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/na...01MARI.html?th

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

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Baggle

[subgenius]

Quote:

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?

[Nasarius]

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

What about justice? Fairness? Reason?

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

[Checkmite]

"Hero"?

[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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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 people¹ in the eye and tell them they have to suffer and die?

¹1.25MB Windows Media file

[shanek]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek


That's not what the Constitution says.

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

Quote:

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 people¹ 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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

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

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

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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' )