🚀 go-pugleaf

amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302120117.69ba7d77@posting.google.com>...
> justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302111025.2038ecc8@posting.google.com>...
> > amp_spamfree@yahoo.com (amp_spamfree) wrote in message news:<1192abe3.0302110257.39ccd558@posting.google.com>...
> > > justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302100916.f79321b@posting.google.com>...

snip

> > > Had you bothered with the links, you would have seen an interesting
> > > discrepancy - the Federal charge was cultivation of over 100 plants,
> > > the local ordinance allows cultivation but not to exceed 100 plants. 
> > > Is this relevant?  I think so.

snip

> > I'm through with this argument.  But I will say that you might want to
> > check the date the local 100 plant rule cam into effect.  I am certain
> > it was well after Rosenthal was arrested.
>
 
> What was the rule BEFORE it was changed?  San Diego had a 6 plant
> rule.  You really ought to be careful making these types of statements
> without first checking.  My understanding is that Oakland liberalized
> certain aspects of the rule and reduced other aspects in the June 2001
> realignment.

snip

> If in fact he was growing hundreds of plants in a warehouse, he would
> have been in violation of the local ordinance and his activities would
> have been in direct conflict with what Prop 215 sets out.

It has been most frustrating arguing with you.  You jump all over me
for relying on what I've read in countless news articles.  You
chastise me for having no solid proof. But at least I looked at a
number of articles to see what the consenses was and based my reliance
on these articles not just on the fact that there was consensus but
also because the conclusions seemed plausible given the fact that no
state or local officials had previously shut Rosenthal down, nor had
they tried to prosecute him and more importantly, none were publicly
disputing his claims or the claims of the jurors who heard his case.

You, on the other hand, insist that he must have been breaking state
law even though you have absolutely no proof of this.  You insist that
he broke local marijuana ordininces even though you don't know what
they were at the time, and even though no one ever complained that he
did. You seem to think that your sources, whatever they may be are so
much more credible than mine. It's okay for you to argue about this
even though you lack a factual basis for you arguments, yet I'm wrong
for trusting what so many separate and distinct media outlets have
reported.

Take the log out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in
mine.

> I really don't care what happens to Rosenthal - personally, I think he
> got exactly what he was hoping for - a national platform.  

Good. Maybe the spirit of fairness, tolerance, freedom and reason will
eventually prevail.


*I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore on this, but screw it. 
You make me so mad.  What's really bothering me about this is that I'm
a big enough sucker to get dragged into a stupid argument like this. 
The whole point for me here is that I believe California should be
able to make and enforce their own medical marijuana laws.  Whether
Rosenthal was in compliance with California's vague laws is really
between California and Rosenthal.  The question of whether he may have
been violating California's law would have been relevant had this been
allowed as a defense in the federal trial, but it was not.  If it had
been allowed as a defense, the court would have had to interpret the
law pursuant to California's interpretation of it, which was
apparently very broad, allowing much wiggle room for defining
"caregivers" and so on.  No matter how you look at it, if California
had have been worried about Rosenthal's activities, they could have
shut them down.  It was their business and the feds didn't have to get
involved.

The feds could very easily resolve this and diffuse this situation by
rescheduling marijuana and allowing states to have their own laws on
it subject to some federal guidelines designed to minimize problems
with abuse of the system. They could allow widespread clinical trial
experimentation with medical marijuana which would inevitably lead to
a better understanding of its benefits and its dangers.  Instead they
attempt to surpress anything which may seem remotely "pro marijuana"
because they have a great fear that they will somehow lose control.
All they have done here is make a martyr out of Ed Rosenthal and
further damage any credibility they may have had when it comes to
their "message" on drugs.