cannabisnews.com: Lockwood Valley Couple Arrested for Growing Pot Lockwood Valley Couple Arrested for Growing Pot Posted by CN Staff on August 15, 2002 at 11:41:04 PT By Andrea Cavanaugh Source: Ventura County Star A Lockwood Valley couple who used to supply a Los Angeles medical marijuana cooperative have been arrested for a second time on suspicion of cultivating the drug. Lynn and Judy Osburn were arrested during an early morning raid at their home Tuesday as Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized 32 marijuana plants, said Jose Martinez, a DEA spokesman. Both appeared in federal court Wednesday afternoon on charges of manufacturing a controlled substance and maintaining a drug establishment, said Tom Mrozek, a spokesman with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles. Judy Osburn's bond was set at $120,000, and Lynn Osburn's bond hearing was delayed until Monday, Mrozek said. Both are in federal custody. A preliminary hearing is set for Aug. 28. The seizure Tuesday was the third time the couples' property has been raided and pot plants seized by police since California voters six years ago passed Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana use. During a raid in August 2000, agents confiscated 342 marijuana plants. The couple was arrested but never prosecuted, Mrozek said. A raid in September 2001 netted 273 plants and 76 pounds of pot. Neither Lynn nor Judy Osburn was arrested or prosecuted in connection with that seizure, Mrozek said. Lynn Osburn was convicted of marijuana cultivation in 1988, court documents show. The marijuana plants seized Tuesday were solely for the Osburns' own medical use, said Morgan Lee, admissions and intake director for the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Cooperative. The Osburns supplied marijuana to the organization for three years until the co-op stopped distributing pot to hundreds of AIDS and cancer patients because it was also raided by federal agents in October, Lee said. "Most of us have had to go back to our old ways of growing it ourselves or buying it on the black market," Lee said. "What they've done is sent 1,000 patients out to grow their own. What they've got now is 1,000 gardens." Federal agencies have refused to recognize Proposition 215 and voter-backed laws in other states, saying the initiatives violate federal statutes. "Under federal law, marijuana is a controlled substance," Martinez said. "Until (the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration) determine there is a medical use for marijuana, we will continue to enforce the laws of this country." California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has encouraged local governments to set standards for medical marijuana use because he "supports the will of the people," but can do nothing about federal intervention, spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said. "They're enforcing federal law, we're enforcing state law, and there's a conflict," she said. "Until it gets resolved, we've got a problem."Note: DEA seizes 32 marijuana plants.Source: Ventura County Star (CA)Author: Andrea CavanaughPublished: August 15, 2002Copyright: 2002, The E.W. Scripps Co.Contact: letters insidevc.comWebsite: http://www.staronline.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:LACRChttp://www.lacbc.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmMedical Marijuana Guidelines on Hold http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13049.shtmlPot Club Crackdownhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11360.shtmlCannabis Club Raided by DEAhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11253.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #38 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 23:53:19 PT I thought that was in regards to the dusted fries joke, that you felt like I was saying legalization of hard drugs was a bad thing. [ Post Comment ] Comment #37 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 22:14:44 PT Left Field - Right Field The right of the individual to assume control over *hir consciousness should not be abridged.This is consistent with ending the war on drugs, which is after all, a war on individuals and communities, but, not on commodities. This is not consistent with merely legalizing medical marijuana.The fictional references were drawn in by my reaction to your comments. [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 21:35:54 PT there we go I was in left field and the ball was hit into right. I was looking at what you said from a different angle, thus it made no sense to me. My intellect is somewhat, uh, severely impaired though. It's not what you think - I swear, I didn't drink any bleach! [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 21:27:36 PT What's it going to be then, eh? I preferred the book, which, if my memory is as good as I hope, the subject is the first line of.But, I was trying to make a serious comment about the disjoint in the AP article that FoM excerpts from with this:Ventura again called for legalizing medical marijuana, saying: "I'll go on record and say right now I stand with Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico. It's time to end the war on drugs." Maybe Ventura did mention medical marijuana before or after this comment, we don't know that from the article. We have a statement from the author of the article putting the comments of Gov. Johnson about ending the War on Drugs being limited to the medical marijuana debate.His (the author of the article) interpretation and the included quote by Gov. Ventura do not agree in substantial measure. He is using a quote to bolster a limited view. [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 21:05:14 PT dusted fries was a joke.I've seen "A Clockwork Orange", never read it. I have a walking stick exactly like the one the protagonist has when him and his crew beat the homeless man...It doesnt have a sword in it though. I would like to see that again, I saw it awhile ago and I'm not sure I got what you really were supposed to get from the film. [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 20:47:41 PT excluding the fictional references... do you understand that I was saying that:an individual has the right to do research and decide for him/herself how to alter their own consciousness.Or even has the right to be a complete idiot and alter their consciousness unawares of the consequences, though the information was right there on the label.and that this is not the vision of dusted fries it is more the vision of going to the pharmacy and buying cold medicine, or in some jurisdictions, where you can still buy cough medicine with codiene...or whatever else you want, remember, prior the Harrison Tax Act, this was the way things were in the US.If its just the fictional references you don't get, well look into 60's-70's American (Dick) and British (Burgess) fiction. It's worth your while.I could suggest other authors, but I'll let others chime in. [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 20:34:39 PT what? I got like none of that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 20:26:21 PT Apologies to Anthony Burgess author A Clockwork Orange, and Stanley Kubrick, director of the film of the same name. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 20:19:54 PT Reality is a Sandwich I did not order... Indy,Let's start with the premise that an individual has the right to do research and decide for him/herself how to alter their own consciousness.Or even has the right to be a complete idiot and alter their consciousness unawares of the consequences, though the information was right there on the label.This is a far, far cry from dusted fries & methmilk...But, do you remember A Clockwork Orange, and the synthemesc bars, or the lovely number they called knives.Or perhaps, a Philip K. Dick horror/fantasy A Scanner Darkly with a concoction known as Death... [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 20:01:42 PT I'll have the McSmack meal with supersized dusted fries and a methmilk. Thanks, legalized MedMar! Thumbs high. [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 19:54:42 PT no its not! I thought it was common knowledge that if medical marijuana was made legal, crystal meth would immediately be added to all schoolchildrens milk. Not to mention all the smack that would start going into happy meals... [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 17:10:51 PT Ending the war on drugs... is not synonomous with legalizing medical marijuana.It is far more. [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on August 15, 2002 at 16:27:31 PT Day Dreaming I know this isn't probable but dreaming still is ok. How about Gary Johnson and Jesse Ventura running in 2004 on the Libertarian Ticket! Ventura again called for legalizing medical marijuana, saying: "I'll go on record and say right now I stand with Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico. It's time to end the war on drugs." Gov. Ventura Says Why He Won't Run http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13762.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 16:15:17 PT Libertarians Should be in the national debate.No doubt, the inclusion of Harry Browne, as well as Ralph Nader, in the presidential debates lst time around would have down more to shake up the political landscape in Amerikkka than 3 campaign finance laws put together.I like to put it that I'm Libertarian enough to want to see methamphetamine available at the corner drug store, but not so much that I don't want to see regulations on its manufacture next door to me.I probably agree with more Gov't spending than most Libertarians, I think schools, hospitals, roads are good things, as are clean air and water.I voted for Steve Kubby when he ran here. He seemed like the best candidate to me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by FoM on August 15, 2002 at 16:08:46 PT Sam I think the same way! We need balance and they will add balance. That is desperately needed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by Sam Adams on August 15, 2002 at 16:05:16 PT The way I look at Libertarians is.... this: even if there were only a few in Congress, EVERY single time someone proposed more government spending or a new program, the libertarians would stand up and say "No, we shouldn't do this". That is a voice that is 100% absent from our government right now, and sorely needed IMHO [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 15:36:10 PT Fear That was a joke...I think the Libertarians are Right wing, the "right wing" republicans, half of the Left/Right club, are in fact the ones who aren't, strictly speaking, right wing.I can't find the test you speak of...Looked at the front page, the sitemap, did a search for "test", no dice. ? [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by Professional391 on August 15, 2002 at 15:35:03 PT: Nearly White and rich, of course. Much of this country was originally built on the fact that the Indians, Africans, and poor whites couldn't organize together efficiently due to rich-white policies and practices. And we still live with this legacy today.The 'beauty' of the system and institutionalized racism is that it works so well at keeping groups oppressed while looking like it's helping people out... [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by VitaminT on August 15, 2002 at 15:27:36 PT Indy Try going to the Libertarian Web site, take their little test and see why they are not, strictly speaking, right wing.Libertarians don't fit neatly into the exclusive Left-Right club which so dominates American politics, that's why Republicrats and DemBulblicans can't figure out what to do w/ them.They're certainly not to be feared, unless of course you're a member of the Left-Right hegemony! [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 15:26:01 PT a free country If you were white, of course. Racism transcends all political creeds as well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 15:24:28 PT early America Before liberalism permeated conservatism, America really was a free country. Conservatives who support prohibiton either are involved with drug trafficking or are a strange paradox. Then again, the puritanical, moralist streak has always been around. Like Asa on DML, I dislike moralists. Hmm, is moralism in any way socialist? I think you could make either argument quite convincingly. Perhaps no amount of ideology can over power the foibles and frailties of Humankind? [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by canaman on August 15, 2002 at 15:18:57 PT To bad Socialist and Liberal have been given such a bad name by the so called conservitives. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 15:12:30 PT Movin' On The symbol of socialism is a meme which means different things to different people.At it's base is a movement towards economic justice, in the form of putting the means of production, in the hands of the workers.IMHOThis is a cause which moves toward justice, as civilization deals with the aftermaths of feudalism, slavery, industrialization, corporatization and globalization."History is a nightmare from which we need to awaken" someone other than I... [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 14:59:48 PT rough draft Here's a little refinement:Look at libertarians (I'm still frightend of libertarians), the purest brand of conservatives. They support drug legalization, that's because they are in fact real conservatives, Right wingers who are actually Right wing. Not like the republicans in power. As Orwell said in his essay about Kipling "anyone who calls themselves a conservative is either a Liberal, a Fascist or an accomplice of Fascists). This regime seems to be a mix of all three. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Industrial Strength on August 15, 2002 at 14:55:04 PT I think even though my personal ideolgy is modified socialism, that prohibition is inherently socialistic in nature if you look at in theroy. Safeguarding the people. The government interfering. Look at libertarians (I'm frightend by libertarians), the purest brand of conservatives. As Orwell said in his essay about Kipling..."Kipling was a conservative. There is no such thing as a conservative any more. Anyone who calls themselves a conservative is either a Liberal, a Fascist or an accomplice of Fascists." Unless this government is so capitalist they create the illegal market solely to drive prices up, their having a hand in trafficking. That would be taking capitalism to the next level. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by p4me on August 15, 2002 at 14:51:31 PT Zero_G, comment 10 The speech that is at druglibrary.org is one of the top 10 articles about marijuana. I can only believe that someone is going to do a short video with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 as the subject and use the lacking congressional hearings as a moment of national embarassment. If only people knew...I realize that it list the debate as August 20, 1937 in the article. I do not understand why the Tax Act itself list an August 2, 1937 date. The MTA of 1937 can be found here- http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm - and the 11th line down after the introduction has the 8/02/1937 date.If it were really something to celebrate I would recognize it twice a year until I settled my personal thoughts on the anniversary. 1,2 [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by canaman on August 15, 2002 at 14:43:04 PT Californias Top Cop (Supporting the will of the people)1999 is the last time Lockyer issued a statement on MMJMarch 17, 1999 99-030 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE(Sacramento)-- Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued the following statement in response to the Institute of Medicine's report titled, "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base":"The Institute of Medicine report takes an important step toward answering questions about the medical benefits of marijuana. The report suggests that there is scientific evidence to support its use and encourages further research. Current federal law prohibits doctors from prescribing marijuana and has made medical research difficult. We look forward to the federal government building on this report's findings so that we can wisely implement Proposition 215."The last sentence....."We look forward to the federal government building on this report's findings so that we can wisely implement Proposition 215."...says it all http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/1999/99-030.htmAt the Top Cop's home page is his job descriptionAttorney General Bill Lockyer was elected statewide to serve as the chief law officer of California. It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.) The Attorney General carries out responsibilities of the office through the California Department of Justice. The Attorney General represents the people of California in civil and criminal matters before trial, appellate and the supreme courts of California and the United States. The Attorney General also serves as legal counsel to state officers and, with few exceptions, to state agencies, boards and commissions. Exceptions to the centralized legal work done on behalf of the state are listed in Section 11041 of the Government Code. http://caag.state.ca.us/ag/After reading this I'm still confused....Who does the Attorney General work for??????? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 14:19:57 PT So Prohibition is inherently Socialist..? No, it isn't.But, some folks with socialist tendencies, or outright socialists can support prohibition.So can capitalists and folks with capitalist tendencies.As I've said before, totalitarianism rears its head from all ideologies. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 14:09:46 PT The American Medical Association "Under federal law, marijuana is a controlled substance," Martinez said. "Until (the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration) determine there is a medical use for marijuana, we will continue to enforce the laws of this country." A little story about the AMA and the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act legislation...from: http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/dpf/whitebread06.htmlDr. Woodward was both a lawyer and a doctor and he was Chief Counsel to the American Medical Association. Dr. Woodward came to testify at the behest of the American Medical Association saying, and I quote, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug." What's amazing is not whether that's true or not. What's amazing is what the Congressmen then said to him. Immediately upon his saying, and I quote again, "The American Medical Association knows of no evidence that marihuana is a dangerous drug", one of the Congressmen said, "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" That's an exact quote. The next Congressman said, "Doctor, if you haven't got something better to say than that, we are sick of hearing you." Now, the interesting question for us is not about the medical evidence. The most fascinating question is: why was this legal counsel to the most prestigious group of doctors in the United States treated in such a high-handed way? And the answer makes a principle thesis of my work -- and that is -- you've seen it, you've been living it the last ten years. The history of drugs in this country perfectly mirrors the history of this country. So look at the date -- 1937 -- what's going on in this country? Well, a lot of things, but the number one thing was that, in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt was reelected in the largest landslide election in this country's history till then. He brought with him two Democrats for every Republican, all, or almost all of them pledged to that package of economic and social reform legislation we today call the New Deal. And, did you know that the American Medical Association, from 1932, straight through 1937, had systematically opposed every single piece of New Deal legislation. So that, by 1937, this committee, heavily made up of New Deal Democrats is simply sick of hearing them: "Doctor, if you can't say something good about what we are trying to do, why don't you go home?" So, over the objection of the American Medical Association, the bill passed out of committee and on to the floor of Congress. Now, some of you may think that the debate on the floor of Congress was more extensive on the marijuana prohibition. It wasn't. It lasted one minute and thirty-two seconds by my count and, as such, I will give it to you verbatim. The entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition was as follows -- and, by the way, if you had grown up in Washington, DC as I had you would appreciate this date. Are you ready? The bill was brought on to the floor of the House of Representatives -- there never was any Senate debate on it not one word -- 5:45 Friday afternoon, August 20. Now, in pre-air-conditioning Washington, who was on the floor of the House? Who was on the floor of the House? Not very many people. Speaker Sam Rayburn called for the bill to be passed on "tellers". Does everyone know "tellers"? Did you know that for the vast bulk of legislation in this country, there is not a recorded vote. It is simply, more people walk past this point than walk past that point and it passes -- it's called "tellers". They were getting ready to pass this thing on tellers without discussion and without a recorded vote when one of the few Republicans left in Congress, a guy from upstate New York, stood up and asked two questions, which constituted the entire debate on the national marijuana prohibition. "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?" To which Speaker Rayburn replied, "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind." Undaunted, the guy from Upstate New York asked a second question, which was as important to the Republicans as it was unimportant to the Democrats. "Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?" In one of the most remarkable things I have ever found in any research, a guy who was on the committee, and who later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, stood up and –– do you remember? — the AMA guy was named William C. Woodward — a member of the committee who had supported the bill leaped to his feet and he said, "Their Doctor Wentworth came down here. They support this bill 100 percent." [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 13:57:44 PT The coming California Election is a bore.Dem. Gov. Gray Davis is a puppet of the Prison Guards union, and has been non-existant as the Feds have been targeting patients in this state.Rep. challenger Ron Simon, under a cloud for questionable accounting practices, is not on anyone's radar screen, nor do I think he supports us.Green candidate Comejo is also not making himself heard.yawn [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on August 15, 2002 at 13:49:01 PT DarkStar and Kapt That's right! Kill it before it grows. 32 plants and $120,000 Bond. Why? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Dark Star on August 15, 2002 at 13:43:17 PT Fighting Back The Kap is right, as usual. This is a critical time. It is more important than ever that people in numbers protest the government's usurpation of American rights. Flood your politicians with calls and letters. Keep writing LTE's. Convince your Aunt Clara.Once again, if anyone has evidence of DEA pursuing illegal activity in Canada, that needs to be made public. Some Americans will not stand for exporting our dirty little war any further. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on August 15, 2002 at 13:36:28 PT: It's rather obvious what's happening The DEA is trying to eviscerate the movement...by going after the most vocal of its proponents. They couldn't have cared less about the number of plants; the pattern is forming as clear as crystal that they know a challenge in court is inevitable. A challenge, which they cannot possibly hope, in their booze-fuelled dreams, to win in California. So they have to destroy the infrastructure that has been built up over the years...and those keeping it operational. By taking them out of the picture, they hope to cow others into silence. And remove the movement's most visible members, the ones most able to articulate their positions in that court.The message is quite unambiguous: "Speak out, and we'll take you down."Many of us here have commented about the so-called 'coincidental' near-simultaneous moves by the DEA here in the US and the RCMP in Canada to attack the sick and dying. This is no 'coincidence' that the Osburns would be targeted like this. And we can expect even more 'coincidences' as time goes by. Because the window of opportunity is closing on Bush's neck. Too many people are calling for the investigation that should have begun on September the 12th of last year. (And would have happened if not for the ambulatory jellyfish masquerading as Democrats.) Too many people - largely Netizens! - have been observing what's happening. Once the investigation begins, the Administration will have to act like it's really dealing with important situations...and busting Compassion Centers isn't exactly that. So the goons have to work fast to trash the supporters of the centers. The only thing that can stop this is for California to sue the Feds. If Lockyer isn't up to it, then I'd suggest Californians impeach him for malfeasance and find someone with 'a pair'. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on August 15, 2002 at 13:06:40 PT: I saw the pic And find it very interesting that Washington appears to be looking down his nose at Bush. Very appropriate, I think... [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by canaman on August 15, 2002 at 12:36:58 PT I'll say "we've got a problem " Bill So Bill Lockler "supports the will of the people". In what world is that? Surely not California. Spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said.... "They're enforcing federal law, we're enforcing state law, and there's a conflict," she said. "Until it gets resolved, we've got a problem."Where is Bill enforcing state law? Seems to me he should protect Californians from the DEA. Who does Bill really work for? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 12:30:28 PT Green Gold the Tree of Life: Along with Chris Bennett, the Osbournes are the authors of:Green Gold the Tree of Life: Marijuana in Magic & Religiona truly wonderful book, which, if you don't have a copy, maybe now is a good time to get one and help support these latest victims of Amerikkka's war on it own.California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has encouraged local governments to set standards for medical marijuana use because he "supports the will of the people," but can do nothing about federal intervention, spokeswoman Hallye Jordan said. "They're enforcing federal law, we're enforcing state law, and there's a conflict," she said. "Until it gets resolved, we've got a problem."To the best of my understanding, according to the Constitution of the State of California, in the case of dispute between the Federal and State laws, the attorney general of California is supoosed to take on the Feds in court and act as advocate for the state in the matter. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Zero_G on August 15, 2002 at 12:22:44 PT Picture of Bush, Washington and Jefferson Check out the picture on the Front Page of http://www.nytimes.com right now!Caption balloons:Washington, "I grew hemp, and separated the males from the females..."Jefferson: "Don't Bogart..." [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by PonziScheme on August 15, 2002 at 12:13:02 PT Why does the DEA care about 32 plants? Whatever happened to the Feds' claim that they ONLY get involved in cases of 1,000 plants or more? What hogwash! Leave the Osburns alone!!!! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment