Judge takes swing at war on drugs

Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 29, 2003 | Karen Abbott

[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.

[MrLeRoy]

So Ohio can prohibit the shipment of apples across it's borders?

No, that power is reserved to Congress. Ohio can prohibit apples (regrardless of origin) WITHIN its borders.

[biblewonk]

I suppose W buys into the idea that fighting the WoD by focusing mainly on the suppliers has some chance of being effective.

You have to admit, it takes a real bonehead to be a supplier. I can unstand growing your own weed but being a supplier is snubbing the law and getting rich at the same time.

[MrLeRoy]

Then you still haven't answered the question: How's that policy ["Drugs are illegal to EVERYONE"] working out for you?

Oh, I am perfectly happy.

How would you be any less happy if drugs were legal?

[Ken H]

Those who believe the Feds should have authority to overrule the States' power to set policies on drugs, labor and abortion are of the Algore living, breathing Constitution school of the thought.

Guns are a separate issue, however. Because of the Second Amendment the Feds do have a proper constitutional role to prevent States from infringing on the RKBA.

[robertpaulsen]

"Based upon your view of the Commerce Clause, do you think Congress should have such regulatory power?"

I think that is exactly what Article I, Section 8 says. If a state, or activity in that state, affects, or can affect, interstate commerce, congress has the constitutional power to regulate it. And they have the authority (in the same Section) to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

Should congress have that power? Yes, I think they should.

[MrLeRoy]

I said I based my statment on his comments.

That was a lie, since your statement did not follow from anything he said.

[MrLeRoy]

I think that is exactly what Article I, Section 8 says. If a state, or activity in that state, affects, or can affect, interstate commerce, congress has the constitutional power to regulate it.

No, that's NOT what Article I, Section 8 says; here, AGAIN, is what it says: "The Congress shall have power to [...] regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

"Acts that can affect commerce" are not "commerce."

[Dick Bachert]

If memory serves, Judge Kane was the same jurist who read the IRS the RIOT ACT after discovering the IRS had PLANTED an IRS agent on a jury in a tax case in his court. I seem to recall that he declared a mistrial in the case, subjecting himself to some serious IRS scrutiny of HIS taxes.

You DO know, don't you, that because judges are also tax filers, most of them do just about whatever the IRS and US Attorneys "suggest" in those cases? One or two who refused found themselves in prison.

Judge Kane got it EXACTLY RIGHT and I wish there were thousands more like him. That there are not does not bode well for the future of due process here.

[robertpaulsen]

"Ohio can prohibit apples (regrardless of origin) WITHIN its borders."

I will allow you to rethink that.

[libertyman]

So does that mean that George Washington was a socialist because he was a marijuana farmer? (read his diary.....7th Volume, last chapter: "Hemp As a Fibre Crop").

He also mentioned his unfortunate mistake of rooting out his male plants "a little too late"....now why would THAT be? Why would he want to prevent his famale plants from being pollinated....because pollination may actually lower the amount of THC w/in the plant, therefore Mr. Washington possibly could have been a SMOKER as well?

Send him to the gas chambers, Dane!

[Dane]

and longer than it took for Dane play his Soros Card,

Soros card???? What is it? Don't you like truth that uber socialist and Hillary friend, George Soros is the main funding of pro-drug causes in the US.

[MrLeRoy]

"Ohio can prohibit apples (regardless of origin) WITHIN its borders."

I will allow you to rethink that.

Why would I want to?

[Ken H]

If a state, or activity in that state affects, or can affect interstate commerce, congress has the power to regulate it.

Fair enough, but under that expansive viewpoint, what area of domestic social policy does Congress not have the power to regulate?

Health care, education, environmental issues, and affirmative action can all affect interstate commerce since they involve economic activities.

Isn't that a very expansive, liberal view of the Constitution?

[tacticalogic]

I think that is exactly what Article I, Section 8 says. If a state, or activity in that state, affects, or can affect, interstate commerce, congress has the constitutional power to regulate it. And they have the authority (in the same Section) to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."

Should congress have that power? Yes, I think they should.

Then you would disagree with the USSC in the case of US v Morrision, and the constitutionality of the VAWA.

[robertpaulsen]

"How does growing your own pot for personal consumption affect interstate commerce?"

How about this? If you built your own garbage disposal for you to use, would that affect the interstate commerce of garbage disposals?

[robertpaulsen]

"Shall I answer this one now?"

I thought you did. In your post #193 you said, "Growing pot for personal consumption IMO doesn't affect interstate commerce."

I disagree, but then again, that's not new.

[vin-one]

I join in RP, growing one's own pot for personal use, does not affect interstate commerce.
however if sold it could. So in a nut shell NO.

[MrLeRoy]

Then you would disagree with the USSC in the case of US v Morrison, and the constitutionality of the VAWA.

I suppose that was the SC "legislating from the bench" again. LOL!