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.
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".
No, Congress cannot prohibit Ohio from banning out-of-state apples---but it can sue Ohio in federal court for usurping its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
His memory is working just fine. Your Google search skills, however, seem to be disabled.
The subject to which the power is next applied, is to commerce 'among the several States.' The word 'among' means intermingled with. A thing which is among others, is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior.
--- GIBBONS v. OGDEN, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)
Don't say I didn't try to keep you from looking ignorant.
Frankly, I don't hate socialists. I hate socialism. It doesn't bother me in the least that Soros is interested in drug law reform because unlike you, I understand what socialism is, and what it is isn't, and what it isn't is an arbitrary dividing line meant to separate people into an "us" versus "them" dichotomy. Sometimes, Dane, you really behave like a junior high student hell-bent on hating everyone who doesn't go to your particular junior high school just because they don't.
Don't you like truth that real socialists and flat-out communists like Stalin, Ho, and Chairman Mao share your views on drug laws? Funny, you never respond to this.
How dishonest of you to leave out the three sentences that immediately follow that text:
It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.
Comprehensive as the word 'among' is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.
Okay then: by your own admission, I haven't engaged in commerce of any kind. Yet, through the CSA, the Feds could still bust me, throw me in the klink, confiscate my home and my possessions, and even shoot me and my labrador retriever and get away with it. Just law?Now you change your hypothetical: if I didn't grow my own, why would you assume I'd get it from another state? Quite frankly, I believe in supporting Massachusetts farmers whenever possible. Since I live in a semi-rural area, in the summer and fall, I always get my vegetables from roadside farms. Why would marijuana be any different?
So, growing your own affects (negatively) commerce with another state, does it not?
How so? You just admitted it didn't, then switched around the variables to your hypothetical to ensure it did.
Never mind. I'm sure answering the question and contributing to the debate is not as fun as calling someone a New Dealer.
I didn't mean it as an insult. My father-in-law, who just passed away, was a New Dealer, and I loved him dearly. But how could you not be one when you say stuff like this: "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."
This argument is only sustainable by assuming that any possible affect on interstate commerce will indeed happen. So far you haven't presented any evidence to support making that assumption.
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.
Filburn planted an additional 12 acres of wheat in excess of his allotment to feed his livestock, not to sell to the government. In your opinion, would the goverment have had the same right to penalize him if he had planted that 12 acres in corn, soybeans, or any other crop suitable for livestock feed, that was not covered by a subsidy program he was participating in? The end result would have been the same - by growing his own grain he might not have had to buy grain. Of course he also had the option of slaughtering the livestock instead of feeding them, which means he might not have had to buy meat. Could they have fined him for that, too?
Why?
And the majority of cops, if they are honest, in private will tell you the WOD is a waste of tax money, police resources, and this WOD was lost long ago.
We need to get government the hell out of our personal lives. I don't give a damn if it's the state or the feds.
The latest news out of Georgia is they are considering a law that would made it illegal to smoke cigarettes in your vehicle if children are present in the vehicle.
BOTTOM LINE...
The state AND the feds need to get the hell out of our personal lives and businesses.
"I think they should, but that's me."
You have to be kidding? You are right? Please tell me you are just kidding.
I'm not sitting here, holding court, spewing forth my philosophy and the way I think things ought to be. My posts are almost always a response to a question or idiotic statement (more the latter).
I feel very comfortable, and not in the least hypocritical, in stating that the Commerce Clause both allows and prohibits interstate commerce depending on the commercial activity. IMO, the Gun Free Schools and VAWA were an over-reach by congress. IMO, the CSA is not. Maybe you disagree. Fine.
But it's really hard to sit here and say nothing when some ignorant doper posts, "That's against the constitution, man".
Go tell that to William F. Buckley, founder and editor of National Review, perhaps the most prominent CONSERVATIVE magazine in the nation. Bill's for legalizing drugs.
Are you suggesting that William F. Buckley is a socialist????
Kevin, your claims are so ludicrous as to be just plain funny. Buckley = socialist.
Uh, yeah....
Get a friggin' clue. There IS such a thing as a CONSERVATIVE who believes in LIMITED GOVERNMENT being in favor of decriminalizing drugs.
Do you have a large metal plate in your head that prohibits you from understanding this fact? You, and Dane, and CJ seem to have this INCREDIBLE passion and zeal for believing that 'pro-dopers' cannot possibly be 'conservative', but you stick your foot in your mouth every friggin' time you try and prove it.
When will you pull your proverbial head out, and realize that HONEST CONSERVATIVES WHO HATE SOCIALISM CAN actually favor decriminalization of drugs? I have to begin to question your ability to reason rationally since you keep up the BS lies about conservatives who favor limited government.
A really, really, really graphic vidclip of someone committing suicide by blowing his head off with a firearm.
It's even harder for us dopers to sit back and watch a fellow conservative argue for liberalism, Mr. Paulsen.
No, like you support it.
I didn't see a firearm. You can see it at http://home.enter.vg/badhumour/animations/anim2.gif.
The court did not rule that the VAWA did not affect commerce. It ruled that it was a local, non-economic activity and that whatever potential affect it might have on interstate commerce was not sufficient for Congress to establish jurisdiction under the ICC.
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.
