Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge takes swing at war on drugs
Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 29, 2003 | Karen Abbott

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-369 next last
To: dirtboy
LOL! Dirtboy. I was rereading the thread from the beginning and what do I see as the first keyword, BETTERSANETHANDANE.

LOL! You are that juvenile and petty. Oh well I if I am going to have petty and personal insults thrown at me that would warm Hillary and Daschle's heart, I guess I am getting to you all and I wear your "insult" as a badge of honor.

221 posted on 01/30/2003 11:20:06 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
222 posted on 01/30/2003 11:21:29 AM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
How about this?
How about you answer the question I asked first instead of asking another one. I answered yours so answer mine.
Besides, you're basically asking the same question you asked earlier under a different facade.
223 posted on 01/30/2003 11:21:49 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Dane
LOL! You are that juvenile and petty

Gee, Dane, I don't even use keywords, someone else typed it in there. So I guess folks like the saying, probably because it fits you quite well. After all, what kind of person claims that a judge who says this:

"I don't favor drugs at all," Kane said.

Therefore believes, as you claim, that drugs are "benign". Not a sane person, nor someone the least bit interested in honest debate.

224 posted on 01/30/2003 11:25:43 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: steve50
"Of course the dirty little secret of this thread is that Judge Kane was appointed in 1977, that means appointed by Jimmy Carter. Another dirty little secret is a republican appointed panel told Nixon this WosD was stupid in the 70's. "

Why would either of these facts be dirty little secrets? Stupid people occasionally do smart things, smart people occasionally do stupid things.

Some people think calling names is a form of debate? Strange but true.

225 posted on 01/30/2003 11:29:03 AM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.

Through his rhetoric.

Until you quote the specific "rhetoric" that equates to "drugs are benign," this remains just your baldfaced lie.

226 posted on 01/30/2003 11:31:25 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I thought you did.
Not completely. I only answered the first part of your question. Your question was...

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs?
The second part of your "question" is ludicrous to me.
In your scenario everything and anything, even doing nothing, affects interstate commerce.

227 posted on 01/30/2003 11:32:17 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.

Through his rhetoric.

Until you quote the specific "rhetoric" that equates to "drugs are benign," this remains just your baldfaced lie.

228 posted on 01/30/2003 11:32:26 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
In your scenario everything and anything, even doing nothing, affects interstate commerce.

Yep, if I sleep late Saturday, I'm not working or shopping, so therefore the federal government should be allowed to come kick in my door, drag me out of bed and send me on my way, lest I detrimentallly affect interstate commerce...

229 posted on 01/30/2003 11:34:40 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

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

Which in turn means he is out of sync with the modern federalist movement, and instead is more in line with judicial activism. In other words, he's a liberal.

230 posted on 01/30/2003 11:36:31 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
It's a shame when you have to qualify an answer isn't it. One is left with no recourse when the questions are asked in the manner in which they are.
Sounds like someone is setting out to catch someone else in their own words.
231 posted on 01/30/2003 11:36:43 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
You get it...
232 posted on 01/30/2003 11:38:05 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
"How have I engaged in interstate commerce of marijuana in any way?"

You haven't. BTW, if you didn't grow your own, where would you get it? Is it possible that you would purchase it from another state? (of course you would)

So, growing your own affects (negatively) commerce with another state, does it not?

Never mind. I'm sure answering the question and contributing to the debate is not as fun as calling someone a New Dealer.

Filburn (one l) tried to scam the system and got what he deserved. The US government was paying him almost 3X world price, and the ungrateful twit decides to get greedy.

233 posted on 01/30/2003 11:39:59 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Not a sane person

It seems that you loathe me.

Just another badge of honor.

234 posted on 01/30/2003 11:42:09 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

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

I will allow you to rethink that.

Why would I want to?

So you don't appear ignorant.

235 posted on 01/30/2003 11:44:46 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Dane
It seems that you loathe me.

Naw, you ain't worth the trouble.

Just another badge of honor.

Since you routinely get your a** kicked on the drug war threads by posters armed with fact, logic and honor, I really don't think you have the slightest grasp of the concept.

236 posted on 01/30/2003 11:44:48 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Is it possible that you would purchase it from another state? (of course you would)
Now you won't even let others answer the questions you present. You're answering the questions for them.
You even threw in "possible"...
Is it possible that you wouldn't purchase it from another state?
Many things are "possible".
237 posted on 01/30/2003 11:45:32 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You know, the vast majority of posters on FR refrain from providing ever-more detail arguments supporting liberal philosophy regarding the Commerce Clause. The fact that you insist on digging that hole you are standing in deeper and deeper is truly a bizzare sight.
238 posted on 01/30/2003 11:47:22 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Ohio can prohibit apples (regardless of origin) WITHIN its borders.

I will allow you to rethink that.

Why would I want to?

So you don't appear ignorant.

That's funny, coming from a guy who thinks acts that can affect commerce are commerce. Tell me why Ohio can't prohibit apples (regardless of origin) within its borders.

239 posted on 01/30/2003 11:47:47 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Many things are "possible".

It's possible I'll shoot someone tomorrow. Doesn't give the feds the right to throw me in jail ... yet. But robertpaulsen is hard at work making the case for the feds to have just that kind of discretionary power.

240 posted on 01/30/2003 11:48:34 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 361-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson