cannabisnews.com: Pot Jury Rebellion





Pot Jury Rebellion
Posted by CN Staff on February 07, 2003 at 16:40:05 PT
By Tim Grieve
Source: Salon.com 
If you've ever served on a jury, you know the drill. When the parties are done presenting their evidence, the judge instructs you on your job as a juror. "It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case," the judge will say. "To those facts, you will apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not." Marney Craig listened to words like those in a federal courtroom in San Francisco last week, then walked into the jury room to begin considering the fate of a defendant named Ed Rosenthal.
A few hours later, Craig and her follow jurors voted to convict Rosenthal on three federal drug charges. And about five minutes after that, Craig discovered that she had made a horrible mistake: She hadn't been given all the facts about Rosenthal, and she didn't have to convict him. Rosenthal, it turns out, wasn't the garden-variety marijuana grower that federal prosecutors had made him out to be. In 1996, California voters adopted Proposition 215, which allows seriously ill individuals in need of pain relief to possess and use marijuana with the approval of a medical doctor. Shortly after the passage of Proposition 215, several groups formed "medical cannabis dispensaries" to serve as a source of marijuana for those qualified to receive it. Rosenthal grew his marijuana for one of these dispensaries; in fact, the City of Oakland deputized Rosenthal as an official supplier for one of them. None of this mattered to the Justice Department prosecutors who indicted Rosenthal. Although candidate George W. Bush proclaimed that states should be free to make their own decisions about the legality of medical marijuana, his Justice Department since the election has taken exactly the opposite approach, aggressively pursuing civil and criminal actions against individuals and groups associated with the medical marijuana movement. Californians and voters in seven other states have legalized medical marijuana, but Washington apparently knows better. "There is no such thing as medical marijuana," a spokesperson for the DEA told the Associated Press last week. The fact that Rosenthal was growing marijuana for medical purposes would have mattered to Craig and several of the other jurors who convicted him, but they weren't allowed to hear a word of it. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal drug laws trumped Proposition 215, and that claims of "medical necessity" provided no defense against federal drug charges. Bound by that ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer prevented Rosenthal's attorneys from presenting any evidence that Rosenthal had grown marijuana for medical purposes -- let alone that he had done so with the express approval of the City of Oakland. Craig and her fellow jurors learned the truth about Rosenthal minutes after they returned with their verdict. "A woman came up to us and told us who Ed was and what he did," Craig told Salon in an interview this week. "We were sick, absolutely sick." Although Craig, a 58-year-old property manager from Marin County, says she has never spoken in public nor taken a public position on any political issue, she and three of her fellow jurors felt compelled to do something about what had happened. Earlier this week, they held a press conference outside the U.S. District Court in San Francisco where they publicly apologized to Rosenthal and expressed their dismay with a legal system that deprived them of the truth they believe they needed before determining Rosenthal's fate. At their press conference, the jurors were flanked by a number of local government officials -- including San Francisco's district attorney -- all of whom expressed their support for Rosenthal and his work. In making their case public, the Rosenthal jurors have drawn national attention to two issues: the Bush administration's offensive against state-level decisions on medical marijuana, and the right of a jury to know -- and to act on -- all the facts of a case. Throughout the history of the United States, juries have sometimes ignored the law in favor of what they considered justice. But jury nullification is a double-edged sword. It's easy to trumpet the bravery of the American jurors who refused to let British authorities jail publisher John Peter Zenger in 1735 for criticizing the odious colonial government of New York, and it's hard to argue with the many Northern jurors who refused to convict runaway slaves. But what of the Southern juries who wouldn't convict a white man charged with a crime against a black man, or the Simi Valley jury that acquitted the cops who beat Rodney King, or the jury that has allowed O.J. Simpson to spend his days playing golf rather than doing time? Judge Breyer, a Clinton appointee and the younger brother of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, didn't take that risk. He kept the jurors from hearing anything that might lead them to nullify, and he told them they had no right to do so. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, when Rosenthal's lawyer urged the jurors to use their "common-sense justice," Breyer cut him off and said: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law." Now that she is outside of Breyer's courtroom, Craig feels another duty: to "right the wrong" that has been done to Ed Rosenthal. It's not at all clear that she will succeed. Rosenthal's conviction carries a mandatory five-year minimum prison sentence, and there may be no way for Judge Breyer to sentence him to anything less. And while Rosenthal plans to appeal, the Supreme Court's 2001 decision leaves little room for even a sympathetic court to rule in his favor. For now, all Craig can do is spread the word about what happened to her -- and what happened to Ed Rosenthal. Craig talked with Salon by telephone from her home in Novato, Calif. When you walked into the jury room to begin deliberations, what did you know about Ed Rosenthal and why he had been growing marijuana? Actually, I don't think we knew anything. During the jury-selection process, we were asked if we had strong views on medical marijuana or on Proposition 215. We were told it was OK to have strong views so long as we thought we could be fair and impartial. That was kind of a tip-off. But the judge continually admonished and instructed us that this was a federal court, that we were bound by the federal law, that we could only consider evidence that was presented in the courtroom, and -- over and over again -- that the reason for growing the marijuana was irrelevant. So, you know, we just bought into the whole thing: "We can't consider that he was growing medical marijuana, and we can't consider that we live in California and voted for Prop. 215 and support medical marijuana." That was not relevant. So the jurors had some sense that the case was about medical marijuana? We didn't know that's what it was really about, but we knew that it was an issue. If you, as jurors, had some sense the case was about medical marijuana, why didn't you just vote to acquit? Unfortunately, none of us knew who Ed Rosenthal was or what he was doing. The key piece of information that we did not know and that was never mentioned anywhere was that he was employed by the City of Oakland and deputized by the City of Oakland to grow medical marijuana. He was operating under the auspices of the law as an associate of the city. That alone probably would have brought in a different verdict. But that, along with all the other information related to medical marijuana, was never entered into evidence. We were told we couldn't consider any of that. Did you think that you were permitted to acquit under these circumstances? We didn't know what we could do under the law because the judge's instructions were very narrow. He said we had to judge this case by federal law only, that federal law takes precedence over California law, that this is a federal courtroom, and that we could only consider evidence that was presented in the trial. We felt we were strictly bound by those guidelines. The judge could have given us other instructions and informed us of our right of juror nullification, but he didn't. We didn't know that we had a right to do anything else other than follow his instructions and follow the letter of the law and convict this man who was presented to us as a major grower. For example, we didn't know that all of his marijuana was for medical purposes. There was no way for us to know that. And even if we might have suspected that, we were so intimidated by the process and by the hostility -- the outright hostility -- of the judge toward the defense. We watched him be so hostile to them, and the prosecutor being so hostile, and here we are 12 people sitting there thinking -- I don't know how many of them thought it, but I did -- "Wow, what's the judge going to do to me if I do something I'm not supposed to do?" Did any of that hostility suggest to you, "Boy, this defendant must be a really bad guy?" I knew that they were trying to portray him as a really bad guy. But if you look at him, you can see that he is not. He's the same age I am, and he seems like a really nice guy, and I thought, "What's going on here?" You know, it's so amazing to me that we could have done this. We're all sitting in the deliberation room, and not a single one of us ever felt free to even broach the subject of, "Guys, what are we doing here? Why are we doing this? Does everybody feel OK with this?" And we were all having our doubts, and we were just like sheep. It still amazes me that we did that. Who is to blame here? You've obviously got a lot of hostility toward the judge, but Congress adopted this law, and the Justice Department chose to prosecute this case. I'm angry at the system. I'm angry at all of them. The judge was obviously operating within his legal parameters, but he chose the strictest interpretation, and he chose to be fairly dictatorial, and he chose to make it as difficult as possible for the defense to present their evidence and their witnesses. That was obviously his choice, so he has taken an obvious stand. The prosecuting attorney was equally responsible. The feds obviously went after Rosenthal. They were out to get him because of who he was. And that occurred to me in deliberations. I thought, "Why Ed Rosenthal? Why this guy? There's got to be something else going on here." But didn't that cut both ways in your mind? The Justice Department's interest in Rosenthal might make you think that it had some ulterior motive in going after him, or it might just make you think that the Justice Department considered Rosenthal a serious criminal. Yeah, but the one thing the defense managed to get out is that he had written two books. [Both were how-to books on marijuana.] Alarms went off in my head when I heard that. I thought, "Wait a minute, this guy has written books? OK, who is he?" I'm sitting there in the trial thinking, "Who is this guy?" And there was no way for us to find out. We weren't reading newspapers or watching TV or listening to the radio because the judge told us not to. When did you first figure out the truth about Rosenthal? About five minutes after we walked out of the courtroom. I was devastated. I just could not believe it. Three of us carpooled back up north together, and we could hardly talk. And then I got home and told my husband and my brother and another friend who was around, and their reaction just astounded me. My husband was so upset he left the house and didn't come back for hours. He couldn't even talk to me. He now understands what happened. But I was so upset. I was sitting here thinking, "How did I ever get involved in something like this? How could I, me, who I am, have done what I did to Ed Rosenthal and to his family and to all of the medical marijuana patients?" I was sick. So you feel some personal responsibility for this? I do. But at the same time, you feel that you were constrained from doing anything about it. We were. We were constrained. And honestly, I was fearful about taking a stand and trying to stick with it unless I could get some support from some of the other jurors, and those of us who made attempts didn't get a lot of support because it was obvious we were committed to following the law. I didn't know what would happen to me if I didn't. What did you think might happen to you? You know, I had no idea. I didn't know if I would be prosecuted myself somehow. We're so ignorant of the law, and so ignorant of normal courtroom procedure, and so ignorant of jurors' rights in particular, that we had no idea. I didn't know I could sit there and say, "I can't do this. I'm not going to convict this man." Have you spoken with Rosenthal since you handed down your verdict? We actually ran into him in the elevator on the way up to the [bail] hearing. The door opened, and we stepped in and there he was with his family. I hugged him and I told him I was sorry. I was crying. He was with his wife and daughter, and the three of them couldn't have been nicer to us. I was standing there in tears, and they said, "Don't apologize. It wasn't your fault. We know what happened." And did you speak directly with Rosenthal? I did have an opportunity to speak with him, yeah. He's taking such a positive attitude toward this. He said, "Whether or not I go to prison, this has become a much larger issue because of what you're doing, and we will be able to accomplish much more because of the outcome of the trial and the fact that all of you have come forward." And that's how he is looking at it. He's not looking at his years in prison. He's looking at what we can do now with the platform that we have. And what did you tell him? I told him that he's an amazing man, that I'm sorry I didn't know who he was before, and that I'm committed to trying to help him get a new trial. I don't know if I have any clout in that at all. Obviously, I have no legal standing at all. But he knows that I'm willing to do any public speaking or talk to as many people as I can to try to get the word out and to make people understand. There are major issues here. We're dealing with medical marijuana here, we're dealing with states' rights, we're dealing with jurors' rights, and we're dealing with Ed Rosenthal needing a fair trial. The whole system is so flawed. Note: Marney Craig and 11 other jurors convicted a California man on federal drug charges this week. But Craig says the feds deceived her -- and she's furious.About the writer:Tim Grieve is a freelance writer based in Sacramento, Calif. Newshawk: firedogSource: Salon.com (US Web)Author: Tim GrievePublished: February 7, 2003Copyright: 2003 Salon.comWebsite: http://www.salon.com/Contact: salon salonmagazine.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:Ed Rosenthal's Trial Pictures & Articleshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmThe War On Drugs by Mark Fiorehttp://www.markfiore.com/animation/drugs.htmlJury Rigging -- Jacob Sullunhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15401.shtmlMedical Marijuana: Blind Injusticehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15395.shtmlMisguided Marijuana Warhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15365.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by malleus2 on February 10, 2003 at 13:56:11 PT
Thank you, Afterburner
I'm just starting to get the hang of it. Much obliged!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by FoM on February 08, 2003 at 16:19:08 PT
eco
Yes I did use it and bookmarked the site too. What a nice tool. I put your Angelfire page on 99 and will make one for this year as we get closer to the time. PS: Still have a 14 inch monitor? I always remembered that! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by eco-man on February 08, 2003 at 15:55:50 PT
Way, way back......
Looks like you used the Wayback Machine yourself. I checked on Google. It was Rocky and Bullwinkle. :)I added several links to the MMM Links page: 
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/mmmlinks.htm and 
http://corporatism.tripod.com/mmmlinks.htm and 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on February 08, 2003 at 15:33:34 PT
Hey eco!
That was so cool! Check out 99 now!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by eco-man on February 08, 2003 at 14:50:32 PT
Rocky and Bullwinkle would be proud of you, FoM :)
Fantastic! Thanks FoM. I will be using all 3 of those links. It was fun figuring out the Wayback Machine. Check this out: 
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/million.htmIt archived your web page! First time I used this internet archiving site. It even had multiple copies of your 1999 MMM web page at freedomtoexhale depending on date of update. I saved it. It has some Javascript at the end of the HTML. If you delete it all, then the links on the page go back to CannabisNews.com instead of to the Wayback archive. Isn't the Wayback Machine something from Rocky and Bullwinkle? :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on February 08, 2003 at 13:47:48 PT
Hi eco
When Go Network went down and I moved my pages to Freedom To Exhale I lost some of them. I quick put together one from 99. Hope this helps and I'll save your email.http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mmm99.htmhttp://www.freedomtoexhale.com/million.htmhttp://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mmnes20.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by eco-man on February 08, 2003 at 12:54:45 PT
Need 1999 MMM rally report links. 
Hey FoM. I no longer have any working email addresses for you. Hello Fom. I hope this gets to you. I am updating the rally report links for MMM. I can't find the 1999 list of links you compiled. They were here: *1999 MMM. Million Marijuana March. FoM (of CannabisNews.com) compilation of 
rally reports for cities worldwide. 
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/million.htm *MMM 1999 rally reports for cities worldwide:
http://homepages.go.com/~marthag1/million.htm and 
http://homepages.go.com/~marthag1/dexmmm.htm and 
http://home4.c2i.net/freddiefreak/index/more_activism/MMMWorld99/Do you have it anywhere on your websites? If not, and you still have a copy of it somewhere could you mail it to me at tents444 yahoo.comI will put it up on the web if you haven't put it back up on a web page. I am updating this page: 
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/mmmlinks.htm and 
http://corporatism.tripod.com/mmmlinks.htm thanks, 
eco man
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by afterburner on February 08, 2003 at 10:37:06 PT:
malleus2: You May Find this Link Useful!
How do I put color in my posts? 
http://www.cannabinoid.com/boards/help.shtml#color
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by malleus2 on February 08, 2003 at 03:52:22 PT
First we had Milgram's Experiments
Then we had Breyer's Courtroom.*I was sitting here thinking, "How did I ever get involved in something like this? How could I, me, who I am, have done what I did to Ed Rosenthal and to his family and to all of the medical marijuana patients?" I was sick.* *So you feel some personal responsibility for this?* *I do.* *But at the same time, you feel that you were constrained from doing anything about it.* *We were. We were constrained. And honestly, I was fearful about taking a stand and trying to stick with it unless I could get some support from some of the other jurors, and those of us who made attempts didn't get a lot of support because it was obvious we were committed to following the law. I didn't know what would happen to me if I didn't.* *What did you think might happen to you?* *You know, I had no idea. I didn't know if I would be prosecuted myself somehow. We're so ignorant of the law, and so ignorant of normal courtroom procedure, and so ignorant of jurors' rights in particular, that we had no idea. I didn't know I could sit there and say, "I can't do this. I'm not going to convict this man."* (JEEZ, I wish we could do HTML here!)Milgram's experiments:
http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/tingle/courses/501A/MILGRAMTWOFINAL.pdffrom another article:
A Collection of Psychological Experiments.
http://www.23nlpeople.com/Psychology.htm*In 1961, Milgram began a series of experiments that would investigate the effect of authority over free will and examine the "I was just following orders" legal defense. Creating a situation where the guinea pig subject would deliver an increasingly painful electric shock to another person (actually a confederate), Milgram discovered that he could quickly reduce a confident businessman to a "twitching, stuttering wreck...approaching nervous collapse" in less than twenty minutes, simply by telling him that the experiment must continue.**...What was alarming about the study was that average and normal everyday subjects, despite their own discomfort and the wails and cries of the confederate, approximately two thirds of all subjects delivered the maximum punishment shock - simply because they were told that the experiment must continue.*All because they were told by an authority figure that they must do as ordered. As Breyer told the jury...without informing them of their right to nullify. Of course. from another article:
Forbidden Fruits of the Tree of Knowledge
http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/parnell/HP20020224.html*Another trait with obvious survival value to a primitive hunting society is obedience to authority. Zimbardo's research followed in the wake of pioneering studies done by Stanley Milgram in 1964. The details of Milgram's experiments are fascinating; but the upshot is that six out of every ten human beings will kill you if told to do so by a person they perceive as being in authority over them. They may have a great many qualms about it, and exhibit a tremendous inner resistance to it —the traumatizing effects on the participants was the excuse given for declaring such experiments "unethical" by the psychological community—but six out of ten will still do it...* *Milgram's experiments were repeated, the results verified, in various countries over a period of at least 20 years. Nor did the results vary too widely from his original findings. Trivial, or truly frightening? You be the judge.* In short, Ms. Craig's feelings about how she felt intimidated are 'old hat'. This is something that has been researched extensively...and you can bet judges know of this research, too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by afterburner on February 07, 2003 at 22:49:35 PT:
Violence is not justice
we were so intimidated by the process and by the hostility -- the outright hostility -- of the judge toward the defense. We watched him be so hostile to them, and the prosecutor being so hostile, and here we are 12 people sitting there thinking -- I don't know how many of them thought it, but I did -- "Wow, what's the judge going to do to me if I do something I'm not supposed to do?" Did any of that hostility suggest to you, "Boy, this defendant must be a really bad guy?" I knew that they were trying to portray him as a really bad guy. But if you look at him, you can see that he is not. He's the same age I am, and he seems like a really nice guy, and I thought, "What's going on here?"
"One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman." --Mahatma GandhiViolence is not truth. Violence is not justice. If the federal position had any legs the judge and prosecutor would not be afraid to let it stand on its own two feet. Hiding the truth in the name of justice is just another predictable lie by a vested interest contemptuous of WE THE PEOPLE ("4 out of 5 support medical marijuana"), States Rights (Compassionate Use Act: Prop. 215), and medical cannabis patients (How dare they get benefit from a substance with "no recognized medical value" [Schedule One Lie].) "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." --Salvor Hardin."Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction." --E. F. Schumacher"Who overcomes by force hath overcome but half his foe."  --John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1667"The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime." --Max Stirner"The moment a man claims a right to control the will of a fellow being by physical force, he is at heart a slaveholder."  --Henry C. Wright, The Liberator, 7 April 1837"Nonviolence doesn't always work - but violence never does."  --Madge Micheels-Cyrus"In some cases nonviolence requires more militancy than violence."  --Cesar Chavez"We challenge the culture of violence when we ourselves act in the certainty that violence is no longer acceptable, that it's tired and outdated no matter how many cling to it in the stubborn belief that it still works and that it's still valid." --Gerard Vanderhaar"An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind." --
Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi"Many snowflakes make an avalanche"
--From the Amnesty International website"If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." 
--Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall, Agents of Repression, Boston South End Press 1990, p.262"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world; unreasonable people persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves. Therefore, all progress depends on unreasonable people." 
--adapted from George Bernard Shaw "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." 
--Albert Einstein "Hope is definitely not the same as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out ...." 
--Václav Havel "Freedom is when the people can speak. Democracy is when the government listens." In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal drug laws trumped Proposition 215, and that claims of "medical 
necessity" provided no defense against federal drug charges. It was not Medically Necessary for Ed Rosenthal to grow medical cannabis (marijuana): it was Compassionate of Ed Rosenthal to grow medical cannabis to ease the suffering of medical cannabis patients. The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the Constitutionality of California's Compassionate Use Act. California has an obligation to medical cannabis patients [demand-side] to provide government-sanctioned providers [supply-side]. This is what the City of Oakland was attempting to do by deputizing Ed Rosenthal. The current California law (Compassionate Use Act) leaves the patients in a limbo of the right to possess medicine, but no legal source. This is the same monstrosity foisted-off on Canadian medical cannabis patients. Stop the madness! "To the disappointment of medical cannabis advocates, the Court did not address the broader, constitutional questions raised in the defense brief: whether the federal law violates states' rights, the Fifth and Ninth Amendment rights of patients, or limitations of federal power under the interstate commerce clause." --U.S. Supreme Court rules against medical marijuana distribution; state medical marijuana law not affected (May 2001). http://www.canorml.org/news/supremecourtrules.htmlSupport Ed Rosenthal's appeal: Green-Aid.com
http://www.green-aid.com Jury Nullification: The Feds vs. Ed Rosenthal http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/15/thread15383.shtmlTell Congress to Oppose DEA Raids of Cannabis Clubs! http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=100506&type=CO
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on February 07, 2003 at 22:44:27 PT
i420
Thank you! If we all do what we feel we can we will win in the end. I enjoy making web pages and doing news and others like to make graphics and flyers. It's everyone doing what they can do best that will make the difference.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by i420 on February 07, 2003 at 22:31:27 PT
FoM
Here is an example of how a flier should look for  bulletin boards notice the address across the bottom of the page  slit it with scissors so they become pull-tabs. Also with high traffic areas you need a second row of tabs
do that by making a page with rows of tabs plus space to glue it above and to the back of the tabs on the flier. 
Letter or legal size is best and buy only hemp paper from Staples ;) FoM could you make one like this for c-news??
Bulletin Board Flier
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 07, 2003 at 21:37:54 PT
I don't have a printer
I haven't had a printer for years. I have one but never hooked it up. I'm always thinking in size for a web page. Don't mind me. I must have a one track mind. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by i420 on February 07, 2003 at 21:04:08 PT
thanks
i dont have an image editor sorry  FOM if you would please rotate the pic 90 degrees  and put the image beside itself on an html page and u would be able to print 2 on 1 pc of paper by cutting the paper in half. perfect size actually great for putting on cars and bulletin boards. tried to save the pic and print it but it did the same elfman
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by elfman_420 on February 07, 2003 at 21:01:21 PT
Poster
I just found out it keeps changing the overall dimensions when I upload the picture to make it twice as big at half the resolution since the web only supports up to 72dpi. That really isn't enough to get a good quality print since I have some small text towards the bottom. To get a 2mb(large) tiff file, go to:
http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~dperrine/mmw/ right click on the link and save the file to disk. Otherwise the link that FoM posted will work, but the small text might not come out very clear.If anyone prints it out, if you could please email me and let me know which version it was and how it turned out. (I haven't printed it out quite yet)Good luck
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 07, 2003 at 20:18:08 PT
elfman_420 
I cut it down a little. How does this size look? I have a 19 inch monitor set on 1280 by 1024 pixels.http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mmjwsm.jpg
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by elfman_420 on February 07, 2003 at 20:00:17 PT
poster
The picture is 8.5x11(letter) already, so you should save the picture to your hard drive. Use a photo editing program from there to change it to grayscale if you want, and then print it from the photo editing program. If you don't have one, try saving it and opening it in internet explorer and printing just the picture instead of the whole webpage.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by i420 on February 07, 2003 at 19:50:09 PT
Poster 
Can u make a back and white and color version but letter size or legal size? I tried to print the poster but i only got the left side not the full poster the 2nd page only had the copyright no text.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by p4me on February 07, 2003 at 19:11:06 PT
Paragraph of the day
This paragraph comes from an AARP bulletin talking about the front companies of the pill industry- http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/departments/2003/consumer/0205_consumer_1.html
"I think of the pharmaceutical industry as being like an octopus, with a deep reach no other industry can match," says Frank Clemente, the director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, a Washington-based consumer organization. "This is an industry that's not only spending more on direct lobbying than any other industry but also spending more on front groups and related entities than any other industry."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by i420 on February 07, 2003 at 19:06:37 PT
Filibuster??
Thankfully jury rules here in Indiana have changed. The law allows for jury members to ask questions. I was wondering can a juror take an attorney into the courtroom to fully explain the rights of jurors to the jury sort of like a filibuster ???
Could a defense attorney use a filibuster of information in the courtroom ??? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by elfman_420 on February 07, 2003 at 17:47:53 PT
MEDICAL MARIJUANA WEEK IS COMING!
I made a poster which I am going to try and get printed out and put up around my college campus and local community.The poster is located here: subverter.net/mmw/Please feel free to download it and print them out in color as a poster, or even black and white versions can be made to hand out to people. FREE ED!
Website with poster
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by delariand on February 07, 2003 at 17:22:58 PT
This day could go down in history
"I knew that they were trying to portray him as a really bad guy. But if you look at him, you can see that he is not. He's the same age I am, and he seems like a really nice guy, and I thought, "What's going on here?" You know, it's so amazing to me that we could have done this. We're all sitting in the deliberation room, and not a single one of us ever felt free to even broach the subject of, "Guys, what are we doing here? Why are we doing this? Does everybody feel OK with this?" And we were all having our doubts, and we were just like sheep. It still amazes me that we did that."Uh oh... the feds just pulled the veil of wool from an unsuspecting person's eyes, and now they're talking... Chink in the wall, anyone? :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on February 07, 2003 at 17:16:35 PT
NOW- They want to expand the Patriot Act
From http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0207-10.htmPBS' NOW With Bill Moyers Exposes Secret Draft Bill from the Department of Justice to Extend Powers of the Patriot Act 
 
 
Tonight, on Friday, February 7 at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html), NOW with Bill Moyers will provide details of a Justice Department draft of a bill designed to extend the powers of the Patriot Act. The draft bill was provided exclusively to NOW by the Center for Public Integrity, [www.publicintegrity.org], which obtained it from a confidential government source. The document, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, outlines significant broadening of law enforcement powers, including domestic intelligence gathering, surveillance, and law enforcement prerogatives, while decreasing public access to information and judicial review authority. 
 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment