Posted on 01/30/2003 6:38:26 AM PST by MrLeRoy
America's war on drugs is costly, ignorant and doesn't work, a federal judge said Tuesday.
Denver U.S. District Judge John Kane Jr., who has been speaking and writing against the nation's drug policy for about five years, won a standing ovation from a packed City Club luncheon at the Brown Palace Hotel.
"I don't favor drugs at all," Kane said.
"What I really am opposed to is the fact that our present policies encourage children to take drugs."
Ending the present policy of interdiction, police action and imprisonment would eliminate the economic incentives for drug dealers to provide drugs to minors, Kane said.
He said the government has no real data and no scientific basis for its approach to illegal drug use.
Since the policy began in the early 1970s, drugs have become easier to obtain and drug use has only increased, he said.
Last summer, Kane said, a friend in his 60s was being treated for cancer. The man joked to his family that he wished he knew where to get marijuana to help him bear the effects of chemotherapy.
The next day, the man's 11-year-old grandson brought him three marijuana cigarettes, Kane said.
"Don't worry, Grandpa - I don't use it myself, but if you need any more just let me know," the judge quoted the boy as saying.
Although officials vow zero tolerance for drugs, even children know that's not reality, Kane said.
"Our national drug policy is inconsistent with the nature of justice, abusive of the nature of authority, and wholly ignorant of the compelling force of forgiveness," he said. "I suggest that federal drug laws be severely cut back."
The federal government should focus on keeping illegal drugs out of the country and regulating the manufacture of drugs transported across state lines.
Each state should decide how to regulate sales and what should be legal or illegal, he said, and the emphasis for government spending should be on treatment.
I already answered that in post #111. You, however, seem bound and determined to cement your reputation as an FDR liberal.
Out comes the race card. Too predictable.
Oh, that is classic. You raise the issue, yet say I brought out the race card? How do you post this kind of crap with anything resembling a conscience?
One of Nancy Pelosi's big financial backers.
Out comes your repetitive nonsense. Even more predictable.
No, Kane raised the issue and you backed his play.
Now, that's a whole different argument, isn't it? My question was solely, "Does growing your own pot affect interstate commerce?"
Do you wish to take a stand and answer the question, or do you want to veer off into a different direction and discuss whether or not congress has the power to regulate?
Post #116. You brought the issue directly to my attention. I've seen some real low-class ploys on FR, but this is one of the lamest. I'll go somewhere else now, because Dane, robertpaulsen and now you have shown the entire forum exactly what your characters are made of.
What makes your question any more relevant than, "Do you like eggs?"
This title may be cited as the 'Controlled Substances Act'.
§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances.
The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:
- (1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
- (3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because -
- (A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,
- (B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and
- (C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
- (4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.
- (5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.
- (6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.
- (7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
The issue of Kane's political nature with a link to statements he explicitly supports? Yep, I sure did.
How's that policy working out for you?
Do some research and you will see that the modern drug culture gots it start with such radical marxist movements such as the SDS.
There is a reason why the pro-drug people on this thread wish not to acknowledge the 60's, they are idelogical cousins to such organizations as the SDS which sprouted in the 60's.
Time for your usual hysterics?
Or ideological offspring.
Oh no, drug validation isn't a leftist issue according to the pro-drug people on this thread. Oh no, not never.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.