Ed Rosenthal on Dateline

[boulder]

Dateline interview.

 

Guru of Ganja

 

In California, a legal tussle is unfolding between that state and the federal government, and the man in the middle is Ed Rosenthal, otherwise known as the Guru of Ganja. He's been legally growing marijuana for medicinal purposes for years, but the Federal Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, is determined to put a stop to the practice. The case is becoming a litmus test for states' rights and civil liberties. Nick Lazaredes has more.

 

 

 

REPORTER: Nick Lazaredes

 

To these amateur horticulturalists, Ed Rosenthal is a hero. He's an international expert on cannabis and for almost 30 years he's been an outspoken advocate for the decriminalisation of his favourite plant.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: In 1966 I became acquainted with marijuana and I decided to try to grow some and I became enchanted with this plant. Within a few years I had written my first book.

 

As a prolific publisher of marijuana literature, Rosenthal's cult status has been firmly established. Since the mid '70s, Ed has published a monthly marijuana gardening column in the 'High Times' and 'Cannabis Culture' magazines. From his house in Oakland, California, the man known as the guru of ganja still dispenses advice on how to grow marijuana to pot lovers around the world.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: Once they are set up, or purchased, hydroponic gardens are as easy to take care of as soil gardens. Buy a high quality planting mix that is designed for fast-growing, indoor plants.

 

Despite his prominent role in an illegal subculture, Rosenthal never had any problems with the law until early last year. Ironically, it was only after his home state of California decriminalised marijuana that he found himself facing 20 years jail. In 1996, after a statewide referendum, California voters approved proposition 215 - legalising the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

 

Nearly eight years later, buying marijuana in California is as easy as a trip to the pharmacy. In fact, the outlets selling marijuana to patients are called dispensaries and only those with a membership card validated by a doctor can enter. But this is no open shopfront. These days, filming is only allowed so long as patients aren't identified. Inside, there's a menu with a variety of cannabis clippings to take home and smoke. California's bold initiative angered conservatives from the start.

 

REPUBLICAN: People are going to try and capitalise on this and there will be a rise in stoned, drugged behaviour.

 

But it was only after George W. Bush ascended to the White House, and appointed his ultra-conservative Attorney-General John Ashcroft, that an all-out war was declared on California's drug reforms.

 

PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: You will be faithful to the law, pursuing justice without favour.

 

Leading the charge was the Drug Enforcement Administration, known as the DEA.

 

RICHARD MEYER, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: This has been debated in court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled that there is no medical exception for marijuana. So proposition 215 is in direct conflict with federal law.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: Yes, this famous marijuana guru is forced to forage for his supper.

 

Despite the federal government's rejection of California's progressive law, authorities in the city of Oakland, just across the bay from San Francisco, designed a system to shield medical marijuana growers from prosecution. Growers were appointed as special officers who worked under the city's health and safety regulations, and were therefore exempt from federal law and protected from prosecution.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: And they designated three people to be city officers. I was one of the three people. And so I started producing starter plants so that patients could grow their own marijuana.

 

These days, Ed won't allow himself to be filmed anywhere near a marijuana plant. But in the late '90s, with the full legal backing of Oakland's city authorities, he went into production. It was a discreet, non-profit activity, and the recipients of the cannabis starter plants were all registered patients, many of them suffering from terminal illnesses.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: I have a wife, I have two kids, I wasn't looking for a problem and I wasn't looking to create a problem by doing something illegal. I was under the impression and was told that what I was doing was legal.

 

But the fact that it was legal wasn't enough to stop Ed Rosenthal making it to the top of the federal government's medical marijuana hit list.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: It was 6:00 in the morning, there was a tremendous, thundering knocking on the door - beyond knocking - and I ran down to see what was going on and I was greeted by the police. And it was the DEA, the IRS and the FBI.

 

Led by the DEA, federal authorities charged Ed Rosenthal with cultivating and conspiracy to supply marijuana.

 

VIRGINIA RESNER, GREEN AID: No-one in their right mind who appreciates and understands the American constitution would say that Ed Rosenthal got a fair day in court.

 

Virginia Resner launched a campaign to raise money for Ed Rosenthal's legal defence. She believes his prosecution was politically motivated.

 

VIRGINIA RESNER: His is a political trial and it seems that the federal government has chosen to identify and to prosecute those individuals that have maintained some type of leadership identity within the marijuana movement over the last 20 years.

 

When Ed turned up for his first day at court, crowds of his supporters gathered to demonstrate against his prosecution. As the trial unfolded, they found they had a lot more to protest. The federal judge refused to allow the jury to hear of Ed's official capacity as an officer of Oakland City, or of local and state laws allowing the production and use of medical marijuana. In essence, the defence was denied the opportunity to present a case.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: I don't blame it on the prosecutor, you know, the prosecutor tries to win his case but the judge here, when he came into the - first came into the case, he had an agenda and his agenda was to get me convicted and he didn't care what laws he had to twist or bend in order to do that.

 

The jury members were also becoming concerned.

 

MARNEY CRAIG, JUROR-ROSENTHAL TRIAL: The defence was not only - were they never allowed to present a case at the end after five days of prosecution testimony...

 

Marney Craig was one of those on the jury.

 

MARNEY CRAIG: And then as it turned out, the trial was not fair and impartial and we were still under oath to render a fair verdict, which, because of the way the trial was conducted, became impossible, because we were only given half the evidence.

 

WOMAN PROTESTER: Cannabis takes the pain away from Multiple Sclerosis. Save the children.

 

As the trial wound up, the demonstrations outside the court continued. But hopes that the jury would acquit Ed Rosenthal were soon dashed.

 

MARNEY CRAIG: Even though so many of us were feeling so uneasy about what we were doing in the deliberations and in finding him guilty and convicting him, because it just didn't feel right, none of us did anything to stop it. We did exactly what they wanted us to do and we convicted him on all three counts.

 

The Rosenthal family was shattered. Outside San Francisco's federal court, Ed and his family expressed their anger at the verdict.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: I'd like to say that this was a real disappointment and the jury was a good jury but I feel they just didn't get all the information because of the restrictions that the court placed upon us.

 

DAUGHTER:I can't lose my father for doing the right thing. It can't happen.

 

But the Rosenthals weren't the only ones feeling frustrated. Just inside the court entrance, another drama was playing out with the recently released jury who were approached by one of Ed's supporters.

 

MARNEY CRAIG: She said, "Please to talk to me, I am not a lawyer." And we stopped and turned around and talked to her and she said, "Do you know who Ed Rosenthal is and do you know what you just did?" And she proceeded to tell us and it was devastating, absolutely devastating. I was sick about it and so were the rest of us. I was just so upset. My husband was so upset with me that he just took off and didn't come home for several hours because he was afraid of what he would say to me. And I went home and I was physically feeling desperate. I thought, "How could I, me, the kind of person that I am, the beliefs that I have, the things that I believe in, how could I have done this? How could I have convicted this man?" This is the worst mistake I've ever made in my life and I honestly believe it.

 

Marney Craig wasn't the only juror who felt this way. In a move unprecedented in US legal history, more than half the jury in the Rosenthal case publicly retracted their verdict and apologised to the man they had convicted.

 

MARNEY CRAIG: I would like to issue a public apology to Ed Rosenthal and his family, to the defence team, to the California voters and to the medical marijuana patients, thousands of them who, as a result of what we did, will now find it much more difficult to get what they need to survive.

 

The jury's revolt sent a shock wave through the US federal court system, with judge Charles Breyer copping criticism from other jurists and legal experts for the way he'd conducted the trial. Remarkably, on the day Ed Rosenthal was to be sentenced, most of the jury turned up at court.

 

MARNEY CRAIG: The defence team and the other advocates and the medical marijuana patients and the other people in the courtroom cleared the first row for us, so when Judge Breyer walked into the courtroom the first thing he saw was half his jurors sitting there.

 

The effect of this unique protest by the jury is unclear, but despite facing at least 20 years in a federal prison, Judge Charles Breyer sentenced him to just one day in jail for time he'd already served after his arrest. But Ed's not out of the woods yet. The federal authorities think his sentence was far too lenient. They're appealing in the hope he'll still be sent to jail.

 

RICHARD MEYER: About a month ago he was sentenced to one day in jail. The Department of Justice is planning, or has taken the steps to appeal that sentence. The poster says: Richard Meyer and the DEA repent or burn in hell. And on the back it's signed by Mr Ed Rosenthal himself.

 

Richard Meyer has no time for those who supported Ed Rosenthal. He is convinced California's lax marijuana law was created as a cover for drug dealers.

 

RICHARD MEYER: It is our belief that proposition 215 was a smokescreen for the drug lobby. The proponents of proposition 215, the real agenda is to make all drugs legal.

 

MAN: Not only is Mr Rosenthal the world's foremost expert on hemp gardening, but he has recently emerged as the most outspoken proponent on medicinal marijuana patient's rights, commonly referred to as the guru of ganja. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Ed Rosenthal.

 

In a San Francisco cafe, Ed Rosenthal speaks to his supporters.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: It's really good to be here rather than somewhere else.

 

He thinks the federal government's determination to nail him will backfire, attracting more sympathy for his cause.

 

ED ROSENTHAL: And I've been reflecting today on what happened to me in the past year and a half, since I was arrested in February of 2002, and in a lot of ways, I'm really lucky because this trial was treated as a political trial and I was treated in a way, as a political prisoner.

 

This government thought that I was some little butterfly up there that they were just going to put in their little net and display as a trophy. Instead, they netted a hornet's nest.

 

If Ed loses his forthcoming appeal, he still faces 20 years in a federal prison. But he's convinced that regardless of the legal outcome, America's drug laws will have to change.

[Gruntus]

There's a lot about this case at Marijuana.com. Yeah, the jurors were duped by a Federal-appointed jufdge and risked prosecution themselves for publicly discussing the verdict. Good on 'em I say.

[pipeman]

REPUBLICAN: People are going to try and capitalise on this and there will be a rise in stoned, drugged behaviour.

 

Oh no! Just think of all those people feeling happy vegging out on the couch with a bag of chips. what a nightmare!

[Guest Guest]

NA pipeman, they knew that he was sweet. The protests, and what would have been mentioned here and there. Even this says it all really

 

MARNEY CRAIG: Even though so many of us were feeling so uneasy about what we were doing in the deliberations and in finding him guilty and convicting him, because it just didn't feel right, none of us did anything to stop it. We did exactly what they wanted us to do and we convicted him on all three counts.

 

There's a couple ways of looking at law. And after the second world war, the line of command that came down from Hitler through to the man who pressed the gass button, or even the guys mustering the jews into the rooms, have all been tested on what's known as "Natural Law".

 

There's a law that is based upon men's thinkings and combined influence of society, for the running of an orderly safe environment. This is kinda penal law, or written law.

 

When this convines "natural law", natural law must succeed. This is the basis of why so many people were found guilty, and some executed, for not observing natural law when faced with the alternative of obeying legal orders from a superior authority, and the obvious act of evil they were commiting. They've subsequently been considered by pretty well everyone in the world, as having rightfully been considered guilty and evil for not respoding to the higher call of natural law. That their obedience to the written law was the wrong direction.

 

Natural law is considered that any reasonibly inteligent person can tell that some acts are not right, without having to be told so. Unles the person has some phsycological reason to be exempt from their actions.

 

I know thats a lot, but it's a historical evidence of people's belief that doing something just because it is law, and required of you, doesn't excuse you from commiting what you know to be so wrong.

 

And to a lessor degree, but no less consistent, what they did to Ed Rosenthal, and all the medical marijuana users and potential sufferers of relentless pain, and sickness; was the wrong thing. They shirked their obligation to do right, by mankind, so to conform to a legal requirement that made life easier to go that way. Even if it made them feel "uneasy", it was obviously easier to go that way. And the "unesy" feeling thay experienced was their own hearts condeming them.

 

Sorry if it's a bit strong on them, but they held the future of a lot of people's final days alive in pain, or life of un-ending pain for possibly many drawn out years, in the palm of their hand, and they went with some idiot belief of conviciting him, because the system is shaped that way.

 

Surely the judge is even worse, and the hordes of sick mongrels behind the pish to continue the prohibition in any way, but even more so for awying things like "even if marijuana was proven that it could bring back the dead, i would oppose it" (President Nixon). But the jurors had enough scope of what was happening for their "uneasy" feeling to cause trouble for them during deliberation. they coul dhave at least called for an unfair trial, or caused a hung jury. At least it woul dhave caused enough doubt for the next jury to consider things in more light.

 

Anyway, just an observation of the american way of thinking i thought.

 

rob.

[pipeman]

I still don't think criticism of the jurors is justified. Fact is the jurors were shielded by almost all facts relating to Ed's circumstances other than the fact he grew a shitload of marijuana. Plus they spoke out against what happened publicly afterwards risking prosecution themselves. these are not people who hold statute law above natural law IMO. besides, even if they returned a verdict of not guilty, the judge could have set it aside as they had no legal basis to do so. well, thats my understanding from several years of watching Law & Order anyway

[white_cluster]

WOMAN PROTESTER: Cannabis takes the pain away from Multiple Sclerosis. Save the children.

 

save the children?? what the fuck?? no matter what is being protested. Its always "save the fucking children"

[Guest niall]

WOMAN PROTESTER: Cannabis takes the pain away from Multiple Sclerosis. Save the children.

 

save the children?? what the fuck?? no matter what is being protested. Its always "save the fucking children"

I think that was said in jest, as an ironic twist that these anti-cannabis moral crusaders are always claiming to be worried about and trying to save the children...

 

This one point makes me so angry, that they can't see beyond these often repeated lies that now they're repeating it themselves without thinking about it. If cannabis is harmful to minors, and it certainly looks like there is more harm caused when using at a younger age (significantly increased risk of depression vs no detectable change in adults), you would think they would realise that minimising access to cannabis by minors can only be achieved by taking it out of the black market, regulating it and putting in place large fines and penalties for anyone who sells or supplies to children.

 

It really shits me that not a single MP has proposed a similar system of fines and penalties for supply to minors. If they really do want to "save the children", you'd think they would look at existing models like tobacco and alcohol supply. Sure, they're not perfect, but we haven't come up with a better system yet so surely an improvement is better than doing absolutely nothing? By taking no action, aside from their moral and verbal stance of opposition, and in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves prohibition is not achieving any of these apparent aims, they're actually MAXIMISING the harm to children. Why can they not see this?

 

Why are we being encouraged (as a society) to be TOUGH on drugs, when we should just be SMART about them?

[RobbieGanjaSeed]

The Juror "Marney Craig" said it all pipeman. They felt "uneasy" about what they were doing in deliberations.

 

That of course is the time they are aside, trying to figure what verdict to bring.

 

She said "it just didn't feel right. None of us did anything to stop it. We did eactly what they wanted us to do"

 

Sounds like what the same excuses are used in war crimes trials to me. Ignoring natural law is evident in her own statement I quoted there.

 

And nor have I done a degree in law, just a few months in basic law, but they can if they believe the case is tainted, ask for a mistrial, which has to be granted. As the jurors have proven their no longer impartial, or they can simply refuse to bring in a verdict saying they can't descide, and force another trial. Both are legal paths for a jury to take.

 

But in her own words "we did exactly as they wanted us to do". they knew they were being misled.

 

Americans being american, thats all. Save the system, hang the man.

 

rob

[pipeman]

IMO there is a difference between knowing the facts/circumstances and making a technically correct decision which goes against "natural law" as you put it, and not knowing the facts and only having a feeling that something is wrong. These jurors would not have hung the man to save the system if they knew what was going on, as indicated by their actions fter the trial.

 

The Judge is the real villain in this case.

[boulder]

....+ the help of the "special " prosecutor the Fed Gov sent in to prosecute the case.