Posted on 01/21/2003 4:28:02 PM PST by Libloather
Marijuana columnist goes on trial on charges of illegally growing pot
Tue Jan 21, 3:28 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - An author of how-to books and columns on growing marijuana and evading the law went on trial Tuesday on federal charges of illegally cultivating pot.
The case against Ed Rosenthal represents the latest clash between federal agents and state and local authorities over the medical use of marijuana.
Rosenthal, a former columnist for the pro-marijuana magazine High Times, has said he was growing pot to help the sick, which is legal under California law. But marijuana is still illegal under federal law.
Prosecutor George Bevan told the jury that agents seized some 3,000 plants growing in Rosenthal's warehouse in Oakland.
"It's a federal offense," Bevan said.
Rosenthal, 58, could receive a life sentence if convicted.
California and seven other states — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon and Washington — allow the sick to receive, possess, grow or smoke marijuana for medical purposes without fear of state prosecution.
Nearly two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said it was a violation of federal drug laws for medical marijuana clubs to dispense pot.
Armed with that ruling, the government has raided several marijuana clubs and growing operations in California over the objection of marijuana advocates and local prosecutors and politicians.
I would agree with this statement except that use of drugs does inflict harm to other non users.
BTW - where do libertarians stand on abortion - inflicting harm on another?
Is that harm a violation of rights?
where do libertarians stand on abortion - inflicting harm on another?
Those who recognize (as I do) that the unborn child is an "other" are opposed to abortion.
It's much less harmful than the drug alcohol.
Enough to want to pull out the official party shun list, perhaps?
Libertarians are nicely split on the abortion issue, just like the Democrats and Republicans. While our first principle is non-agression, there is the usual factual debate on whether a fetus is a human or not.
I personally come down on the side of life begins at conception and my feeling is that the party is nearly equally split. Our platform has a pro-choice plank (left over from the founding in 1972) and it takes 2/3 vote to change it. So far that has not been achieved, but it comes up at every national convention.
And no, I will not leave the party because of this. Where would I go? Every other party is split as well and I agree with more Libertarian principles that any other party.
Keep on posting dcwusmc. The more posting you do, the more your whacko comments are seen for what they are, whacko. Like in enviro-whacko, abortion-whacko, and in your case pot/drug Libertarian/ACLU-whacko
Well if you were running the government, pot and all drugs would be legal(actually promoted, IMHO) and child pornography would be no big deal either(per reply #74), IMHO. No I don't want you running the government and the Founding Fathers set up a system to let me have a voice so that can happen peacefully.
I think that you failed to answer the question from dwcusmc: Does the legislature (state or Federal) have complete authority to set the rules for society, presumably in compliance with the will of the majority, or is it limited by some prior rules (the constitution) that are there to protect the minority from abuse and tyranny of the majority?
Uh dude reply #91 says it all and that I would fight in the arena of ideas(i.e through th electoral process) against dcwusmc's and your idea of freedom(i.e drugs and child porn are no big problem).
BTW, why do you strident Libertarians get "all of the sudden civil", when faced with questions that can't be easily answered with such quick replies as "statist", "jack booted thug", or "boot licking drug warrior".
The quote, "You doth protest too much" seems quite apt.
Hey who would of thought that Shakespere wrote about and ridiculed "liberal/libertarian" thought in the late 1500's.
Just reaffirms my beleif that political naivete and the words that describe that naievte are ageless.
I don't "get civil". I am always civil, even when faced with nonsensical ad hominem attacks. I just assume that if my opponent resorts to ad hominem, he has no real argument and is admitting that I have won the point.
I use only real arguments. If I do not have a good case, I do not get into a debate until I have worked it out or I change my mind on the matter. That is a requirement of intellectual honesty.
I find that drug warriors have no good arguments. They either repeat long disproven nonsense or moral platitudes. There is no good argument to justify the evil of the War on Drugs. If you think you have one, bring it on, but you have to overcome the moral, constitutional AND practical arguments that make the WOD evil.
I find that drug warriors have no good arguments.
Just retract, drug warriors, from the above sentence, and add in pro-lifers and voila you have a Hillary soundbite.
See, just what I said. No real argument, just an ad hominem. Imagine comparing me to Hillary. That is a terrible and mean thing to say but has nothing to do with the WOD. I guess that you are out of arguments and concede.
Come on! The use of the drug, the chemical, affects only the person using, the irrespeconsible behavior of the individual after using said drugs is the individual's fault. You sound like a liberal blaming guns for gun violence.
BTW - where do libertarians stand on abortion - inflicting harm on another?
Many libertarians are pro-life. I am.
A little perspective. There were 14 million arrests in 2000. So this is what... 5% of all arrests? Hell, there were over 600,000 arrests for "disorderly conduct".
Geez, take a hit off your bong and chill out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.