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.
Based upon your view of the Commerce Clause, do you think Congress should have such regulatory power?
But, since you decided to participate, I'll ask you the same question. Does growing your own pot affect interstate commerce? So far, dirtboy is the only one who claims that it doesn't. Care to join him?
Baloney. Are you one of the last remaining New Dealers in the United States? Is Wickard v. Fillburn fun bedtime reading?
But, since you decided to participate, I'll ask you the same question. Does growing your own pot affect interstate commerce? So far, dirtboy is the only one who claims that it doesn't. Care to join him?
Absolutely. Say I cultivate my own marijuana and consume each and every bud produced by my plants myself. How have I engaged in interstate commerce of marijuana in any way?
Would that be Roscoe's skull?
And I'll answer your question while I'm at it.
As phrased the answer to your question is yes, growing your own pot affects interstate commerce. Your question leaves out "intent". One could grow their own pot for resale, which is exactly what some do.
Growing pot for personal consumption IMO doesn't affect interstate commerce. Your opinion and mine may differ though.
You guys jump to such absurd ends that it is utterly hilarious.
My thoughts exactly. I suppose I'll be expecting a visit from the FBI, since I haven't bought anything recently
Interesting hypothetical, because that's exactly why the Commerce Clause was written into the Constitution in the first place---to regulate (i.e., make regular) commerce between the several states. The FFs wanted to ensure that states wouldn't set up tarrifs for other states. Before the New Dealers got ahold of the Commerce Clause, most CC cases before the USSC were about this kind of thing.
I suppose W buys into the idea that fighting the WoD by focusing mainly on the suppliers has some chance of being effective.
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.