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.
Reread for comprehension: "Removing penalties for selling to adults, while retaining them for selling to children, will give them an economic incentive to not sell to children---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult business."
Based upon his answers he rules from the bench consistant with his opinion.
That is a lie; the article says nothing about his rulings.
Testy aren't you?
So that would be a no. Got it.
Please show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.
It's the lack of policy that encourages them to sell to anyone, including children. How many illegal beer sellers willing to sell to children are there?
Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing while reading your screed.
I'll second that ....
I offer it again
Sandra Day O'Connor serves on the Supreme Court.
Her fellow justices are Renquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg.
Sheesh you are a loud mouthed testy person, but what else should I expect from a person who holds a Jimmy Carter appointee in such "high" esteem.
Yes, indeed. That's because the ideology of pro-doperism is a socialist cause--not a conservative cause.
There's a difference between keeping kids frm doing something, and keeping kids from personally buying something. There are penalties for selling beer and cigs to minors, and stores won't do it. It was much easier for me to get marijuana in high school than it was to get beer or smokes - go figure. You tell me why.
Ford appointed Stevens and Bush 41 appointed Souter and I beleive it was Kennedy who appointed Byron White.
So? That doesn't change the fact that Carter appointed Judge Kane is following a major tenet of the modern American left and that is the tenet of drug validation.
Actually, it's a liberal cause.
Guess its time to start arresting the adults who smoke and drink. That should keep it away from the kiddies.
Dane, Dane, Dane. Once again, you're doing your feeble best to deflect to debate, in this instance trying to apply the liberal label to anyone in favor of changing the federal drug war. Despite the wide range of figures on the right who are questioning the approach the feds are taking towards drugs, you insist that it's all just a bunch of liberal hooey, as if anyone except a few of your cohorts on FR believes you. But go ahead, spew your nonsense, because more and more people in positions of power and influence are questioning the insanity of doing more and more of what is failing.
In other words, better sane ... than Dane.
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.