cannabisnews.com: The Feds Versus Ed The Feds Versus Ed Posted by CN Staff on February 11, 2003 at 11:40:23 PT By Samantha Spivak, Special to The Examiner Source: San Francisco Examiner Liberals generally have a sneering interpretation of states' rights. Two months ago, Sen. Trent Lott was twisting in the wind, with a decades-old campaign for the principle of states' rights as a noose around his neck. Today, Californians are enraged by the criminal conviction of Oakland's medical marijuana deputy Ed Rosenthal. California had its sovereign butt kicked in Rosenthal's rumble with the feds, where our Proposition 215 was the legal equivalent of a knife at a gunfight. States' rights, anyone? Sadly, the phrase seems to remain forbidden. Long before the concept of states' rights became synonymous with Jim Crow laws and the lingering racist agenda of elderly Southern politicians, our country's founders hallowed the idea precisely because no citizen of this republic should end up in Ed Rosenthal's situation. Over time, we've dismissed the fierce American notion that government power should originate close to home. All over the land, but especially in California, we no longer keep the feds at arm's length. So here they are, shoving Ed Rosenthal toward the prison gates while the California voters who sanctioned Rosenthal's occupation are impotent. There's not a thing you or I or Bill Lockyer, the state attorney general who has more than once gone out on a limb to defend Prop. 215, can do. If this angers you, wake up and smell the hemp flowers. We are in the habit now of regularly inviting the federal government to bring its lawyers, guns and money right through the front door of our state for a variety of special purposes. Only problem is, when the party's over they won't leave. Like a drunken frat boy, the federal government doesn't listen when we change our minds and insist that no means no. We opened the door, after all. Real repudiation of oppressive drug policy would require consistency in our relationship with the feds. We can't "just say no" to the drug war when we just say yes, yes, yes to federal drug enforcement money to augment our police departments and to bundles of federal cash for other state programs. California received $50 billion in federal assistance for the fiscal year ending June 2001, according to the Bureau of State Audits. You want the federal sugar daddy? You're gonna live under Daddy's roof and by Daddy's rules. Which is probably one reason Ed Rosenthal got little support from the state. Rosenthal attorney Bill Simpich says he asked a number of state and local politicians to file a motion to intervene on Rosenthal's behalf. Such intervention is rare, and likely would have proven futile because federal law trumps state law. Of course, that's not the point. The point is that we elect our leaders to uphold our laws. "Nobody wanted to get in front of the train," Simpich said last week. Can you say "duh?" What sane and sober politician wants to play tough with the feds one day and beg Daddy for money to fill budget holes the next? A lifestyle of dependence on the federal government comes with a high price. The price is Rosenthal's liberty and the liberty of honest citizens who end up in court fighting all kinds of ludicrous federal charges because their fellow citizens -- we the people -- have permitted a watery boundary between ourselves and the federal government. Where there was once a sacred concern for supremacy of local priorities, there is now selective use of federal funds and federal force to achieve an illusive and ill-defined greater good. This shouldn't have political overtones. But it does. You'd be hard pressed to find a dozen people crying foul at Rosenthal's plight who wouldn't be cheering instead if he were a farmer being torn apart by federal environmental law. Most who reject federal interference with state drug policy are happy to embrace federal intrusion into education, urban planning, local commerce and virtually every other arena of California life. The cost of this inconsistency is Rosenthal's freedom, because once they've got you in the golden handcuffs, the feds don't distinguish between left and right or contemplate the nuances of this region or that. The feds just win.Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)Author: Samantha Spivak, Special to The ExaminerPublished: February 11, 2003Copyright: 2003 San Francisco ExaminerContact: letters sfexaminer.comWebsite: http://www.examiner.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Green-Aid.comhttp://www.green-aid.com Ed Rosenthal's Trial Pictures & Articleshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmWill Rosenthal Case Destroy MMJ Enforcement?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15442.shtml'Guru of Ganja' Stirring The Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15433.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by mayan on February 11, 2003 at 18:27:13 PT FoM... Yes, I believe the sh*t is about to hit the fan. It looks like Tony Blair is worried about getting stormed by his own people!Blair authorised terror alert troops: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2747677.stmHis troops sure aren't too loyal...One in five reservists is resisting call-up for war: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=377078The U.S. will start the war soon before Britain backs out. The British people are irate! Time for another staged terror attack? The world may never be the same. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on February 11, 2003 at 17:57:43 PT mayan I listened to the whole tape today on FoxNews. It was interesting. I said before there are scary times ahead. I'm so glad I can stay on Cannabis issues and can turn off the news on tv or it would drive me up a wall. This whole world is a rumbling can't you feel it in the air? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by mayan on February 11, 2003 at 17:18:11 PT And here... is the scrubbed version!Apparent bin Laden tape broadcast: http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0cv=CA01 [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by mayan on February 11, 2003 at 16:31:59 PT Sorry... Unrelated, but we are on the verge of war...GOT THE SCRUBBED MSNBC STORY!!!!! RIGHT HERE!!!!(Read where Bin laden urges Iraqi's to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein!) http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/35953.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by mayan on February 11, 2003 at 16:19:47 PT Jury Nullification Here is a good article most of you have probably seen regarding jury nullification... Our Last, Best Hope: http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/10/robinson.htmNo War For Oil...British MP kicked out of House of Commons for trying to raise issue of plagiarized dossier! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2745795.stmBritain's Intelligence Dossier on Iraq was Plagiarized from a Grad Student - by Michael C. Ruppert: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/020603_plagiarized.html More links regarding Plagiarized Dossier: http://whatreallyhappened.com/plag.htmlMake No Mistake About It - 9/11 Was An Inside Job(The lost voxnyc article that the federales shut down!): http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:dv2JBpTIZHUC:www.voxnyc.com/archives/00000076.htm+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by afterburner on February 11, 2003 at 16:13:35 PT: The Tools of Populism: Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Although the federal government and the media have confused the issue by misusing the term referendum when they should have used initiative, the true meanings are clear and distinct.initiative Function: noun Date: 17933 a : the right to initiate legislative action b : a procedure enabling a specified number of voters by petition to propose a law and secure its submission to the electorate or to the legislature for approval -- compare REFERENDUMreferendum Function: noun Date: 18471 a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative b : a vote on a measure so submittedrecall Function: noun Date: 16112 : the right or procedure by which an official may be removed by vote of the people--Merriam-Webster OnLineIn states where such rights exist we can initiate legislation (initiative), vote on legislation already passed (referendum), or even vote to remove officials (recall). We need to exercise these tools along with Jury Nullification [ The Feds vs. Ed Rosenthal http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15383.shtml ] with greater vigilance, and to fight for the adoption of such rights in states which have not yet granted them. They operate as a kind of Fifth Estate (of WE THE PEOPLE) to counter-balance the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Three Estates, and the so-called Forth Estate of the Press/Media.ego destruction or ego transcendence, that is the question. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by AlvinCool on February 11, 2003 at 15:09:51 PT Hell with that The problem is the lying SOB's can tell you anything to get your vote then they laugh in your face. Bush wouldn't be president today if he had not stated that he supported states rights on medical marijuana. One term wonder.I say politicians should have to SIGN a contract on key issues and if they renig, for whatever reason, they are thrown out of office.I'd also like to see a campain to get people to vote that goes like this. All you non voters together could elect an entirely new government that will de-federalize and only support states rights. Income tax will be reduced and state tax will be increased. Vote out all old farts that won't sign a contract. Drug war over in 1 year first priority. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Commonsense on February 11, 2003 at 14:38:15 PT That's why we should have lower taxes. I don't know about forming new countries, but we ought to vote for politicians who promise smaller government and lower taxes. The feds take our tax money and what they don't squander they give back to the states with strings attached. We have voluntarily abdicated the rights granted the states in the 10th Amendment. California should be able to pass its own drug laws. The feds should not micromanage the internal affairs of the states. The various states and local governments should have their own laws which reflect local values and local cultural norms. We don't want a massive, inefficient federal government dictating everyday local affairs. We don't want to be ruled from afar. But the more we demand that the federal government provide for this or that social program the more we invite them into our homes. This is not a plea to vote Republican. Hell, the Republican party has become the tax cut and spend party. They want to cut taxes but then fail to cut spending to go along with the tax cuts. I'm just saying we should vote for politicians who want to shrink the federal government, regardless of their party affiliation. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by malleus2 on February 11, 2003 at 14:01:13 PT Saw this once, and right here, too: Republic of Cascadia http://www.zapatopi.net/cascadia.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 11, 2003 at 13:56:55 PT Just a Note Hi Everyone,I thought you might want to check out this link. This link has all the articles that I post on CNews. I wasn't sure if anyone knew we had such a link and used the search tool or accessed the individual archives. Just a little more help for everyone. All News Posted on CNews [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dark Star on February 11, 2003 at 13:39:46 PT Better Idea NoCal + Oregon + Washington + BC = Ecotopia or Sasquatchland [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by firedog on February 11, 2003 at 13:20:11 PT Easy solution Perhaps California receives $50 billion in federal assistance each year, but how much money do the Feds extract from California residents and companies in the form of taxes? I bet it's more.California, Oregon, and Washington should leave the USA and join up with Canada.That would solve the problem! ;) [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on February 11, 2003 at 12:08:35 PT Just an Comment Another good article from the Examiner. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment