Moments To Remember
Anytime you spend a week with a group of fellow activists, as I have during this trial, there are plenty of memorable moments. Here are a few of mine, remembered in no particular order.
• When Prosecutor Foster attempted to impeach the credibility of defense witness Paul Stanford, an expert on marijuana cultivation who is also CEO of The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation (THCF), she wanted to use Stanford's long history with marijuana against him. Foster asked him "Why did you grow marijuana before it was legal for medical use?" Paul answered quickly, easily, and believably: "Because I like marijuana." Bada-BING!!!
• When Prosecutor Foster attempted to impeach Pamela Olson's testimony that she operated the grow-room, the prosecutor implied that Pam wouldn't be able to pick up one of the ballast units used to power marijuana-growing lights. Olson, who is quite a small woman, offered to pick up the ballast in front of the jury -- and did so, to the prosecutor's embarrassment.
• Prosectutor Foster attempted to impeach the credibility of defense witness Dr. Thomas Orvald, an expert in the use of medical marijuana. Foster first asked the doctor about his stated reluctance to prescribe harsh narcotic painkillers to patients, then, thinking she was swooping in for the kill, asked him, "Why do you recommend marijuana if you are against narcotics?" To which the good Doctor quickly and correctly answered, "Because marijuana is not a narcotic."
• Immediately after the trial, defense attorney Balerud told reporters: "In this case, the jury spoke its mind and determined that no lawyers should be able to overrule a doctor's judgment." That is indeed the bottom line. Why, when it comes to marijuana, do law enforcement types immediately become medical "experts"? And why aren't the detectives of WestNET able to let go of their irrational hatred of marijuana and the people who use it, now that medical marijuana's been legal in Washington for ELEVEN YEARS?
Special thanks to my good friend Phil Mocek for generously sharing his excellent trial notes with Reality Catcher.
Anytime you spend a week with a group of fellow activists, as I have during this trial, there are plenty of memorable moments. Here are a few of mine, remembered in no particular order.
• When Prosecutor Foster attempted to impeach the credibility of defense witness Paul Stanford, an expert on marijuana cultivation who is also CEO of The Hemp and Cannabis Foundation (THCF), she wanted to use Stanford's long history with marijuana against him. Foster asked him "Why did you grow marijuana before it was legal for medical use?" Paul answered quickly, easily, and believably: "Because I like marijuana." Bada-BING!!!
• Prosectutor Foster attempted to impeach the credibility of defense witness Dr. Thomas Orvald, an expert in the use of medical marijuana. Foster first asked the doctor about his stated reluctance to prescribe harsh narcotic painkillers to patients, then, thinking she was swooping in for the kill, asked him, "Why do you recommend marijuana if you are against narcotics?" To which the good Doctor quickly and correctly answered, "Because marijuana is not a narcotic."
• Immediately after the trial, defense attorney Balerud told reporters: "In this case, the jury spoke its mind and determined that no lawyers should be able to overrule a doctor's judgment." That is indeed the bottom line. Why, when it comes to marijuana, do law enforcement types immediately become medical "experts"? And why aren't the detectives of WestNET able to let go of their irrational hatred of marijuana and the people who use it, now that medical marijuana's been legal in Washington for ELEVEN YEARS?
Special thanks to my good friend Phil Mocek for generously sharing his excellent trial notes with Reality Catcher.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
