🚀 go-pugleaf

justsayknow1@hotmail.com (Commonsense) wrote in message news:<b63b43e.0302120944.2016bff1@posting.google.com>...
> 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.  

Obviously - when one poster provides data and all you have is
disjointed unsupported emotion, I imagine it can be frustrating.

> You jump all over me
> for relying on what I've read in countless news articles.  

I suggested that you NOT read the media reports and read the actual
briefs and city documents - to which I provided links.  30-second
sound bites are hardly an unbiased source of information.

> You
> chastise me for having no solid proof. 

Even when I spoon feed you links you still can't be bothered?

> But at least I looked at a
> number of articles to see what the consenses was and based my reliance
> on these articles 

Your reliance on the distillation of a complex legal question into a
30-second sound bite, and moreover, an emotional snippet from the
defense attorney and a lay juror is hardly basis of any legal
consensus.

> 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, 

an absence of prosecution is not evidence that the activity is legal.

> 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.

None are publically supporting his claims that I can see - but what is
even more critical is that the City of Oakland did NOT, at least to
the best of my knowledge, act on his behalf with the appelate court. 
That, to me, is a question that needs to be addressed.

> You, on the other hand, insist that he must have been breaking state
> law even though you have absolutely no proof of this.  

There is NO state law that I have posted that allows cultivation for
distribution of marijuana in California.  There is a proposition voted
on by Californians that supports the medical use and the state has
abdicated its responsibilities to the local governments regarding how
this is to be implemented.  I never said he was breaking state law - I
pointed out that his federal charges support the facxt that he may
have been exceeding the limits of the City of Oakland ordinance.  I
provided a description of the City's ordinance (and its revision in
2001) and I provided the specifications of his indictment.

> You insist that
> he broke local marijuana ordininces even though you don't know what
> they were at the time, 

The link to the ordinance revision provides for that - you should have
bothered to read it.

> and even though no one ever complained that he
> did. 

The City obviously didn't care.  

> You seem to think that your sources, whatever they may be are so
> much more credible than mine. 

Actual charges with statute numbers and an actual document from the
City of Oakland PLUS court briefs filed with the appelate court - I
think that beats your National Enquirer snippets - don't you?

> It's okay for you to argue about this
> even though you lack a factual basis for you arguments, 

Hey - the charges levied and the ordinance appear to be inconsistent.

> yet I'm wrong
> for trusting what so many separate and distinct media outlets have
> reported.

Brainwashing by the media is your defense?  
> 
> Take the log out of your eye before you complain about the splinter in
> mine.

Huh?

> > 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.

Since when is the judicial system in the US anyone of those? The
Scales of Justice wear's blinders - once you let the "spirit" drive
the decision you risk perceptual bias.  That would really suck.

The man violated federal law and was found guilty.  

> *I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore on this, but screw it. 
> You make me so mad.  

You may want to have the doctor increase your lithium - if your posts
are any indication, I'd say today is a manic day.

> 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.  

OK - so I think that the Federal government of the US is right in
enforcing its laws and the tradition is Federal beats state.

> Whether
> Rosenthal was in compliance with California's vague laws is really
> between California and Rosenthal.  

I think it maqy be one explanantion why the City of Oakland is keeping
out of the argument.

> 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.  

Like I said - why is the City keeping its official mouth shut?

> 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.

That is your opinion.

> 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. 

The US DEA has never been very good at this, now have they.  The FDA
has a THC approved product - why is that not being used?

> 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.

Yeh - well that still doesn't address the question - where was the
City of Oakland during the appelate process?