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.
That was me, Dane. Only reason I have started that is because of your cohorts using crap like "Loserdopians", "FreeTallydoper" and other slanderous nonsense as keywords. Credit the "SHARKMOUNTEDLASERS" to me also.
Just an observation that either you are a creature of habit or have a short term memory problem.
Routinely? Huh it seems that it was the pro-drug cause that got it's a** kicked last November.
Yes, a great example of the absurd ends many posters here want to strecth the ICC to. Based upon the New Deal interpretation, this would be a logical end of the ICC. Looks like State's rights is just a myth....
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.
Thank you for your honesty and I apologize to dirtboy for my transgression of accusing him of putting in that keyword.
JMO, some of the keywords can be funny, but they shouldn't get personal to other posters.
I agree.
Excellent question. But just because Congress has the power to regulate an activity, doesn't mean they should. Or that the people would allow them to (they still have to pass a law).
Secondly, Congress has tried to regulate social policy using the Commerce Clause as constitutional authorization to pass the Gun Free Schools Act and the Violence Against Women Act, both of which were ruled unconstitutional (didn't affect commerce).
Checks and balances.
I think they should, but that's me.
Keep in mind, funny one, that congress would have to pass a law to that effect. Think they could, with just my vote? Think the POTUS would sign it?
Think anyone should take you seriesly?
So your reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause is bunk. Imagine our surprise.
Too bad spleen isn't a substitute for facts.
Appellant John Wacker argues that the section of the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 under which he was convicted, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (the "Drug Act"), impermissibly regulates intrastate activities which do not substantially affect interstate commerce, in violation of the Tenth Amendment. Although he does not cite United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), we assume that he asks us, in light of that recent decision, to reconsider our holding in United States v. King, 485 F.2d 353, 356 (10th Cir. 1973), that 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) is constitutional.United States v. WackerThis argument was recently rejected by the Fourth Circuit, see United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995), and we agree that it is without merit.
Moreover, contrary to Leshuk's alternative contention, the Drug Act is not unconstitutional as applied if his possession and cultivation were for personal use and did not substantially affect interstate commerce. Although a conviction under the Drug Act does not require the government to show that the specific conduct at issue substantially affected interstate commerce, see Scales, 464 F.2d at 373, Lopez expressly reaffirmed the principle that "where a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1629 (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 197 n.27 (1968)); see also United States v. Stillo, 57 F.3d 553, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995); Scales, 464 F.2d at 374- 76. We thus reject Leshuk's Commerce Clause challenge to the constitutionality of the Drug Act.
It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.Proyect v. United States
Should be involved? Not in my opinion.
Could they be involved? Well, first a law would have to be passed. Could such a law be written? I doubt it. But if it could be written, passed by both houses, and signed by the president, it could be challenged in court.
Be easier to pass a law banning all apples, wouldn't it?
But you said that Ohio cannot prohibit the shipment of apples across it's borders. That's an "act" by Ohio which would affect commerce, isn't it?
Yet you say congress can regulate, in this case prohibit, that "act".
The court cases you cite are examples of the Court disagreeing with your expansive view.
How is your philosophy of the Constitution any different from the liberals' living, breathing Constitution?
I can safely predict that hardly anyone here respects your expansionist interpretation of the commerce clause, as it is ammo for an authoritarian federal government...
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.