As police try to publicly undermine the wishes of Oregon voters with opinionated statements about Medical Marijuana, an Oregon broadcaster jumps right into the melee by publishing damaging, false statements about one man's character.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A story published this week by Portland television station KATU carries with it a slanderous remark about a Keizer man who was recently arrested over his legal medical marijuana growing operation.
They claim that Anthony Beasely "is another convicted felon and certified medical marijuana grower."
Beasely has not been convicted of any felony drug offense. In his own words, "that is completely untrue and slanderous. i have NO drug charges pending and have never been convicted of a drug related crime, felony or otherwise. the closest thing i have is a possession of paraphernalia charge that was barely a misdemeanor."
I guess you would have to talk to the guy to know that, it appears that Portland's KATU just glossed over that part of the story.
This affair marks what may be the first time in history, that a state's police officers have deemed it appropriate to use your tax money to defeat a law that you voted for, not once but twice. Influenced by federal agents who have visited our local police agencies with power point presentations detailing what is "wrong" with medical marijuana, these local cops and prosecutors are unable to see through the fog.
Now the broadcasters have joined in. Is it is a clear case of media bias? A general lack of reporting skills? Is it a prime example of the interests that these stations actually represent?
Anyone who watches television in this country knows that the airwaves on stations like KATU are packed with expensive commercials from the pharmaceutical industry. Everywhere you turn the dial, another drug company ad is telling you to "ask your doctor about..." and this never used to be the case. It is because there used to be a degree of control over who advertised what.
But those were the days when police simply enforced laws without using a selective process, or so we may choose to believe.
These pharmaceutical groups are the interests that want to reverse medical marijuana laws. This herb reduces the need for the expensive drugs the FDA approves that can kill you or cause addiction, so they are against it. The federal government is against marijuana, and they are being padded by the pharmaceutical groups who are making money hand over fist.
This report by KATU doesn't even try to disguise its bias. However false, it tries to be a driving conviction in itself. I am particularly glad that we are here to add some honest clarity to this madness, because the "other" media sources seem only intent on kissing the ass of their advertisers.
Our Neal Feldman addressed the story with KATU in a letter, it is posted below:
Tim KingSalem-News.com---------------------------------------------------------
I called KATU yesterday to complain about the hatchet job they did on the 23rd that I linked to you (link also in response) and was told to send my comments to thedesk@katu.com so I did... I sent the following.
I called your news line on the 23rd (since your offices were closed) and was told to email my comments to this email address.
This is regarding your report at:
I am Neal FeldmanI reside at (redacted)My phone number at home is (redacted)My cell number is (redacted).None of this personal information is for public dissemination it is for your reference and contact use ONLY.
I am also an OMMA card holder 100% legal in my use of the card and what it allows.
I also did a lot of research before getting my card so I know what the law allows.
I do wonder what happened to unbiased journalism.
This piece was nothing but a hatchet job completely biased and with no credible research into the topic. You only interviewed those vehemently hostile to the OMMA like Chuck Lee in Keizer or Okada in Salem or that truly clueless bureaucrat who just pushes papers for the OMMA.
You accused Anthony Beasley of Keizer of being a convicted felon, something no other report in the month or so since the harassment began ever mentioned. Is the felony conviction recent? Is it relevant to the issue? Or was it just included to taint him? Also your report did not mention at all that real crimes were committed by those who stole/destroyed 75% of his legal crop yet the police were so focussed on his entirely LEGAL activities they have never bothered to even investigate those crimes. And as for the Grand Jury demolishing the DA and police's claims that Beasley was committing a crime you just gloss over it as if the Grand Jury clearly made a mistake because in the online print version of the article you included something that was not in the video part... the claim that hash or hash oil manufacture or possession is illegal under the OMMA when in fact the ORS and OAR definitions regarding the law make it quite plain and clear hash or hash oil ARE LEGAL for card holders to manufacture (for their own use) and possess. If you claim otherwise explain to me the definitions of the words Any and Every in the context that supports your claim.
Your print report says:
"A grand jury decided not to indict Beasley."
The wording chosen seems to try and imply that they really had a choice, when in fact the grand jury looked at what the DA presented (and ONLY what the DA presented - remember any lawyer worth the name can indict a ham sandwich for murder) and returned a result of "not true bill". The grand jury did not merely "decide not to indict Beasley" as you claimed... they blew the DA's and Keizer Police's case right out of the water. Not that anyone would get that impression from your report.
From your report Beasley is some dangerous felon preying on kids who 'got away' with 'it' for now because some lame grand jury 'decided not to indict'. That is the clear implication made by the text.
You also gloss over where Okada says they get 30-40 calls a year where they go out any NOTHING ILLEGAL is going on because the folks have cards. It comes across from reading the article that DHS confidentiality and being a card holder are bad things because they just frustrate the jack booted goon squad thugs of law enforcement.
Your report did not interview a single card holder or a single lawyer or organization person who actually knows and understands the law.
As for the apoplexy about Beasley's grow site being next to McNary High School's parking lot, that is where he lived. He is allowed to grow and use where he lives. So what the likes of Chuck Lee (an avid despiser of the OMMA who clearly wishes to see the will of the voters undermines and blocked in any way possible) seem to want is that any citizen who otherwise qualifies for an OMMA card but has the misfortune to live within 1000 feet of a school should be denied their card or be forced to move. And what happens if said card holder lives nowhere near a school, gets their card, sets up and is minding their own business but some nitwit puts a school 999 feet from his home? Must he move again? If not why is this new school not 'protected' from these 'reefer madness infected card holders' as much as any other school, hmmm?
Oh, wait... reefer madness is complete BS isn't it? No one could tell from your report, could they? Your report is right out of the film Reefer Madness apparently.
Card holders are not allowed to use in public view and they are not allowed to sell to anyone, kids or adults.. So what freaking difference does it make if they live and grow near a school? What proven threat do they pose? If anything, the Beasley case shows the threat is FROM the school, not TO the school, as it is clear that students from the school are the ones responsible for all or part of the ruining/theft of
Beasley's completely legal crop through THEIR (students) illegal actions.
So why no coverage of these facts? Doesn't fit the whole hatchet job motif again I guess. (sigh)
Why no coverage about how Keizer Police Captain Kuhns, Chuck Lee's puppet, was crowing all over about how 'winnable' the case against Beasley was before the grand jury slapped his face?
These opponents claim the OMMA law is vague when it is not vague at all.
They so desperately WANT it to be vague so that they can attack it and its legal participants.
They whine that there is no mention of liquid ounces but there is mention of ounces. So why assume there is a significant difference unless you just want to to make trouble?
They cry that hash or hash oil is not specifically listed so it is not included. I do not see every possible breeding of marijuana listed either so does this mean Maui Wowie is not allowed just because it is not listed by name? The law and ORS/OAR definitions say 'any' and 'every' form, manufacture, resin, etc etc etc. In the context of the law and legal definitions what part of 'any' and 'every' is unclear to these reefer madness crusaders?
In the text edition of the article "Highly Legal" (think you were cute with that too I bet... how juvenile and tabloid of you) is the following:
"In his garage, investigators found PVC pipes filled with marijuana, which is part of a process used to make hash oil - an illegal drug not protected under Oregon's medical marijuana law."
In point of fact, as I just pointed out, your article tries to state a conclusion of law that is 180 degrees out of phase with reality, since the law in fact DOES allow hashish and/or hash oil. Here are the relevant paragraphs from ORS and OAR:
The Oregon Revised Statutes define "usable marijuana" – that is, what substances qualify as medicinal marijuana – as "the dried leaves and flowers of the plant Cannabis family Moraceae, and any mixture or preparation thereof, that are appropriate for medical use."
The Oregon Administrative Rules – a set of legally-binding rules that further govern the medical marijuana program – are even more explicit, declaring proper "the resin extracted from (the marijuana plant); and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant or its resin."
Where the law NEEDS tweaking is to make it a class C felony for any govt agent, worker, employee (direct or indirect) to infringe upon or impede the rights of OMMA cardholders or to harass or persecute them in any way regarding their entirely legal activities under the OMMA. Maybe THAT will put a stop to this harassment either by way of the crusaders getting smart and laying off, or by their continuing to be dumb, getting a felony conviction on their record causing them to be disbarred or otherwise ruled unfit to be a lawyer, judge or law enforcement officer.
Either way would be fine with me. I have made this suggestion to my legislators for the February session.
Chuck Lee and his transparent "My concern is ... , as an educator, for the safety and well-being of the kids," comment... it is the kids that are the threat to the OMMA patients/growers, not the other way around.
And if the concern really is for kids, not schools, then why not make it illegal for a card holder to be within 1000 feet of any kid?
Oh, right... kids are EVERYWHERE aren't they?
So why is it ok for a kid to live next door to, or even (GASP) *with* an OMMA card holder/grower but not ok for there to be a school near them?
Are there hundreds of OMMA card holders lining up to deal pot to kids in front of the schools that somehow I've never heard about?
Was Beasley dealing through the fence where I have heard no such accusation supported by any credible evidence?
Clearly there are none of these things happening.
So what difference should it make where the grower/patient card holder lives/grows?
Have there been card holders who have abused the OMMA and broken the law? Yes. Prosecute them. Leave the OMMA and the 99.99+% of card holders who are entirely within the law alone and please stop trying to continue to portray ALL card holders as just criminals pulling something over on citizens when out of 17,000+ card holders and another 7,000+ growers you can only find a tiny handful of violators.
Try (I know it can be hard sometimes when you are ordered to do a hatchet job, but still) to be balanced and interview and present info from ALL sides (or at lease BOTH sides) of an issue.
That is not what you did in this case. Here is pure hatchet job nothing else.
Where were the interviews with members of the THC Foundation or NORML in Portland who might have corrected a lot of your misinformation? Where was your interview with Anthony Beasley whom you slandered/libeled?
Where were your interviews with other legal OMMA card holders? (I am one btw so feel free to interview me). Where were your interviews with the many lawyers who exist even in Portland who support the law and OMMA patients such as Leland Berger who serves on Oregon’s Advisory Committee on Medical Marijuana?
Where were all of these interviews? Where was that entire side of the issue?
Oh, I see... it got in the way of the whole hatchet job thing to present a balanced fact based report, is that it?
It sure seems that way to me.
I used to like KATU's reporting... before I discovered how biased, misinformative and worthless it is. Great job on your reputations guys!
Truly stellar!
I was told to write this to you. So here it is.
Kinda curious to see what you do with it (though I have my assumptions).
Neal FeldmanSalem, Related articles on the Beasely case in Keizer pubished by Salem-News.com: Keizer Medical Marijuana Fiasco ObliteratedAre we Oregon's Renegade Journalists?Mistaken Pipe Bombs in Keizer Were Marijuana ContainersKeizer Medical Marijuana Case Ignores Oregon LawThoughts on Keizer's Controversial Medical Marijuana CaseHere is the KATU report: Special Report: Highly legal
Oregon Broadcaster Makes Questionable Statements over Keizer Medical Marijuana CaseSalem-News.com