"Guru of Ganja" (Ed Rosenthal) convicted of marijuana cultivation

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 01/31/03 | DAVID KRAVETS

[MikalM]

A federal jury Friday found Ed Rosenthal, the author of how-to-grow books on marijuana and how to avoid the law, guilty of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy charges.

Deliberating for a day, the 12-member jury concluded that Rosenthal, the self described "Guru of Ganja," was growing more than 1,000 plants, conspiring to cultivate marijuana and maintaining a warehouse for a growing operation. He faces a maximum life term when sentenced June 4.

[jayef]

I understand you completely. Personally, I have a great deal at stake. I just think that it is absolutely ridiculous that my government could choose to imprison me over my choice of intoxicant.

I enjoy the finer things in life. I'm a connosieur, if you will. Nothing better than good scotch, good bourbon, good wine, good port and good bud. I use all in moderation and only use the finest of each.

Again, it is a sin that my government has chosen one of these (and by all scientific accounts, the least harmful of the lot) to be a controlled substance. I made the risk reward calculation long ago and despite this stupid drug war, I have found the risk to be acceptable.

[robertpaulsen]

"Are you suggesting that there are a great many people who would like to smoke dope, but don't because of the fear of incarceration?"

"Great many people?" I am suggesting no such thing. What has been suggested on this board is that legalizing marijuana would not increase the number of marijuana smokers.

I thought that philman_36's statement refuted that "suggestion", that's all.

[robertpaulsen]

"Craig said she realized how much information had been kept from the jury when she drove home after the verdict and read newspaper accounts that jurors had been told to avoid during the trial."

Are you suggesting that this is a better way to conduct a trial by jury? Have them sit at home, read newspaper acoounts, then render a verdict?

Why would you post such nonsense? How low will you stoop to defend your buddy, Ed?

[philman_36]

Since you wish me to do so, I will.
Thank you.
But for the record, I reject your claim that my not doing so was "rude and discourteous;"...
Fine, I'll call it poor etiquette. Do you accept that claim?
...clearly my post had nothing to do with you in particular...
That's funny, I see ...So "saving" philman from his own...as having a lot to do with me "in particular".
...and would not have been meaningfully changed had I referred instead to Joe Smith.
Then you should've done so instead of using my nomiker!
Sorry about this, I'm not trying to rile you.
Everybody has quirks. I squeeze the tube from the bottom, like my TP "underneath" instead of "over the top", fill the ice trays, don't put empty jugs back in the fridge, don't drink from the jug, don't slam the screen door, don't "flop" on the furniture, etc.

[robertpaulsen]

"So "saving" philman from his own bad choices is worth ten of billions of taxpayer dollars every year..."

You're saying, what? He's not worth it?

[Roscoe]

Again:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/833628/posts?page=357#357

[MrLeRoy]

Are you suggesting that this is a better way to conduct a trial by jury? Have them sit at home, read newspaper acoounts, then render a verdict?

I'm suggesting that relevant testimony should not be barred during trial. Why would you post such nonsense? How low will you stoop to defend your buddy, Ed?

Wipe that froth from your mouth.

[MrLeRoy]

Fine, I'll call it poor etiquette. Do you accept that claim?

No.

Everybody has quirks.

That I'll accept, and respect yours.

[MrLeRoy]

You're saying, what? He's not worth it?

"Saving" adults from their own choices is not worth a plugged nickel.

[Roscoe]

I'd like to see documentation

Here's the "legalize drugs" party (which ALWAYS loses its Congressional races) pissing and moaning about it:

http://archive.lp.org/rel/19980220-drugs.html

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm suggesting that relevant testimony should not be barred during trial."

You are suggesting no such thing with that post. Your post suggests that jurors be exposed to newspaper accounts, does it not?

[MrLeRoy]

Your post suggests that jurors be exposed to newspaper accounts, does it not?

No, it does not.

[jayef]

Yes, I have seen that suggested too. I am as dubious of that claim as you are. That being said, I would be ecstatic if more people chose marijuana over alcohol. I think the night life all of the country would dramatically improve on that day. I can't tell you how sickening it is to witness drunken idiocy (fighting, puking, stumblin' and stammerin') every weekend, knowing that there is a better way.

[jayef]

And you applaud this? You would support such barbarity? What kind of human being are you?

[Roscoe]

And who says the WOD is not working?

Good catch!

[philman_36]

What has been suggested on this board is that legalizing marijuana would not increase the number of marijuana smokers.
So what makes you automatically assume that I, or anyone else, would start smoking marijuana if it were legalized? I indicated that there were many factors that kept me from smoking marijuana. Did you somehow miss that to purposely lead somewhere?
I thought that philman_36's statement refuted that "suggestion", that's all.
No, you opined.

[Roscoe]

Hey, you're the one who proclaimed that Linder's defeat of Barr showed that, "There is justice in this world."

Your blind ignorance bit you again.

[philman_36]

And? Your point?

[philman_36]

Good catch!
No one else has answered and you won't either, but I'll ask anyway.
You like coercion and incarceration as tactics?
Is that freedom?

[Roscoe]

[According to the testimony...]

Short term memory loss?