Lest you think we've forgotten about GanjaGate, we haven't. Buncombe County DA Ron Moore should have had a restful July Fourth, so maybe now he's ready to decide whether to press charges against the local television news station for it's role in the case of a local medical marijuana proponent.

In case you don't remember: Cherub Charu did a sweeps TV story about this dude who said marijuana can help ease the pain of the sickly. The dude suffers from MS. Then they all but showed the dude smoking marijuana.

Then it turned out the dude was on probation for his conviction of threatening to kill a federal judge. Then the dude's probabation officer, who saw the TV report, reported the dude for violating his probation for smoking marijuana.

Then there was a court hearing, in which Charu testified to the fact that she asked the dude to get some weed so they could show it on TV. Then the judge ruled the dude violated his probation and threw the dude back in prison. Then the federal prosecutor referred the case to the local DA for possible follow-up, state charges against the TV people.

The local TV folks have yet to report on the court hearing, their own reporter's role in the court hearing, or the fact that the federal prosecutor referred the case to the local DA.

Thanks to Cohen for this 'toon. Here's the link.

The reaction to GanjaGate keeps rolling in.
There's this from StonesFan:

The fact that the station has ignored this story, which, to repeat, got its subject tossed into jail (!!), is an embarrassment -- or, should be, to any self-respecting journalist.

But most of them aren't journalists -- they're news readers with bad pronunciation.

And this from Ashvegas Refugee:

Michelle,
If you are a photojournalist, than you know that asking someone to do something so you can photograph it is unethical - asking someone to do something illegal so you can photograph it is even more unethical. Standard 5 of the National Press Photographers Association Code of Ethics reads:
"While photographing subjects do not intentionally contribute to, alter, or seek to alter or influence events."
If someone is truly committed to building a career as a respected journalist, they won't build it like this. If Charu is everything you say - she'll take responsibility for it, learn from it and become a better journalist as a result.

This from poster who signed in as Michelle Gifford:

Some people are so darn quick to judge things they do not know or understand.
I know Charu and worked with her on a daily basis as her photographer. I think the world of her and would stand up for her integrity and her ethics! People want the truth...lets not forget, this man called the station becuse of his beliefs and was prepared to present his point to the masses, including smoking the pot...he believed that smoking marijuana should be legal in medical situations.

I am sorry that her attempt to report a different angle of the medical marijuana debate turned out to focus more on a promising news reporter and her desire to present more than just the "officals" take on the debate, than on the issue of the legality and necessity of med. marijuana. I hope that you will understand that Charu is a very dedicated journalist and has to overcome many obsticles to present news.
She is a great person, friend and journalist and I would compell you to think about those things before you pass judgement and ruin a career that means as much to her as does yours to you. In support of Charu, I remain. Michelle

My reply
Michelle, thanks for your passionate response. We're not trying ruin anyone's career. We're talking journalistic ethics, a discussion that's already playing out in public in a federal courtroom and in the pages of Ashvegas' daily newspaper.

The power to do the right thing lies squarely in the local TV station's court. The only person ruining Charu's career is Charu.

All we're asking for is fairness, plain and simple. We're asking the station and the reporter to be fair by promising to keep a source's identity confidential, and then keeping it confidential, if that's the agreement.

Be fair by reporting the full story, including the court hearing you were a part of and that resulted in the source being thrown back into jail.

Be fair.

The local TV news station had little to say tonight at 6 on GanjaGate. Nothing to say, to be exact. Still, you could read the reaction on the news readers' faces if you looked closely.

1. Holly Headache's reaction to Charu's story. (Ouch)

2. Candy Little's reaction. (Asleep)

3. Julie Wunderful's reaction. (Clueless)

When will WLOS acknowledge what's been happening with Charu and her story on the medical marijuana guy? When will WLOS install an ethics policy, and enforce it?
When will DA Ron Moore make a decision on whether or not to prosecute the local TV station for its role in the marijuana story?
The wait continues.

I've added a GanjaGate page to help you keep up with all the posts. Click on "GanjaGate" on the left, and you'll see all the blog posts, ordered from first to last.

Comments keep rolling in on GanjaGate.
Romani has this:
I grew up in an city where there was a local affiliate for each network, those stations wouldn't have tried to pull something like this because they knew the other two would be all over it. I've said all along that if WLOS had ANY local competition, their news broadcasts wouldn't fare very well in the ratings. Competition forces a business to strive to stay ahead, WLOS lacks this motivation.

My reply: Excellent point. Competitors police each other in a way that no others can. (Except kick-ass bloggers.)

w-loser has this:

The fact that Charu did not report that the guy had a conviction isn't a problem. It had no bearing on the story. However, WLOS should have reported the guy's arrest on the probation violation, and the station's role in it, and reported the conviction then.


Let me stop you there for a second - not reporting the conviction is, in my opinion, a problem. It's called context. It helps viewers understand the big picture. I know in the soundbyte land of TV this is a hard concept to understand, but it's huge.

back to w-loser:
It's also hard to believe the story that aired was all that was available on tape. Since this was a sweeps piece, they would have held onto the raw tapes until the piece aired, in case they needed to make any last minute edits. I'm sure they've gotten burned before by holding onto raw interview tape that didn't cast them in the best light, and likely claim the raw tape already had been reused. But this would seem like one of those cases where you'd want to put that tape in the news director's office for just such an eventuality - to have proof that Chachi really did tell him she could use file video if he didn't want to light up.

Other question: where's transcript of the photographer's testimony. Surely he or she would have been called, having been there rolling tape on the interview.

Catnap weighs in with this:

Another example: We wanted to run a story about a new fuel depot that was opening up in town. The niche market they are after are farmers and truckers that are abandoning their on-site tanks because of environmental regulations.
We wanted to get a shot of someone pumping gas. It took us three trips. Twice we were there and they offered to fake pumping gas. The pumps were turned off for some reason.
My photographer wouldn't do it.
He, rightly, arranged to show up when someone was actually going to be pumping gas. Not because we wanted to take a picture but because he needed the damn gas.
It's not a big story and not a great picture. But, we thought it was important to be honest.
Does the WLOS insider even understand this.

My reply: Honesty. What a concept.

Catnap also has this:

WLOS insider said this: This guy smokes pot, right?? So he smoked it on air - big freakin' deal. This is less about the t-v station and more about a poor m-s sufferer getting in trouble with the law.

He or she is right. The story is about an M-S sufferer. Unfortunately, but her unethical actions (asking someone to violate the law to get some video footage for pete's sake) Charu lost a chance to tell the story properly.
If she worked for me - fired. Simple. The only difficult part would be making sure she wasn't looking for another job in journalism. We got enough problems without crap like that.
I AM OUT.

Here's what the Citizen-Times has to say.

Here is Charu dancing around questions about promising her source that she would conceal his identity when it came to smoking the pot she asked him to smoke for her story:

Q And did you indicate to him that his neither his identity, that is his name or his face would be shown on the broadcast if he did that?
A We told him that the interview with him, the speaking parts, that his name would be used in that.

Q Right. Did you tell him anything in connection with if he would smoke the marijuana for your broadcast, whether his face would be shown or his name would be disclosed in connection with that smoking?

A We did tell him that we would make every effort to conceal his identity when he was smoking the marijuana.

Q And did you do so?

A I think that’s up to interpretation, you know. some people look at that and they can’t tell that it’s him. Some people say that is him.

Q I see. Well, was it him?

A It was him.

Q Well, what did you do to conceal his identity, then, to honor your agreement with him?

A Well, that’s really, you know - because I’m not a photographer I can’t really answer that. Typically photographers will shoot in silhouette. They’ll do things with lighting so it’s not so obvious.

Q Well, what was done here in this case?

A We tried to - the photographer tried to control the lighting situation as much as possible and that means by adding lights, using gels.

Q Use gels.

A Gels. They are colored film that goes over a light that creates a different sort of lighting situation, for lack of a better word.

Q I see. Did you observe - did you observe Mr. Ward having a conversation with the camera operator as well as whatever conversation he may have had with you, did you observe him at some point in time talking to the camera operator?

A Well, the whole thing just about we were all talking, so he did speak with the photographer as well.

Q Did you hear the photographer say anything to him concerning not using his name or showing his face in connection with this?

A In connection with the smoking of the marijuana?

Q Yes.

A There was definitely that understanding there. That when he was smoking marijuana, that there would be some concealment of his identity. That we would conceal his identity when smoking the marijuana.

Q I see. Okay. But you don’t recall any conversation he had with the cameraman about the possibility of using a cigarette as opposed to using marijuana. You don’t recall anything like that at all?

A I don’t.

Here's the part of the transcript where Charu admits to asking the source to break the law for her. She's being cross-examined by the alleged pot smoker's defense attorney, Charles Brewer.
I really don't know how much more clearcut this case can be, people.

Q Okay. And what we saw on the actual broadcast, what portion of that was from the interview you did on the first time you went to his apartment, or can you tell?
A The bulk of it, all of the speaking parts were from the first portion. The smoking video that you see was when we came back.

Q All right. Now, did you indicate that after you had done that you asked him would he be willing to smoke marijuana for the broadcast?

A When we finished the interview, we got the roll, you know, the video of him around the apartment.

Q Yes.

A And I had asked him during the interview do you still smoke marijuana?

Q And what did he say?

A He said on occasion. It’s rare, but sometimes someone will bring it over. It does help him with his pain. And so I said, "Well, you know, would you smoke it for this broadcast, for this story?"

Q And what did he say to that?

A He said, "well, let me see if I can get some."

Q So he didn’t have any then?

A It didn’t appear to be that way. He made a phone call.

Q During the time that you were there did he receive a phone call as well? Do you recall that? A I think the phone rang a few times.

Q Did he interrupt you to talk on the phone at any time?

A I think so. I remember a woman calling and he was talking about an appointment, going to the doctor and getting a ride there.

Q All right. Did - when you asked him would he be willing to smoke some marijuana for the broadcast, did he ask you if you or the cameraman, as to whether he could simply smoke a regular cigarette?

A No.

Q And do you know who it was that he called?

A I don’t. I heard him make the phone call and say, "Hey. Have you got anything around to smoke?"

Q Did you hear the entire conversation?

A I just heard Steven’s part.

Q All right. Was there any discussion - and he told you he was on parole. Is that what he told you?

A Yeah. He showed us his ankle bracelet and said that he was on parole and ...

Q And did he tell you that it was a violation of the terms of his parole or whatever for him to possess marijuana. Did he say that to you in any fashion?

A He didn’t say that. He did say he was worried. He didn’t want to do anything that would get him in trouble. I said don’t do anything that - you know, I don’t want you to worry more. You’re in a lot of pain, so don’t do anything that, you know, is going to worry you. It’s not that important.

Here's more from the transcript of the federal court hearing involving Charu and the local TV news station. This is Steven William Ward's defense attorney, Charles Brewer, cross-examining her on the stand. The hearing was to consider weather Ward's bond should be revoked for smoking pot for a WLOS stroy. Interns get no respect.

Q Do you remember the date the Supreme Court decision came out in regard to the medical use of marijuana?
A I believe it came - it was the Monday before we interviewed Steven.

Q Okay And you interviewed him on what day of the week?

A No, I don’t remember. Maybe a Wednesday?

Q A Wednesday. So the first time you knew or met Mr. Ward is when you came to his home that day. Is that correct?

A That’s right.

Q Did you talk to him on the phone before you came to his house?

A Yes.

Q What kind of conversations did you have with him on the phone prior to going to his home?

A I asked Steven, I said I understand that you called us. You want to speak about medicinal marijuana use. May we come and grab an interview with you? Take about an hour. And he said that would be fine. I got directions and we arrived.

Q All right. And about what time did you get there?

A I want to say it was somewhere between three and four.

Q And when you came, you came in with your camera person. Is that right?

A That’s correct.

Q And with an intern?

A Yes.

Q And what’s the name of the camera person?

A Leighton Grant.

Q Lee Grant?

A Leighton Grant. L-E-I-G-H-T-O-N.

Q And what’s the name of the intern?

A Thomas - and I don’t know his last name.

Let's review, because everyone calling themselves "wlos insider" or something similar sees no wrong in the Charu medical marijuana story, while everyone else does.

1. Charu does a story on medical marijuana.
2. Charu interviews Steven William Ward as her one main source.
3. Charu reports that Ward suffers from multiple sclerosis.
4. Charu does not report that Ward has been convicted in federal court of threatening to kill or kidnap a federal judge, local federal magistrate Max Cogburn.
5. Charu reports that Ward smokes marijuana to ease his pain.
6. Charu does not report that she asks and enourages Ward to buy marijuana and smoke it in front of her so she can have some juicy film footage.
7. Charu does not report that after her story runs, Ward is subpeoned to court for a hearing to determine if he broke the rules of his bond by using marijuana - his probation officer saw the report on TV.
8. Charu does not report that she is subpeoned to testify about the role she played.
9. Charu does not report that a federal judge does indeed revoke Ward's bond and throws his ass back in the slammer because of the TV report.
10. Charu does not report that the federal prosecutor handling the case has referred it to state prosecutor/Buncombe County District Attorney Ron Moore for possible charges against the TV station.

The ethical and legal issues seem pretty clear to me. Why can't anyone else at WLOS understand this? Here's a typical comment:

wlosinsider

This guy smokes pot, right?? So he smoked it on air - big freakin' deal. This is less about the t-v station and more about a poor m-s sufferer getting in trouble with the law.

I think it's explained above. Here's a much more thoughtful answer from Catnap:

It is fair to lump the whole station in on this. Why? Because viewers and readers do. News consumers don't make a distinction from one reporter to the next. Either they're all a bunch of crumbbums or they are not. Charu did the story, but someone else did the intro from the anchor desk. Someone must have seen the story before it aired - There was a promo aired about it. Someone should have asked a question like -"um, did you show up at his house and find him smoking marijuana?" Yup -- lump the whole station.
small example:
I was working at a newspaper where a photographer, of whom I had a great deal of respect, brought in a picture of an unfortunate man killed by a train. You could see something by the side of the track with a tarp over it.
"Is that the body?" I asked.
"yup."
"Where were you standing when you took this?"
"Beside the track."
"Did someone give you permission to be standing there? -- the train track right-of-way isn't public property."
"I was beside the track but I was on the road where the track crosses."
I asked him about three more times and then had him show me on a map where he was standing. I needed to be 100 percent sure he was on public property.
In the end, I don't even know if we even ran the photo. But those conversations aren't taking place at the tv station.

Here's the direct questioning of Charu by the federal prosecutor (typos are part of the transcript):

Q Ma’am, would you state your name and spell your first and last names for the record.

A Charu Kumarhia. C-H-A-R-U, last name, K-U-M-A-R-H-I-A.
Q And how are you employed, ma’am?

A I work with WLOS Sinclair Broadcasting.

Q How long have you been employed within that capacity?

A With these guys, I’ve worked for three years.

Q Since you mention "these guys", what did you do before you joined WLOS?

A I worked for a TV station in Huntsville, Alabama.

Q All right. As part of your - and you’re a reporter, the so-called on-air talent, I think is the term they use. Is that right?

A Yeah, that’s right.

Q All right. As part of your duties, did you go to the home of Mr. Ward, the gentleman seated over here in the wheelchair, on or about June 8th of this year?

A We did.

Q All right. And who went with you?

A A photographer and an intern.

Q And what was it that prompted you all to go there?

A Mr. Ward called us and said that he wanted us to speak out on the Supreme Court decision giving the federal government a right to pursue anybody smoking marijuana for the use of medicinal purposes.

Q And what happened once you all got there?

A We interviewed Mr. Ward and we asked him - I asked him, "Do you smoke marijuana?" And he said, "Very rarely, but on occasion." And I said, "Would you smoke that for this story? We are doing a story about marijuana use." And I said, "Look, if it worries you a little bit, you know, I understand. That’s fine. We can use file video from CNN or ABC, the network." And he said, "Well, let me see what I can do." He made a phone call, then asked us to leave.

Q All right. Now, we didn’t have a rule on witnesses here so you were sitting here while the previous witness, Mr. Simpson, was testifying, weren’t you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Were you able to hear what he said?

A Yes. Most of it.

Q All right. So as you heard Mr. Ward’s version that he gave to the officer, was that it was the news folks who asked him to do it. Whose idea was it for him to obtain marijuana?

A We suggested "would you want to do it?"

Q All right.

A And he said - he did mention that he was on parole. I said, "Look, if this worries you, you don’t - don’t do it. I don’t want to get you in any trouble. I don’t want you to panic." And he made a phone call to someone and then he said, "Look, my friend is going to bring this over but he’s worried, doesn’t want you guys to be here. Could you leave?" And I said, "Well, we do have other stories to do. We’ll be back in an hour." We came back in an hour and a half.

Q All right. So you all were not in the vicinity for an hour to an hour and a half there?

A That’s right.

Q All right. What happened when you got back?

A We got back and Steven was there as well as a friend of his. He introduced me to the friend. I don’t really remember the gentleman’s name. And he had a little, looked like a Tylenol bottle with the label torn off, and he poured out what looked like to me to be brown leaves, and rolled a cigarette and smoked it once or twice.

Q All right. And did your camera person record that?

A Yes.

Q And then what happened after that?

A And we left.

Q All right. So just one or two puffs, the same thing you heard a few minutes ago.

A Yeah. One or two puffs. It was on camera. "Steven," we said, "we need to videotape. That’sobviously part of the story."

Q And I’ve marked as Government’s Exhibit 1 a videotape labeled "WLOS TV, 11 p.m., Medical Marijuana." Did you bring that here today pursuant to a subpoena?

A I did.

Q And what’s contained on this videotape?

A This is the actual story that aired that night, including a tease that ran right before the news.

Q All right. Is that the only thing that’s on this tape?

A I believe so, yes.

Q So if I rewind it to the beginning, we won’t be watching extraneous stuff. It will be the stuff concerning Mr. Ward?

A It should be, yes.

MR. EDWARDS: All right. Your Honor, at this point I’d ask permission to have this admitted into evidence and to play it.

THE COURT: Mr. Brewer, any objection?

MR. BREWER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Let it be admitted.

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, sir.

(Government’s Exhibit No. 1 received.) (Videotape played.)

MR. EDWARDS: Thank you. I have no further questions.

Big questions remain: will WLOS acknowledge this story by reporting on themselves, as so many other responsible media outlets do? As far as I could see at 6 tonight, they let another opportunity slip by.

The other question: Will Charu be prosecuted? Here's the newspaper story again:

Federal prosecutors Friday reviewed a court transcript in which a WLOS-TV reporter (Cherub Charu) describes prodding a source to smoke marijuana for a news story and referred the case to the Buncombe County district attorney.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Edwards said he sent the case to Buncombe County District Attorney Ron Moore’s office “for them to handle in whatever manner they deem appropriate.”

Then there's this from the court proceedings - it's Edwards, the federal prosecutor, making his case to the judge:

Edwards told Howell at the hearing: “I don’t know where the intersection is between criminal law and the First Amendment, but I’d be surprised if the fact that you’re carrying a TV camera immunizes you from consequences for procuring or inducing the commission of a crime.”

The TV station's attorney (the same attorney who represents the newspaper) said Charu hasn't done anything wrong. But I have to agree with Edwards.

It's against the law to aid or abet someone in the commission of a felony, the felony being the marijuana smoker's probation violation. Don't forget here - this guy was thrown back in the slammer over this.

So will Ron Moore, the Buncombe County district attorney, do anything with this? Moore, a guy who relies on a lazy media to stay off his back? Why would he risk wakening a sleeping tiger? We're guessing it goes nowhere.

But it should. This is the perfect example of what's wrong with the media today, especially TV news.

insider says:
- I think its very unfair to group everyone at the station into this because of charu...
Everyone knows she's been doing things like this since she got here..factual errors, overexagerating stories, promising not to show something and doing it anyway..things other reporters have been cleaning up after her for years and she never gets in trouble by management...Too bad frank's not here..he wouldn't have let it happen..just like he wrote her stories for her each night...hopefully this is the final straw..because she's smearing the station's name while trying to get the story, at any cost....somebody hold her accountable!!!

mews has this:
- Don't bogart that joint, Charu.
Pass it over to your cam'ra crew."
(apologies to Fraternity of Man)

crazy joe says:
- Would Charu have to get approval to make the request for the guy to smoke?

A sampling:

White Lightnin' has this on the "Cheech and Charu" post:

Best. Headline. Ever.<br/Classic. Simply classic.

Romani Heart has this:

Oh... my... gawd. I think I just heard what little respect I had for anyone at WLOS go swirling down the drain.

Bulldog, regarding Charu's ethics:

It could have been worse. At least she wasn't doing a story on one of Ashvegas' toothless hookers and asking them for some video footage

Mark, offering the link:

thought this was funny
i enjoy this site thanks

Dedicated to: Charu
From: Ashvegas
"I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a mid-night toker .... Just don't do it on teeveee. Whoo, oooo ooo."

And this:

"One toke over the line, sweet Char - ru. One toke over the line..."

So here's the deal: a story in the Citizen-Times today reports that Charu asked a subject for a TV story to smoke some Mary Jane to spice up her report on medical marijuana. The story paints the multiple sclerosis sufferer as a victim, a poor soul who needs some weed just to lift a pan off the stove.
What Charu didn't tell the viewing public when the story ran was: A) She asked the subject to get some weed and smoke it; and B) she didn't tell us that the guy was out on bond after being convicted of threatening to kill a judge. Don't you think that might have some bearing on the story?

Charu was in a court hearing this past week, called to testify about the incident. The hearing was to determine whether the subject of the story violated his probation? The judge found that he did, based in part on the testimony of Charu.

The story hit the newspaper today.

When will WLOS acknowledge the story??? So far, the silence has been deafening.

Here's the next installment (typos are theirs) of the transcript. Click "Ganja Gate" at the bottom of this post to see all the posts on this topic. This is the judge asking questions of the probation officer of a guy who says that WLOS reporter Charu Kumarhia asked him to smoke pot as part of her story on medical marijuana. The guy was on probation after his conviction for threatening to kill a federal judge:

Q All right. To go with that then a little bit, did he say, when you were questioning him about this, anything to indicate that it was or was not really marijuana that this associate brought to his home?

A On June the 10th when I met with him he advised me that it was marijuana.

Q Right.

A He admitted that he smoked marijuana.

Q Okay. And since that time have you talked with him about the incident Has he given you a different version?

A Yes, I have. I received a message from him and I also have been buy his residence to serve a summons on him. And he indicated to me that his associate that brought him the marijuana confronted him and said that he felt like he was being set up by Mr. Ward. Evidently when he saw the camera, the news crew or whatever, and that it was not marijuana that he had actually delivered to Mr. Ward. That it was some other substance.

Q All right. Now, did Mr. Ward explain to you how he reconciled the two different versions he had given you? That he had smoked - albeit not inhaling - he had smoked marijuana but then later he’s telling you it’s not marijuana. Did he say how he reconciled those two versions?

A No, sir. Basically all of this occurred after he was advised of the negative result of the on-site drug test.

Q Okay. And did that happen before or after you advised him that you were requesting a hearing about this?

A This occurred after.

Q All right. So the time he told you it was not clearly marijuana, that was after he knew we were going to be having a hearing here?

A Yes.

Q Now, finally to go back into this other matter. So according to Mr. Ward, the TV crew asked him to obtain or purchase marijuana?

A That’s correct. That’s exactly what Mr. Ward relayed to me.

Q And according to the TV crew, other than sort of the niceties of them not being there when it happened and then coming back, they were aware this was going to be going on?

A To my knowledge, according to what Mr. Ward has advised me, that they were aware of it, that this transaction would take place or that Mr. Ward would somehow come into the possession of marijuana, and that he would smoke marijuana being filmed doing so.

Q And, again, according to Mr. Ward, this was their idea. They wanted to get, I guess, some news footage of somebody actually smoking marijuana?

A That’s correct. Again, Mr. Ward advised me that he suggested could he possibly use a plain tobacco cigarette to simulate a marijuana cigarette and they indicated that that would not suffice.

Q All right. Thank you.

Here's part one of the transcript from the court hearing involving Cherub Charu of the local TV news station. Charu was a part of the hearing. The back-and-forth here is between the assistant U.S. attorney and the probation officer of the guy that Charu did story on. Charu got involed because she did a story on the guy smoking marijuana to help his MS. The guy's probation officer saw the report.

THE COURT: All right, sir. Mr. Simpson, come around, place your left hand on the Bible and raise your right hand.
ERIC SIMPSON being duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION by Mr. Edwards:

Q Why, in particular, were you doing two tests that day. You said two. Was that normal or was this something out of the ordinary?

A Well, when I met with Mr. Ward in reference to this story that he did on the local television station, he indicated that he had smoked marijuana. He also said that he only took two hits or two puffs off a marijuana cigarette. He indicated that also did not inhale. I did a - the first test, I did the second one just as a backup. Both of those did yield a negative test.

Q All right.

A Of course, this was done two days after Mr. Ward admitted to smoking marijuana.

Q All right. Now, I’ve kind of been dancing around it but let’s get into it. What is it specifically - we’ve referred to it - I’ve referred to it but lets put it on the record - what is it specifically that you learned about concerning a videotape or a news story that prompted you to do it?

A Well, I went by and spoke to Mr. Ward about this news story.

Q Well, first of all, tell us about what the news story was.

A The news story aired on WLOS, channel 13, here in Asheville, basically in reference to marijuana for medicinal purposes and should it be legalized. Mr. Ward indicated to me that he contacted the television station. That he made contact himself with them and said - indicated that he would like to talk with them about this.

He said on June 8th they met at his residence, that being the news crew. He said that the news crew wanted him to smoke marijuana, being filmed smoking marijuana, and Mr. Ward also advised me that he did not want to do it. He asked if he could use just a plain cigarette to simulate this. He said that the news crew told him, asked him if there was someone he could contact to either bring him some marijuana or sell him some marijuana. And he did that.

He said the news crew told him that they had to leave while this transaction took place. They could not be present when this happened. He indicated to me that he felt like he was forced when all of this was occurring. He also said that promises were made to him that his name would not be used on this news story. You know, he appeared to be regretful about it.

I explained to him that this was a violation of his bond. And he said that the news crew left, his associate came by, gave him marijuana. He said he did not purchase it. And that leads us to the two drags, two hits, two puffs off of the marijuana cigarette. He said he flushed the rest of it down the commode, and he did not inhale it.