i don't think this is really an issue of interstate commerce (though its unruly expansion disgusts me). afterall, when some stoner gets pulled over, and the police take the weed off of him, the cop isn't really punishable. Ed Rosenthal was deputized by the State of California, for the purpose of producing marijuana. Ed was for this purpose, of the same rank as a cop. If cops produce or procure drugs for some purpose (like to setup a drug bust), they can't be attacked by the feds.
[quote]How the hell does that refute my statement that the trial was held in federal court because it was a federal crime?
If you're going to try to engage me in a debate at least read what I say.
Reading comprehension, people, reading comprehension.<hr></blockquote>How can one debate with someone whose reading comprehension is obviously lacking--to put it politely. The statement that the case was prosecuted in a Federal Court because it was a Federal crime is a bit "duh" don't you think, and surely beneath someone as smart as you claim to be. It did not however answer the question, Why was this case brought to trial in Federal Court?. If you read, carefully, the question is asking about intentions.
I am not interested in your ability to barf up the letter of the law at will, but rather in your ability to understand and debate the fact that the full force of law is never brought to bear upon someone unless so decided by those charged with upholding the law, i.e. the prosecution of law has social and political influences and consequences.
A pre-pres Bush has explicitly stated that he believes that states should be able to decide about the use of medical marijuana in his 2000 campaign, using the phrase "states rights."
Now why was this case brought to trial and what does states rights mean?
[quote]The statement that the case was prosecuted in a Federal Court because it was a Federal crime is a bit "duh" don't you think,<hr></blockquote>
If you didn't notice I was answering someone else's question. A poster who claims that the president and attorney general selectively singled this guy out.
This is what comes of jumping into the middle of a thread.
[quote]Why was this case brought to trial in Federal Court?<hr></blockquote>
Because it's a federal crime.
That's the end of that question. If you want to question why it's a federal crime then ask that question, or better yet, why don't you let other people ask their questions and ask your own, instead of stepping in the middle of two others and injecting your own questions into their conversation.
[quote]but rather in your ability to understand and debate the fact that the full force of law is never brought to bear upon someone unless so decided by those charged with upholding the law, i.e. the prosecution of law has social and political influences and consequences.<hr></blockquote>
So what you're attempting to tell me right now is that Bush ordered the court to hit this guy as hard as they could?
Could you people please come out and say the crap you're insinuating?
This is just another logical step in the growing battle between california and the federal government over this issue. There have been other dramatic incidents in this battle over the last few years. Do your homework.
PS groverat, it worked out this way because they are trying to make a point. Rosenthal is one of the leading advocates of med marijuana, and they nabbed him to send a message to california and other states. This stuff has been written about in depth for years.
California, Washington and Oregon are going to secede and form a new country: Westcoastistan. We will have legalized weed, legalized euthanasia and legalized prostitution. We will lead a new generation of libertarians into power, or lack thereof I suppose if they really are libertarians. And we will have a worldwide monopoly on smoked out suicidal whores.
<strong>PS groverat, it worked out this way because they are trying to make a point. Rosenthal is one of the leading advocates of med marijuana, and they nabbed him to send a message to california and other states. This stuff has been written about in depth for years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do they usually not arrest people in California for growing marijuana? I'm asking.
The War on Drugs is a joke, but I don't think Dubya was sitting around with Ashcroft saying, "Damn that Rosenthal! GET HIM!"
<strong>Do they usually not arrest people in California for growing marijuana? I'm asking.
The War on Drugs is a joke, but I don't think Dubya was sitting around with Ashcroft saying, "Damn that Rosenthal! GET HIM!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm not too sure on the enforcement, but i read Cali's prop relating to med marij (i think prop 215). according to it, a person (or their primary caregiver) can grow mari without fear of persecution.
1) Hunter S. Thompson is to be read for entertainment purposes only.
2) The jurors weren't "lied to". The issue of growing for medicinal purposes is a non-factor in federal law so it wasn't brought before them. BIG difference.
[quote]Do they usually not arrest people in California for growing marijuana? I'm asking.<hr></blockquote>Yes. And in 1998 the Clinton administration threatened to suspend licensure of doctors that prescribed medical marijuana. A Federal judge disallowed this as it was a violation of doctor-patient privilege and therefore "first amendment rights." Ashcroft, Hutchinson and Bush are just continuing the game.
2) The jurors weren't "lied to". The issue of growing for medicinal purposes is a non-factor in federal law so it wasn't brought before them. BIG difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but hiddening this fact deliberately, is against the rights of the defense. If the defense want to said that Rosental is a bastard, they have the right to say so. Keeping something deliberately in secret at the eye of the jury is bad. If it is a non factor in federal law, the judge will have just to said to no taking that in account.
PS ; i am not for free Marijuana, indeed, i am not conviced that in his natural shape this medecine is needed (if it's better than morphine or skenan, then a specific galenic conditionnement should be developped). It's use for medecine in his natural shape, appears to me rather than an excuse for pot, than anything else. However it's not the debate here.
It's the first time that i heard a jury saying that the trial was not fair.
<strong>A Federal judge disallowed this as it was a violation of doctor-patient privilege and therefore "first amendment rights." Ashcroft, Hutchinson and Bush are just continuing the game.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a government policy that pre-dates both Clinton and Bush. To say this is their doing is to ignore the much larger issue.
You cannot pin the War on Drugs on a president or even an administration. It's much larger and much more repugnant than that.
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>Yes, but hiddening this fact deliberately, is against the rights of the defense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the defense couldn't use it so it wasn't brought up. Either that or the judge explicitly told the defense not to bring it up because it would be an attempt to confuse the jury, which is perfectly reasonable.
This has gone exactly how it should, it is now a good case for appeal on the basis that the federal law is unconstitutional and we should all hope his conviction is overturned and a blow is dealt to the expanding powers of the federal government.
I'm all for states rights, but let's not ignore the process in place.
[quote]<strong>Keeping something deliberately in secret at the eye of the jury is bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The jury is being asked to consider a federal law, not a state law, so bringing a state law into it is only an attempt to confuse the jury. No reason for it to be brought before a federal jury. It does not pertain to the case.
[quote]<strong>If it is a non factor in federal law, the judge will have just to said to no taking that in account.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't un-say something. The judge can say "disregard, it's not applicable" all he likes but it doesn't matter because the jury's deliberation has been tainted.
And worse than that, if the jury HAD known about the state law and were made aware that he was growing it for medicinal purposes he would be let off. So there would be no appeal to challenge the Constitutionality of the federal law; which is a bad thing.
a difference that is minor only because the fed's want it to remain 'unrelated'
meaning that any thinking individual would immediately recognize that the fact that he was growing pot legally by the standards of the local community and the state, for state sanction programs, would have changed the virdicts of the juror's . . . in fact, would have changed anybodies verdict except the rabidly anti-pot, and, that since the court forced the issue of inadmissability, and knew that they had to in order to bust the guy, then I say they lied . . . sure, its not in a strict legal sense, but really the law here is being used in absolutely unjst ways . . .
The point is is that the government is doing counter-intuitive and uncommon-sensical things merely to drive home thier near tyrranical need to control our lives
You can't un-say something. The judge can say "disregard, it's not applicable" all he likes but it doesn't matter because the jury's deliberation has been tainted.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I perfectly understand that it was a state law and not a federal law, my point is different. For example in France there is no law allowing the cutlure of marijuana, whenever for medical use or anything else. But in case of a trial, if the defense told the jury that, he make Marijuana only for medical purpose, and not for dealing, the jury will consider that he is still guilty but in a lesser extent (we call this circonstances attenuantes, attenuant's circumstances in english if this litterate translation have a sense).
So my point, is if attenuant's circumstances exist in US, then hiding them at the eye of the jury is not fair.
OBRJA 10 can you lighten up us on this particular point ?
PS : for those who think i tried to say that the french system is better my answer is NO. But there is many things in common in laws of democratics countries.
[quote]This is a government policy that pre-dates both Clinton and Bush.<hr></blockquote>Yes, but the issue of medical marijuana and this case in the thread is specific to both administrations. This whole medical marijuana thing is the big deal as many of the Drug War paranoids see it as a step towards legalization.
There is no extenuating circumstances in many Federal crimes, especially those involving drugs. The US has this lovely thing called mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, which gives the judge and jury no leeway when considering sentencing.
[quote] 1) Hunter S. Thompson is to be read for entertainment purposes only. <hr></blockquote>
so true...fear and loathing is possibly the funniest book ever written....i first read it in 1979 while traveling across country by bus (a long and horrid story lies behind that)...i thought i would be arrested or something as i was reading and laughing out loud and pounding the seatback in front of me...sweet memories...g
No, it is entertaining and CAN be read for entertainment . . . but to deny its political force (to deny any artwork's or entertainments political complicities) is not the reality
all forms of public intellectual exchange have their context within our mutual contex and therefor have some measure of political effect . . . . I knoiw that that is knit picking but so what it true . .
To say that there is no political effect to HSThompson's work is like Rush Limbaugh saying that what he writes is only entertainment
[quote]This has gone exactly how it should, it is now a good case for appeal on the basis that the federal law is unconstitutional and we should all hope his conviction is overturned and a blow is dealt to the expanding powers of the federal government.<hr></blockquote>The Supes have already ruled 8-0 that medical marijuana laws do not trump federal law.
[quote]The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law bars the distribution of marijuana even to people who say they must have it to alleviate symptoms of serious illness, dealing a setback to the movement for ?medical marijuana? laws and limiting the impact of the state laws already on the books.
Ruling 8-0 in a case involving a California ?cannabis cooperative? that supplied the drug to patients suffering from cancer, AIDS and other illnesses, the court said that federal anti-drug law allows no ?medical necessity? exception to the general prohibition on selling or growing marijuana.
Federal law ?reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,? the court said in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld federal authorities? ability to obtain a court order shutting down the cooperative.
The ruling does not directly invalidate ?medical marijuana? laws now on the books in nine states, mostly in the West. Those states remain free to choose not to prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal government rarely prosecutes individuals for marijuana use.
However, in those states, the ruling is likely to doom large, public distribution centers -- confining the use of ?medical marijuana? to private, small-scale settings outside the usual scope of federal enforcement efforts.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>a difference that is minor only because the fed's want it to remain 'unrelated'</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because that's law. You ever watch law-related TV shows? Know how they say stuff like "objection, irrelevant"? Well there's a basis for that in real life.
The guy was not busted on state law, he was busted on federal law. The state law may as well not exist because it is ALWAYS TRUMPED by the federal law. Federal laws are supreme to state laws per the Constitition.
This was not a concept invented by Republicans to oppress the pot-smoker. The law itself was, yes, but you cannot make such sweeping indictments on the system based on silly personal prejudice.
This is the intelligent way to run a trial because if any kind of irrelevant emotional side-track were allowed nothing would get done. The fact that he grew it for medical use was a non-issue. Unimportant. Non-existant for the purpose of the jury.
[quote]<strong>So my point, is if attenuant's circumstances exist in US, then hiding them at the eye of the jury is not fair.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well you're mixing things up. France is not set up the same as the United States (though our system greatly influenced your own). France is not an alliance of separate states. So if you have a law then that is your law.
However, in the U.S. we have more levels. The state of California should have never passed that law because it is irrelevant. The federal government trumps it. The California law, in any real sense, does not exist.
Again:
I am for legalizing marijuana entirely, but not through some kind of usurping of the legal system. It can and will be done through the proper channels.
No one in this case has been treated unfairly.
cowerd:
[quote]<strong>The Supes have already ruled 8-0 that medical marijuana laws do not trump federal law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well of course they did. It would have been wrong for them to rule any other way.
---------
For all of you saying this system is bad; ask yourself where civil rights would be without federal supremacy over states.
Yet another case of a perfectly valid issue (legalization of marijuana (medical and/or recreational)) held back by ignorant advocates. Not meant to be an insult.
If you didn't notice I was answering someone else's question. A poster who claims that the president and attorney general selectively singled this guy out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the other poster claimed that the President and the Secretary of Defense singled this guy out. Rumsfeld isn't the Attorney General. Ashcroft is.
Comments
If you're going to try to engage me in a debate at least read what I say.
Reading comprehension, people, reading comprehension.<hr></blockquote>How can one debate with someone whose reading comprehension is obviously lacking--to put it politely. The statement that the case was prosecuted in a Federal Court because it was a Federal crime is a bit "duh" don't you think, and surely beneath someone as smart as you claim to be. It did not however answer the question, Why was this case brought to trial in Federal Court?. If you read, carefully, the question is asking about intentions.
I am not interested in your ability to barf up the letter of the law at will, but rather in your ability to understand and debate the fact that the full force of law is never brought to bear upon someone unless so decided by those charged with upholding the law, i.e. the prosecution of law has social and political influences and consequences.
A pre-pres Bush has explicitly stated that he believes that states should be able to decide about the use of medical marijuana in his 2000 campaign, using the phrase "states rights."
Now why was this case brought to trial and what does states rights mean?
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
[quote]The statement that the case was prosecuted in a Federal Court because it was a Federal crime is a bit "duh" don't you think,<hr></blockquote>
If you didn't notice I was answering someone else's question. A poster who claims that the president and attorney general selectively singled this guy out.
This is what comes of jumping into the middle of a thread.
[quote]Why was this case brought to trial in Federal Court?<hr></blockquote>
Because it's a federal crime.
That's the end of that question. If you want to question why it's a federal crime then ask that question, or better yet, why don't you let other people ask their questions and ask your own, instead of stepping in the middle of two others and injecting your own questions into their conversation.
[quote]but rather in your ability to understand and debate the fact that the full force of law is never brought to bear upon someone unless so decided by those charged with upholding the law, i.e. the prosecution of law has social and political influences and consequences.<hr></blockquote>
So what you're attempting to tell me right now is that Bush ordered the court to hit this guy as hard as they could?
Could you people please come out and say the crap you're insinuating?
PS groverat, it worked out this way because they are trying to make a point. Rosenthal is one of the leading advocates of med marijuana, and they nabbed him to send a message to california and other states. This stuff has been written about in depth for years.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>PS groverat, it worked out this way because they are trying to make a point. Rosenthal is one of the leading advocates of med marijuana, and they nabbed him to send a message to california and other states. This stuff has been written about in depth for years.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do they usually not arrest people in California for growing marijuana? I'm asking.
The War on Drugs is a joke, but I don't think Dubya was sitting around with Ashcroft saying, "Damn that Rosenthal! GET HIM!"
<strong>Do they usually not arrest people in California for growing marijuana? I'm asking.
The War on Drugs is a joke, but I don't think Dubya was sitting around with Ashcroft saying, "Damn that Rosenthal! GET HIM!"</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm not too sure on the enforcement, but i read Cali's prop relating to med marij (i think prop 215). according to it, a person (or their primary caregiver) can grow mari without fear of persecution.
the juror's were lied to through omission and now want a retrial
why is it so important!!!!... to teh point that the Feds would lie . . . .
our government has been hijacked!!!!!!!!
(by the way read the Hunter S Thompson interview in Salon.com . . . you may need to search for it)
2) The jurors weren't "lied to". The issue of growing for medicinal purposes is a non-factor in federal law so it wasn't brought before them. BIG difference.
<strong>
2) The jurors weren't "lied to". The issue of growing for medicinal purposes is a non-factor in federal law so it wasn't brought before them. BIG difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, but hiddening this fact deliberately, is against the rights of the defense. If the defense want to said that Rosental is a bastard, they have the right to say so. Keeping something deliberately in secret at the eye of the jury is bad. If it is a non factor in federal law, the judge will have just to said to no taking that in account.
PS ; i am not for free Marijuana, indeed, i am not conviced that in his natural shape this medecine is needed (if it's better than morphine or skenan, then a specific galenic conditionnement should be developped). It's use for medecine in his natural shape, appears to me rather than an excuse for pot, than anything else. However it's not the debate here.
It's the first time that i heard a jury saying that the trial was not fair.
<strong>A Federal judge disallowed this as it was a violation of doctor-patient privilege and therefore "first amendment rights." Ashcroft, Hutchinson and Bush are just continuing the game.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a government policy that pre-dates both Clinton and Bush. To say this is their doing is to ignore the much larger issue.
You cannot pin the War on Drugs on a president or even an administration. It's much larger and much more repugnant than that.
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>Yes, but hiddening this fact deliberately, is against the rights of the defense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well the defense couldn't use it so it wasn't brought up. Either that or the judge explicitly told the defense not to bring it up because it would be an attempt to confuse the jury, which is perfectly reasonable.
This has gone exactly how it should, it is now a good case for appeal on the basis that the federal law is unconstitutional and we should all hope his conviction is overturned and a blow is dealt to the expanding powers of the federal government.
I'm all for states rights, but let's not ignore the process in place.
[quote]<strong>Keeping something deliberately in secret at the eye of the jury is bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The jury is being asked to consider a federal law, not a state law, so bringing a state law into it is only an attempt to confuse the jury. No reason for it to be brought before a federal jury. It does not pertain to the case.
[quote]<strong>If it is a non factor in federal law, the judge will have just to said to no taking that in account.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't un-say something. The judge can say "disregard, it's not applicable" all he likes but it doesn't matter because the jury's deliberation has been tainted.
And worse than that, if the jury HAD known about the state law and were made aware that he was growing it for medicinal purposes he would be let off. So there would be no appeal to challenge the Constitutionality of the federal law; which is a bad thing.
meaning that any thinking individual would immediately recognize that the fact that he was growing pot legally by the standards of the local community and the state, for state sanction programs, would have changed the virdicts of the juror's . . . in fact, would have changed anybodies verdict except the rabidly anti-pot, and, that since the court forced the issue of inadmissability, and knew that they had to in order to bust the guy, then I say they lied . . . sure, its not in a strict legal sense, but really the law here is being used in absolutely unjst ways . . .
The point is is that the government is doing counter-intuitive and uncommon-sensical things merely to drive home thier near tyrranical need to control our lives
its insane
<strong>
You can't un-say something. The judge can say "disregard, it's not applicable" all he likes but it doesn't matter because the jury's deliberation has been tainted.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I perfectly understand that it was a state law and not a federal law, my point is different. For example in France there is no law allowing the cutlure of marijuana, whenever for medical use or anything else. But in case of a trial, if the defense told the jury that, he make Marijuana only for medical purpose, and not for dealing, the jury will consider that he is still guilty but in a lesser extent (we call this circonstances attenuantes, attenuant's circumstances in english if this litterate translation have a sense).
So my point, is if attenuant's circumstances exist in US, then hiding them at the eye of the jury is not fair.
OBRJA 10 can you lighten up us on this particular point ?
PS : for those who think i tried to say that the french system is better my answer is NO. But there is many things in common in laws of democratics countries.
There is no extenuating circumstances in many Federal crimes, especially those involving drugs. The US has this lovely thing called mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, which gives the judge and jury no leeway when considering sentencing.
[ 02-09-2003: Message edited by: cowerd ]</p>
so true...fear and loathing is possibly the funniest book ever written....i first read it in 1979 while traveling across country by bus (a long and horrid story lies behind that)...i thought i would be arrested or something as i was reading and laughing out loud and pounding the seatback in front of me...sweet memories...g
all forms of public intellectual exchange have their context within our mutual contex and therefor have some measure of political effect . . . . I knoiw that that is knit picking but so what it true . .
To say that there is no political effect to HSThompson's work is like Rush Limbaugh saying that what he writes is only entertainment
[quote]The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal law bars the distribution of marijuana even to people who say they must have it to alleviate symptoms of serious illness, dealing a setback to the movement for ?medical marijuana? laws and limiting the impact of the state laws already on the books.
Ruling 8-0 in a case involving a California ?cannabis cooperative? that supplied the drug to patients suffering from cancer, AIDS and other illnesses, the court said that federal anti-drug law allows no ?medical necessity? exception to the general prohibition on selling or growing marijuana.
Federal law ?reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,? the court said in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld federal authorities? ability to obtain a court order shutting down the cooperative.
The ruling does not directly invalidate ?medical marijuana? laws now on the books in nine states, mostly in the West. Those states remain free to choose not to prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal government rarely prosecutes individuals for marijuana use.
However, in those states, the ruling is likely to doom large, public distribution centers -- confining the use of ?medical marijuana? to private, small-scale settings outside the usual scope of federal enforcement efforts.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>a difference that is minor only because the fed's want it to remain 'unrelated'</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, because that's law. You ever watch law-related TV shows? Know how they say stuff like "objection, irrelevant"? Well there's a basis for that in real life.
The guy was not busted on state law, he was busted on federal law. The state law may as well not exist because it is ALWAYS TRUMPED by the federal law. Federal laws are supreme to state laws per the Constitition.
This was not a concept invented by Republicans to oppress the pot-smoker. The law itself was, yes, but you cannot make such sweeping indictments on the system based on silly personal prejudice.
This is the intelligent way to run a trial because if any kind of irrelevant emotional side-track were allowed nothing would get done. The fact that he grew it for medical use was a non-issue. Unimportant. Non-existant for the purpose of the jury.
[quote]<strong>So my point, is if attenuant's circumstances exist in US, then hiding them at the eye of the jury is not fair.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well you're mixing things up. France is not set up the same as the United States (though our system greatly influenced your own). France is not an alliance of separate states. So if you have a law then that is your law.
However, in the U.S. we have more levels. The state of California should have never passed that law because it is irrelevant. The federal government trumps it. The California law, in any real sense, does not exist.
Again:
I am for legalizing marijuana entirely, but not through some kind of usurping of the legal system. It can and will be done through the proper channels.
No one in this case has been treated unfairly.
cowerd:
[quote]<strong>The Supes have already ruled 8-0 that medical marijuana laws do not trump federal law.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well of course they did. It would have been wrong for them to rule any other way.
---------
For all of you saying this system is bad; ask yourself where civil rights would be without federal supremacy over states.
Yet another case of a perfectly valid issue (legalization of marijuana (medical and/or recreational)) held back by ignorant advocates. Not meant to be an insult.
<strong>cowerd:
If you didn't notice I was answering someone else's question. A poster who claims that the president and attorney general selectively singled this guy out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the other poster claimed that the President and the Secretary of Defense singled this guy out. Rumsfeld isn't the Attorney General. Ashcroft is.
[ 02-10-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>