Grower of Medical Marijuana Is Convicted on Federal Charges

the new york times ^ | 2/1/03 | DEAN E. MURPHY

[freepatriot32]

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 31 — A federal jury today found the author of marijuana books and advice columns, Ed Rosenthal, guilty of marijuana cultivation and conspiracy. Under mandatory sentencing laws, Mr. Rosenthal faces a minimum of five years in prison.

Mr. Rosenthal, 58, who admitted to growing the plants for distribution under California's medicinal marijuana law, known as Proposition 215, called the verdict a "terrible decision" and vowed to fight it. His lawyers said they would prepare motions for a new trial immediately.

"What the federal government is trying to do is destroy Prop 215 and eliminate medical marijuana from California," Mr. Rosenthal said. Proposition 215 "will outlive the Bush administration, it will outlive Ashcroft and it will outlive all of these cruel people who want to stop people from getting their medicine."

The law, passed by voters as an initiative in 1996, permits the cultivation of marijuana as medicine for seriously ill people. Mr. Rosenthal was growing starter plants in a warehouse in Oakland, in his capacity as an "officer of the city" under Oakland's medical marijuana ordinance. The plants were distributed to organizations and clubs that serve the seriously ill. Besides California, eight other states allow the sick and dying to smoke or grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

But the judge in the Rosenthal case, Charles R. Breyer of United States District Court, did not allow Mr. Rosenthal to raise the California law as a defense since Mr. Rosenthal was indicted under federal law. Federal law does not permit marijuana cultivation for medicinal purposes.

As a result, Mr. Rosenthal did not take the stand in his own defense and his lawyers said they were unable to explain to the jury his motive for growing the plants. "Ed, for doing the right thing, is paying a terrible price," Robert V. Eye, one of Mr. Rosenthal's lawyers, who fought back tears during a news conference after the verdict. "Social change is never easy."

The jury foreman, Charles Sackett, 51, a landscape contractor in Sebastopol, Calif., said the jury was largely sympathetic to Mr. Rosenthal's predicament. But, Mr. Sackett said, jurors were left with "no legal wiggle room" because of the decision to exclude any discussion of Proposition 215.

"It was one of the most difficult things we ever did as jurors," Mr. Sackett said of separating the state and federal aspects of the case. "We followed the letter of the law. We followed the court's instructions." Mr. Sackett said that he had voted for Proposition 215 and that he hoped Mr. Rosenthal would ultimately prevail in a higher court.

"I am for the use of medical marijuana, as a number of jurors were," he said. "But we just couldn't base our decision on that."

George L. Bevan Jr., the assistant United States attorney, asked that Mr. Rosenthal be taken into custody immediately, but Judge Breyer said he would make a decision about custody at a hearing on Tuesday. Mr. Rosenthal has been free since his arrest last February after posting $200,000 bond. The judge is scheduled to sentence Mr. Rosenthal in June.

Under the original indictment, Mr. Rosenthal had faced a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison if convicted, but the jury effectively cut that amount in half when it rejected the prosecution's contention that Mr. Rosenthal had conspired to grow more than 1,000 plants. The jury reduced the number to 100. Mr. Rosenthal's lawyers had argued that since the plants he had grown were starters, not fully grown plants, that the count involving 1,000 plants was excessive.

[freepatriot32]

I am for the use of medical marijuana, as a number of jurors were," he said. "But we just couldn't base our decision on that

yes they could its called jury nullification if it can work for a guilty man like oj it can work for an innocent man like ed rosenthal

yet another defeat for the 10th amendment

[keithtoo]

When asked for a comment after his arrest, Mr. Rosenthal replied:

"Huh....wha......I'm being what? Bummer maaaan!"

"Hey Mr. Police dude.....you gonna finish that doughnut?"

[Mike4Freedom]

yet another defeat for the 10th amendment

And another victory for public education. Imagine that the jury knew full well how unjust the whole affair was but they were conned by the judge to believe that they had no choice.

I am sure that someone has by now told the jury the truth and they will be kicking themselves for the rest of their lives.

[Lexington Green]

another kangaroo court....

[bigfootbob]

"yet another defeat for the 10th amendment"

All your states are belong to us!

[Nephi]

"I am for the use of medical marijuana, as a number of jurors were," he said. "But we just couldn't base our decision on that."

Too bad they didn't know that they are the final arbiters of the law.

[freepatriot32]

yeah exactly we need jury education in this country

[Cultural Jihad]

The players could have played it better, though. They aimed for direct confrontation, and they lost. There is no felony or arrests in California in gifting small amounts of what has often been described as essentially cost-free medication. The players staged a centralized pay-per-view campaign, and now they've scattered, none wanting to follow Ed's fate for sharing Ed's cause. Where are the city councilmembers from Oakland and Santa Cruz? San Francisco and Sonoma? Why aren't they reporting to jail with a potted pot each? Such is the degree of their actual concern about the sick and dying not getting the medicine they need. If they truly believed that, then the jails would be filling up with more so-called medicinal-rights activists.

Those who use the medicine issue as a cover for the legalization of all recreational drugs are dissembling when they whine about cancer patients, for they would enact as a right anyone's ability to consume any poison in any amount at any time for any reason, even if it causes cancer, or even immediate death.

[LoveMyCountry]

Will this guy be able to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination while he's in jail???

[Leisler]

Dihydrogen oxide kill more people each year, yet out legislators do nothing to protect us. Illegalize chemicals Now.

As you have undoubtedly read, dihydrogen oxide has been found to be a major threat to the environment and to human and animal health. Here are the facts:

In 1991, 4,100 Americans? many of them under the age of 10? died from excessive dosages of dihydrogen oxide commonly found in many homes and recreation sites. Our polluted lakes, rivers and oceans are known to contain vast quantities of dihydrogen oxide. On this, there is no controversy! Contaminated ground water? Same tragic situation. In California, Missouri and Georgia families have lost their homes to dihydrogen oxide contamination. In some applications, dihydrogen oxide is a major contributor to injuries from falls. In other applications dihydrogen oxide is a major cause of burns.

Why does America endure this wasteful destruction of our planet, our children and ourselves? Greed. Simple greed and stupidity. We need your help now. In the next 24 hours, we need you to demand an end to the production and use of dihydrogen oxide

[Cultural Jihad]

Oh, gosh! And I hear that people can suffocate on a mere teaspoon full of dihydrogen oxide!

If the only reason that people injested dihydrogen oxide was to get a thrill and risk their deaths, then yes, non-dual-use compounds which only endanger unalienable rights should be discouraged. We rational people generally like to think that unalienable rights are more important to uphold than the dangers to those rights.

[logic101.net]

Ohhhh, you are going to get some nasty mail! The pro pot people don't have much sense of humor! When I come out in partial favor of legalized (not decriminalized) pot, I always close with; "but it must be understood that most of those supporting this are stoned." The pro-pot-people tend to get really upset! They just can't take a joke.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[logic101.net]

No, because he is a convicted felon. If he gets a pardon then he can run for office, but short of that he can't.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[logic101.net]

But without it, we would all stink! H2O folks. But I get your point. Sorry to burst you bubble so soon.


MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

[RJCogburn]

jurors were left with "no legal wiggle room" because of the decision to exclude any discussion of Proposition 215.

As you say, not so. its called jury nullification

and we need to see it used more often to prtect us from the sanctimonious statists like Ashcroft.

[eleni121]

an innocent man like ed rosenthal

Innocent? How so? He admitted he was growing cannabis which is an illegal drug for good reason. It is addictive and harms people! Thank God for the federal law that can override the stupidity of California "jurors".

[bvw]

What is the constitutional basis for that federal law?

[supercat]

Innocent? How so? He admitted he was growing cannabis which is an illegal drug for good reason. It is addictive and harms people! Thank God for the federal law that can override the stupidity of California "jurors".

The relevant part of Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

If Congress was supposed to be able to pass all manner of restrictions of commerce even within a state, why add all the unnecessary verbiage underlined above? The only reasonable presumption is that the underlined text was supposed to mean something.

In particular, the reason Congress is given power over interstate commerce is specifically that, with few exceptions, states only have power over what happens within their borders. Since states do not have power over interstate commerce, Congress gets that power. On the other hand, there is no good reason for Congress to have power over commerce within a state since, if the people of the state want to restrict something, they can just as well do it themselves.

[Conservative til I die]

they would enact as a right anyone's ability to consume any poison in any amount at any time for any reason, even if it causes cancer, or even immediate death.

Drinking Drano causes immediate death. I would think rat poison and bleach probably might do the job as well. Should they be illegal too?

BTW, I was diagnosed with cancer last October; the chemotherapy treatment I received, while milder than others, by the last dosage (the accumulation of dosage increases the side effects) I had no appetite for about 6 days. I guess I should be denied a drug that can help in some way to alleviate this side effect (despite it's abusive tendencies, which really are no differnet than the painkillers my oncologist prescribes for me), because you think "Hey dude" type people use it.

[Conservative til I die]

non-dual-use compounds which only endanger unalienable rights should be discouraged

What unalienable rights? The right to practice one's religion? The right to own a firearm? The right not to have to quarter soldiers? The right to a jury trial? The right not to convict yourself through your testimony? What rights does some guy smoking a joint violate?