🚀 go-pugleaf

amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302080208.8613230@posting.google.com>...
> justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302070700.134561de@posting.google.com>...
> > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302070235.7623545d@posting.google.com>...
> > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302062111.54aff87b@posting.google.com>...
> > > > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302060506.17155754@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > "Joe Winett" <joe@vigoris.net> wrote in message news:<3e414659$1@news.vigoris.net>...

> 
> I am tangentially familiar with nevada Law and had he been doing what
> he was doing in Nevada he would not have been in compliance.  No one
> has bothered to provide a link to the statute that legalizes the
> activity - my understanding from the lay press is that he was
> cultivating plants for distribution to others.
> 
> >As I
> > understand it the law is particularly vague and no guidelines exist
> > for setting up growing cooperatives or distributing the product.  The
> > city of Oakland apparantly felt they were in compliance with state law
> 
> If the city had such a strong position, would not you have expected
> that they could have/wpould have done something.  I know the court
> disallowed the defense to present the evidence but I didn't see an
> amicus curie (I think that's what they are called) brief from the city
> on his behalf.
>
It is my understanding the city did try to do something but the court
would not allow them to put on evidence regarding Mr. Rosenthal's
medical marijuana motive or the fact that he had been deputized by the
city to grow pot for the medical marijuana program.  And please know
that juries do not read briefs.  Judges decide law questions. Juries
decide questions of fact.  Whether evidence is admissible is a
question of law.  The judge would not allow any evidence of
Proposition 215, medical marijuana or Mr. Rosenthal's relationship
with the city in.  Technically, none of that was relevant because this
was federal court and the feds don't recognize California's medical
marijuana laws.
 
> > and no state officials appear to have complained.  Don't forget,
> > Rosenthal was actually "deputized" by the city of Oakland for the
> > purpose of doing what he was doing and was doing all of this
> > completely out in the open. He was a city official.
> 
> That is a statement that I have only seen made by his defenders -
> never from a city or state official.

You really haven't been keeping up with this story then.
 
> > If you look into this you'll see that local governments in California
> > have been the only ones actually setting any standards.  The state
> > legislature has stayed out of it.  The governor is actually on record
> > as being opposed to medical marijuana or at least the initiative
> > passed in his state.  I suppose the state has in effect deferred
> > running the programs to the local authorities.
> > 
> > This is just my guess.  I've never even been to California and only
> > have cursory knowledge of their medical marijuana laws.
> 
> Sometimes the law is not logical and appears to lack commonsense -
> though I firmly believe one persons commonsense is easily anothers
> folly.

What are you talking about?
 
> > > > > As far as the federal law is concerned, its legality was upheld by the
> > > > > Supreme Court which is substantive evidence that it is a "good" law. 
> > > > > The US SC is the final say so on those issues - that's their job and
> > > > > whether you agree or disagree with their rulings, only Congress can
> > > > > overturn by writing new legislation.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure exactly which law you are refering to 
> > > 
> > > The DEA scheduling of marijuana which classes it as not having
> > > medicinal value.
> > >
> > 
> > In the context of this scheduling law, "good" is in the eye of the
> > beholder.  
> 
> In this case, it was the US Supreme Court - it would be their job.

The law is a bad law because it is obviously wrong.  Marijuana does
have some limited medical application.  I've seen it work with my own
two eyes when no other drugs had done the job.  This lady was no
druggie.  She was a retired nurse, mother of nine children,
grandmother of dozens and a church organist. She didn't even drink and
never touched marijuana till her late sixties. It controlled the
nausea she experienced from chemo therapy and made her comfortable in
her final months.

There are people like Mrs. Ulrich all over America.  There are also
countless studies showing that marijuana can be effective medicine in
certain instances.  The feds completely ignore reality on this one and
hold firm on this scheduling issue because they do not wish to lose
control over marijuana.  The funny thing is, they have no control over
it anyway.  It's widely available for all who want it and entirely
unregulated.

> > I'd say the law is a lie.  I'd also say that just because
> > the feds have a law does not necessarily always mean it applies in
> > states or "trumps" state law as you will so often hear.  This is not
> > exactly what the Constitution says.  But of course, what the
> > Constitution says is not so important as what the Supreme Court says
> > it means.  We'll see how all of this plays out.  I'm really hoping the
> > feds are pushed back on this one.  I like the idea of having a strong
> > federal government, but not one that oversteps it's bounds as
> > contemplated by the framers of our Constitution.
> 
> Which is your interpretation.  With 260 plus million US residents, one
> could suggest that there would be about that many opinions on the
> isue.  Currently, the only opinion that matters is the one rendered by
> the US SC.

Actually, you're either for medical marijuana or not.  The latest
polls show in the neighborhood of 70-80% of all Americans support
medical marijuana.  Californians obviously support it or they wouldn't
have legalized it their state. The federal government is ignoring the
will of the people in California.

I don't smoke marijuana. I think it's an unhealthy waste of time.  I
also don't believe that marijuana is some wonder drug that's good for
just whatever ails you.  I'm sure that medical marijuana programs are
abused. That's just human nature.  But I know that there are some
people who truly benefit from the drug.  I also know that the federal
government is helping no one with these selective prosecutions in
spite of California's laws.   People will still continue to grow
marijuana, medical and otherwise, and Ed Rosenthal will just become a
martyr for the cause.