That's essentially what the Canadian Supreme Court said in an equally off topic response. Who asked for a court opinion on a fundamental right "to distribute, cultivate or possess" cannabis?

This is a death sentence only bushista drug warriors could support, as corporate fascists are without compassion, or any human emotion, other than greed, lust, and stealth!

The fact this tragic ruling has made a top of the hour headline is encouraging, and we should all do whatever we can to highlight the insanity the war on Cannabis represents!

Thanks to all here who already are doing overtime already, I imagine that is most here!

I know FOM does overtime, we'll make sure you're well paid soon!

Ted Kennedy is on, detailing the crimes of the bush administration, on C-Span!

Impeachment cannot wait!

A Criminal is running the World, what to do, what to do!

Will the Dudley Do-Right Dems come to the rescue?

Great news about Ed Rosenthal though!

He could sue the government based on the judges statements I believe! Any input?

(BCN) SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge in San Francisco Wednesday dismissed money laundering and tax evasion charges against Oakland marijuana activist Ed Rosenthal on grounds of vindictive prosecution.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the financial charges gave the appearance that prosecutors were retaliating against Rosenthal for appealing an earlier marijuana conviction and complaining about its fairness.

Breyer wrote, "The government's deeds—and words—create the perception that it added the new charges to make Rosenthal look like a common criminal and thus dissipate the criticism heaped on the government after the first trial."

Rosenthal, 61, an author of marijuana books and an advocate of medical marijuana, was convicted in Breyer's court in 2003 on three counts related to cultivating marijuana in an Oakland warehouse.

He later complained publicly that the trial was unfair because he wasn't allowed to claim before the jury that he was growing medical marijuana for patients.

Rosenthal was sentenced to one day already served in jail, but went ahead with an appeal. Last year, a federal appeals court overturned the conviction because of juror misconduct.

Prosecutors then refiled the original charges and added the new tax evasion and money laundering counts. Rosenthal had been scheduled to go on trial on both sets of charges in Breyer's court next week.

Prosecutors had argued the additional charges were not retaliatory but were rather intended to give a jury a full picture of the financial side of Rosenthal's alleged marijuana operation.

Today's ruling leaves the marijuana cultivation charges in place. But Breyer noted that prosecutors have said they will not seek a sentence greater than the one day already served if Rosenthal is convicted on those counts.

Joseph Elford, a lawyer for Rosenthal, said he hoped prosecutors will now dismiss the marijuana charges and forgo a retrial.

Elford said, "We're extremely pleased with the ruling. I would hope the government will end the prosecution and not waste taxpayers' money on a pointless trial."

U.S. attorney's office spokesman Luke Macaulay said, "We're evaluating our options."

The judge scheduled a status conference on the case for Friday.

Copyright: CBS Broadcasting Inc.

But, if you're fully alert and aware and slowly dying in excruciating pain, you MUST die without using cannabis, even if it will save you.

So I guess Terry Shiavo's poor husband should have told authorities that only medical cannabis would keep her alive. Then she would have been allowed to die.

***

March 14, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that a California woman whose doctor says marijuana is the only medicine keeping her alive is not immune from federal prosecution on drug charges.

The case was brought by Angel Raich, an Oakland mother of two who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments.

On her doctor's advice, she eats or smokes marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite as conventional drugs did not work.

The case narrowed the legal argument over medical marijuana use to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep a patient alive or free of excruciating pain.

Raich, a 40-year-old mother of two from Oakland who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. She uses marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite.

"She'd probably be dead without marijuana," said her doctor, Frank Lucido, who has recommended marijuana for some 3,000 patients. "Nothing else works."

The Bush administration claimed the lawsuit was without merit.

"There is no fundamental right to distribute, cultivate or possess marijuana," Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Quinlivan, the government's lead medical marijuana attorney, wrote to the appeals court.

Voters in 1996 made California the first state to authorize patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. Ten other states have since followed suit, but the federal government says there is no medical value to the drug.

In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that Raich's supplier, the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative, could not lawfully dispense marijuana despite California voters approving its medical use.

Two years later, in a small victory for medical marijuana backers, the high court let stand a 9th Circuit decision saying doctors have a First Amendment right to discuss or recommend the drug to patients without the threat of federal sanctions.

But last June, the Supreme Court ruled the federal government could prosecute medical marijuana users and their suppliers.

In some states, federal agents have been sporadically arresting users and raiding so-called pot clubs that dole out the drug to patients.

Still, a footnote by Justice Clarence Thomas in his 2001 ruling left the legal questions surrounding medical marijuana unsettled and helped open the door to Monday's 9th Circuit hearing.

Thomas wrote that important underlying constitutional questions remain unresolved, such as Congress' ability to interfere with states experimenting with their own laws and whether Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as a vehicle to stay alive and ease pain.

The justices answered the first part of that footnote in June, ruling in another case brought by Raich that patients living in states with medical marijuana laws could be prosecuted because Congress has classified marijuana as an illegal controlled substance.

That prompted Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., to propose legislation that would have blocked the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana users in states where it is legal. The House balked at the measure 264-161. A Hinchey spokesman said the congressman will resurrect the proposal this summer.

Raich went back before the 9th Circuit, one step short of the Supreme Court, in a bid to settle the second part of Thomas' footnote.

Copyright 2007 by FOXReno.com