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.
Wrong.
"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."
Ah, so now you admit raising the subject of race. Yet you claim I played the race card.
Your deft attempt to spin such into a positive here only impresses the Clintonistas. Everyone else sees you for the jerk you are.
Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.
In other words, his crime is not participating in an illegal market, a market that was made illegal to prevent it from existing. Brilliant W.o.D. circlethink!
I'll take a stab at it. The answer is maybe. To assert that if you didn't grow your own, you would buy it, and that you would buy it from someone in another state involves assumptions that cannot be proven.
Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.
Don't argue with him. His MO is to get you to keep responding to his nonsense. His entire argument is irrlevant because it is based upon an Act that the Federal government had no authority to enact. The absurdity and illogical nature of the "declarations and finsings" of the CSA, and the lack of authortiy to regulate what is mentoned within, has been explained to him probably a hundred times or more. Just ignore his nonsense.
Backwards.
I pointed out Kane's teaming up with Soros, Elders, etc, to play the race card. Then you jumped in parroting the "WOD is racist" too.
Hillary would be proud of you, dirtboy.
You are still defending the drug culture, kind of like the rhetoric of Mario Cuomo who says that abortion is wrong, but will "defend" the right to have an abortion no matter what.
The pro WOD folks are ideological twins to Algore's philosophy of a living, breathing Constitution.
Both endorse the expansive view of the General Welfare and Commerce Clause that gave us the Great Society in the 60's and Clinton's "Third Way" in the 90's.
Through his rhetoric.
Through his rhetoric.
Until you quote the specific "rhetoric" that equates to "drugs are benign," this remains just your baldfaced lie.
How's that policy working out for you?
Excellent. I do not have to rely upon drugs for daily enjoyment and living.
But if drugs were legal you WOULD have to rely upon drugs for daily enjoyment and living?
What, exactly, is a cruth? And while we're at it, how does one "suckel" one's breast?
And how many years have you been communicating in English?
I'm glad you don't have to rely upon drugs for daily enjoyment and living, but you should really learn how to rely upon proofreading before hitting the Post button.
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.