To my knowledge, no such punishments currently exist even though it is illegal. If people were to be held accountable for their abuse of the drug, I would have no problem with it.

It varies from state to state, but I think most states just call it "impairment" without necessitating alcohol as the source of impairment. So the law could just as easily apply to marijuana, or even cough syrup, for that matter. It all depends on what they want to enforce.

[subgenius]

I now pronounce us: All in Agreement.;)
Thanks for a civil, intelligent discussion.
You all get stars for your foreheads, and extra points for citizenship.:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by subgenius
I now pronounce us: All in Agreement.;)
Thanks for a civil, intelligent discussion.
You all get stars for your foreheads, and extra points for citizenship.:D

I think this may be the first time this has happened since I've been on this board! :D

[Baggle]

Sweet. Stars. I gotta do this more often.
:D

-Baggle

[subgenius]

Feel the love.:D
I really feel we all agree on much if we can get past the rhetoric/language/words.
But I reserve the right to be completely wrong.:confused:

[Baggle]

Right, sub.

If you look at all of the unbiased evidence, all of the studies, all of the possibilities of any situation, how many probable answers can there be? If people are completely disagreeing on something, I think it will usually be due to one of the parties involved abandoning logic/critical thinking. Of course, after spending an hour last night of my first PalTalk experience in a room called "Atheist vs. Christianity Debate," I have absolutely no faith(ha..ha...) in the majority of people's critical thinking skills. Let your imagination be your guide with this one. I guess always applying reason and logic is easier said than done...

-Baggle

[Bjorn]

I have a feeling this story is gaining momentum, this is NY Times today:

In an unusual show of solidarity with the man they convicted last week, five jurors in the trial of a medicinal marijuana advocate issued a public apology to him today and demanded that the judge grant him a new trial. My link won't work since NYT demands a registration (free).

[subgenius]

Jurors Who Convicted Marijuana Grower Seek New Trial
By DEAN E. MURPHY


SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 4 — In an unusual show of solidarity with the man they convicted last week, five jurors in the trial of a medicinal marijuana advocate issued a public apology to him today and demanded that the judge grant him a new trial.

The jurors said they had been unaware that the defendant, Ed Rosenthal, was growing marijuana for medicinal purposes, allowed since 1996 under California state law, when they convicted him on three federal counts of cultivation and conspiracy. He is to be sentenced in June and faces a minimum of five years in prison.

"I'm sorry doesn't begin to cover it," said one of the jurors, Marney Craig, a property manager in Novato. "It's the most horrible mistake I've ever made in my entire life. And I don't think that I personally will ever recover from this."

The judge in the case, Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court, had barred Mr. Rosenthal's defense from mentioning the state law because he was indicted under federal law, which does not allow the growing of marijuana for any purpose.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/national/05POT.html?th

[Cecil]

Originally posted by shanek
So the law could just as easily apply to marijuana, or even cough syrup, for that matter. It all depends on what they want to enforce. "Even" cough syrup? I'll have you know that it will knock you on your ass far more than either marijuana or alcohol.

It just sucks having to drink bottles of the stuff. :mad: :mad:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Cecil
"Even" cough syrup? I'll have you know that it will knock you on your ass far more than either marijuana or alcohol.

It just sucks having to drink bottles of the stuff. :mad: :mad:
"Give me a six pack, I'm going out of town," Lenny Bruce (back when it was codeine cough syrup you could get)

[Baggle]

Sorry for bringing to this to the front page again, but I saw this on FoxNews and couldn't resist the temptation...

HOUSTON — The orthodontist who was run over by his Mercedes-driving wife thought she was overweight, too talkative and addicted to her job, she testified Friday.
I love how in a MURDER TRIAL, the defendant is free to spout whatever it is they please about WHY they committed their crime. "He said I was fat! He said I talked too much! He said SHE was better than I was! That's why I did it!!" This is fine, and jurors are not even instructed to disregard the testimony, even though this obviously does not put the crime within legal boundries. However, in the case of Ed Rosenthal, the defense was never once allowed to use the same type of defense tactic; telling the jurors the motivation for the crime. All this even though there IS a legal precedent for him doing what he was doing, even if it may not have applied in his case because of the jurisdiction.

So, to recap, if your husband called you "fat," it is alright to use that as a defense at your murder trial. If your city and state of residence requested from you that you take a certain action that is validated under local/state law, that is NOT a valid defense. Can't quite fit my brain around the justification for this double standard. Would the judge have disallowed her testimony if it were part of Texas state law that she is permitted to kill her husband if he calls her "fat"?. Or would that only be the case if it were a federal judge? :confused: :rolleyes:

-Baggle

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by subgenius


>>"I'm sorry doesn't begin to cover it," said one of the jurors, Marney Craig, a property manager in Novato. "It's the most horrible mistake I've ever made in my entire life. And I don't think that I personally will ever recover from this." <<

No. Neither will the Branch Davidian jurors who were just as outraged. Fact is, the rules in Federal court today are so rigged as to make a "not guilty" verdict virtually impossible. Judges voir dire potential jurors so that only the dumb are picked; Judges hide evidence and keep secret the penalties from jurors, and falsely instruct jurors that they cannot judge the law and must not use their consciences and sense of justice in reaching a verdict. And the prosecution gets both the first and the last words in closing arguments. These are not Constitutional courts but the completely rigged Courts of a Police State.

[renata]

Update: Rosenthal sentenced to 1 day

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/04/pot.king.ap/index.html

Ed Rosenthal, the self-proclaimed "Guru of Ganja," walked free Wednesday after a federal judge sentenced him to just one day in prison for growing marijuana Rosenthal said was for medical purposes. He could have gotten 60 years behind bars.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Rosenthal genuinely believed that what he was doing was not against the law. "He was unaware his conduct was not immunized from federal prosecution," the judge said.

....

Wednesday's decision was met by cheers and applause in the courtroom. Federal prosecutors had asked for a 61/2-year prison term.

.....

In January, a jury concluded Rosenthal was growing more than 100 plants, conspired to cultivate marijuana, and maintained an Oakland warehouse for a growing operation.


Supporters of Rosenthal cheer after learning he would walk free.
Rosenthal, 58, had said he was acting as an agent for Oakland's medical marijuana program, an outgrowth of a 1996 measure approved by California's voters that allows sick people to obtain marijuana with a letter from a doctor.

But the judge did not allow the jurors to hear those arguments, and several of them later said they would have acquitted Rosenthal had they known.

The judge sentenced Rosenthal to one day in prison, then set him free after crediting him with time already served, saying the defendant "had a reasonable belief that what he did was not contrary to law."

Rosenthal also was fined $1,300 and will be on supervised release for three years.

[subgenius]

The judge, who was probably constrained in what he could allow in the trial, demonstrated what all too few of them do: wisdom and mercy.
A good lesson on the injustice of mandatory sentencing taking away judicial discretion. Imagine if he had no choice.

[JoxterTheMighty]

On the one hand I am extremely pleased that the judge showed compassion in the sentance.

On the other hand I am outraged that the conviction still stands.

We need to get more on the ball and become even more active in challenging this unjust law and dismantle the DEA. I am going to the NORML.org site now and see if there are any more petitions I can sign! :cool:

-Joxter-