Pubdate: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 Source: Western Herald (MI EDU) Copyright: 2003 The Western Herald Contact: http://www.westernherald.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2668 Author: by Ben Lando, contributing opinion columnist Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm (Bush, George) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Ed+Rosenthal (Rosenthal, Ed) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) FEDS SHOULD STAY OUT OF STATE MARIJUANA POLICIES When California voters approved Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act) in 1996, voters must have thought, "Hey, the democratic process does work. We, the people, feel a certain way about a certain issue, and our laws reflect that." Last month those voters woke up to the sad reality that democracy is defined by those who hold the most power. During his campaign for president in 2000, George W. Bush said that although he doesn't agree with medical marijuana, the decision should be left up to individual states to work out. Now Dubya has decided to work it out for the individual state of California, giving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration the green light to get involved with local affairs by investigating and arresting people involved in state-sanctioned and regulated medical marijuana growing and distribution. I have to assume that we have not only the resources, but also the time to allow our federal investigators to carry on this most important task of harassing and arresting people that, by following state law, help painfully sick, and, in most cases, dying citizens. It only makes sense; we're in a time of war, and the threat of marijuana plants being flown into buildings where thousands of Americans are working must be taken seriously -- serious enough to arrest a man, deputized by the city of Oakland, Calif., to grow medical marijuana for their regulated program. On Jan. 31, a jury found Ed Rosenthal guilty of federal marijuana cultivation and conspiracy charges, after U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer denied Rosenthal's defense team the right to explain to the jury why he was growing marijuana in the first place, including allowing city officials to testify Rosenthal was acting as a government official. According to an Associated Press article: "I was not allowed to tell my story," Rosenthal appropriately complained after his trial. "If the jury had been allowed to hear the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I would have been acquitted." Marney Craig, one of the now disgruntled jurors, called what she and her colleagues did to Rosenthal a "travesty and unbelievable." "We made a terrible mistake and he should not be going to prison for this," she said. Craig claims that Judge Breyer "took over questioning of the witnesses," and "repeatedly cut off the defense attorney." "What?" you say. Exactly my reaction. But thank God the citizens and public officials in California have not only the guts, but the democratic spine to stand up to a repressive government. Six of the jurors were present for Rosenthal's sentencing to show their disgust with the judge, even though they were already excused. Afterwards, they held a press conference where they made a public statement that was backed by two more jurors who weren't able to make it, in which they apologized to Rosenthal and expressed concern about their experience with the judicial process. Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the district attorney were at the press conference to show their support, too. Last year in Santa Cruz, Calif., after the DEA raided a medical marijuana dispensary, city officials were so upset that they gave the medicine away on the steps of city hall. Two examples of the proper use of local government office -- to stand up for your constituents, and against those who claim to put those citizens' interests first, while tucking their individual freedoms and rights in their own back pocket, so to speak. But that's another topic. Now I know what some of you may be thinking: "Hey, federal law supersedes state and local law, and that's just how it is." But wasn't man (and woman) around before the United States? Before a federalist system where power is distributed by the most powerful, in the name of preserving freedom? How does a government, supposedly created on and for the promotion of life, liberty and happiness (property), get to be the supreme ruler of individual human beings? Do we not reserve the rights to some things? Shouldn't some issues be off-limits to government at all, let alone by a minority of people ruling from a small portion of our huge country? Is personal freedom just a pipe dream, only applicable to property rights and guns? And how do we get to the point where our government can say, hypocritically, what does and doesn't help one person's ailments? Right now, seven people in the United States receive medical marijuana from the federal government. Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., has been getting 300 joints a month from Uncle Sam for 20 years. Yet my, or your, sick, dying grandmother, writhing in pain, cannot smoke a plant that may allay at least some of the uncomfortable effects of disease. It just doesn't make sense. And from the looks of it, with the government hell-bent on proving the causal linkage between marijuana use and terrorism, the battle freedom loving citizens have to fight in the co-opted war against drugs will be waged a little dirtier and a lot longer. Good luck. - - Ben Lando, a Western Herald contributing columnist, is a junior from Kalamazoo majoring in political science (public policy). - --- MAP posted-by: Jackl