The superseding indictment filed Thursday contains 25 counts against Rosenthal, 61, and two of his original co-defendants, Kenneth Hayes and Richard Watts. Rosenthal faces 14 counts including conspiracy, use of a place to manufacture marijuana for distribution, manufacturing marijuana for distribution, laundering money from marijuana sales, and filing false tax returns. "I knew they had a grand jury but I didn't know what was going to happen," Rosenthal said Thursday night. "What they're trying to do with these indictments and with my continued persecution is to close down all of the dispensaries in California, to deprive people of their medicine."

Some of the sites being copied from have copyright laws with them, they consider it theft to lift their words, word for word, and we can be sued or shut down.

Yeah. I know it's unreasonable...since the information is out there for the public anyway. But who said laws had to be reasonable?

One law, in one state, says I can't ride an ugly horse and carry a gun longer than a specified length. I guess if you are on a ugly horse, and someone makes a comment...you can shoot them with a short gun, but not a long one.

Laws are often unreasonable. We can change them one or a few at a time...but the copyright laws haven't been changed yet.

I know you can delete posts.

I know you rarely do, mostly duplications or by request.

Perhaps you should start deleting posts that violate stated policies.

I'll keep trying to be a good boy ....:-)

Friday, October 13, 2006

California -- Marijuana advocate Ed Rosenthal, who successfully appealed his federal convictions for growing plants for a San Francisco medical marijuana club, was indicted again Thursday on an expanded set of charges, including filing false tax returns and money laundering.

The 2003 trial of Rosenthal, the "Ask Ed" columnist of High Times magazine and an authority on marijuana cultivation, drew national attention and ended in a one-day prison sentence, a disavowal of the guilty verdicts by a majority of the jury, and an eventual reversal this April. An appeals court said a juror who had qualms about the case committed misconduct by phoning an attorney friend for advice.

In the new grand jury indictment, Rosenthal, 61, of Oakland, was charged with 14 felonies, including conspiracy to manufacture marijuana at his Oakland warehouse and distribute it to the Harm Reduction Center, a San Francisco dispensary, between 2000 and 2002.

Snipped:

SAFER Colorado Blog: http://safercolorado.org/blog.html

Regarding Ed, it's just sour grapes on the part of the feds. They are clearly out to get him even though he is a threat to nobody. He has the support of the people while the feds have the support of the devil himself. They picked the wrong dude to mess with because Ed is going to fight and make the fascists look like just that. Thank you, Ed!

THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...

Analyzing South Park's 9/11 Show: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_061012_analyzing_south_park.htm

Who "Pulled" 9/11: http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/who-pulled-911.htm

Rice: Does anyone really believe I'd ignore terror warning? http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Rice_Does_anyone_really_believe_Id_1012.html

Rudy, dont take your love to town...or the evidence (video): http://rattube.com/blog1/2006/10/12/rudy-dont-take-your-love-to-town-or-the-evidence-911/

Confessions Of A 9/11 Hitman (fiction): http://rense.com/general73/confess.htm

How about mounting three wide screeners in a pick up, one on each side of the bed, one in the rear. Connect a DC/AC converter, hook up a splitter on a DVD player so all three sets will play from it, park in a mall parking lot, a public park, or wherever and pass out DVDs of your favorite cause, while showing the DVDs on your three wide screens? How many laws would I be breaking?

Too much? Ok. I'll just keep the idea of setting up in my own driveway.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4483936

Grand Junction - Diverging opinions about a marijuana- legalization initiative led to a finger-jabbing shouting match during a news conference Thursday featuring local, state and federal officials opposed to Amendment 44.

The angry exchange came at the end of speeches given by White House National Drug Control deputy director Scott Burns and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, who oppose the measure.

Mason Tvert, campaign director for the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Committee, a group attempting to legalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana for adults in Colorado, asked Burns, Suthers and other elected officials standing in front of a "Marijuana - Not in Our Community" banner, "Who paid for this press conference?"

"Why don't you have to file a campaign finance report when you are engaged in campaigning?" he asked as various speakers attempted to quell his questions.

Mesa County Sheriff Stan Hilkey, one of the speakers against Amendment 44, answered that, as drug experts, they had the right to talk about the marijuana initiative.

Suthers was visibly angered when he told Tvert, "You are just flat wrong" about campaign finance law - as wrong, he said, as Tvert is about drug laws. "As public officials, we are perfectly entitled to step up and express our opinions at any time," Suthers said.

The Colorado Fair Campaign Practices Act allows government employees to spend up to $50 to express opinions on a ballot initiative.

Heather Janik, a staff member with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said that the federal office paid $50 to rent the room for the news conference and that Burns' travel to Grand Junction from Washington, D.C., was covered by his appearance at a conference to discuss methamphetamine abuse.

The thick packets of booklets and fact sheets with information opposing marijuana use that were handed out at the news conference did not specifically mention Amendment 44.

Tvert, who also held a news conference Thursday under a new billboard urging yes votes on Amendment 44, reiterated that "these guys, who are so concerned with the law, are breaking the law on this."

Other speakers at the anti-44 conference included Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger, who said "I virtually never see a meth case that doesn't also include marijuana."

Listen to them squeal, oink.

This is the Boulder Weekly's voter picks / stand on Amendment 44... Oct. 12, 2006.

-

Amendment 44 The marijuana-alcohol equalization amendment

Yes

Amendment 44 asks Colorado voters to decide whether or not to legalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana for adults 21 years and older. If passed it would still be illegal to consume marijuana in public, drive while under the influence, grow marijuana, sell it or possess it if you are under 21.

This is an expansion of the initiative that was passed last year in Denver. Currently, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a petty offense in Colorado and carries a $100 fine.

Proponents of Amendment 44 say that marijuana is a safer alternative drug than alcohol and that Colorado citizens should be allowed to consume it in the privacy of their homes if they so choose. Every year, there are thousands of injuries and deaths, in addition to violence, that occur as a direct result of alcohol, yet alcohol is legal. Marijuana, on the other hand, does not cause a persistent threat to public safety and carries no risk of overdose. Marijuana users are far less likely to engage in violence or erratic behavior than those who imbibe alcohol. Furthermore, supporters of Amendment 44 say that many studies have shown marijuana to be less addictive than other illegal and legal drugs.

Amendment 44 will also save taxpayers money. Currently, it costs Colorado thousands of dollars every year to track down, apprehend and prosecute marijuana users. This is money that could be better spent capturing violent criminals and fighting drugs that are more harmful to the public, like crack and meth. Supporters say that arresting marijuana users for such a minor offense needlessly destroys thousands of lives and eats up taxpayer revenue.

Opponents of Amendment 44 say there is no scientific evidence that conclusively demonstrates marijuana is safer than alcohol. Since marijuana is illegal, it is impossible to study the long-term effects of cannabis on the human body. However, studies have shown that THC can certainly be addictive to some people, and smoke inhalation of any kind is detrimental to the lungs, they say. Today's marijuana is as much as 10 times stronger than the pot used in the 1970s, and the effects of that heightened potency vary depending on the individual.

Opponents also claim that marijuana is a "gateway" drug that introduces young people to the drug culture and encourages them to try other truly harmful drugs. They say prohibition works and it is the only viable option in the drug war. There is also the concern that legalizing pot will attract drug users to Colorado, raising crime rates throughout the state.

Finally, those opposed to Amendment 44 argue that legalizing pot will not save money in the long run. The costs of enforcement are minimal when compared to the costs of addiction treatment and the drug counseling centers that the state would be forced to pay for.

BW position: Opponents are full of bull, and a large percentage of Boulder County readers knows it. Why? Because they smoke pot and lead healthy, functional lives. The war on pot is a waste of money and a waste of lives. Prohibition has never worked and never will. If alcohol and cigarettes, which are demonstrably more costly and harmful to human beings and to society, are legal, then ganja should be legal, too.

End the hypocrisy. Vote YES on Amendment 44.

suporters of ED please partner with the great warming movie to show how saving the Cannabis plant and saving the planet go hand and hand