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.
Ask away.
This is the second time that you all on the pro drug side of this thread have implied that "the owner" agrees with you.
IMO, calling the anti-WOD side of the debate "pro-drug" is not objective.
Be that as it may, I can only go by what JR has written and he has written against the Federal WOD.
Two posts mentioning this on a thread of over 300 replies does not show a propensity to hide behind others' opinion, in my opinion.
I have given my own opinions and arguments in nearly every post as have most others here.
Aren't you using George Soros as a crutch in the same way to refute the antiWOD arguments as the anti-WOD posters are using JR to support theirs?
Basically, he doesn't like drug abuse, doesn't advocated drug abuse, does not advocate legalization, but also doesn't like the current WoD.
JR came out on this when some of the WoD threads got real nasty and he wanted everyone to cool off. That was about the time that Kevin Curry posted a thread calling some of us warlocks and you were really into that green-faced guy.
Take step one and admit that there are those that don't use drugs but don't agree with the WoD. It will be a big step in your healing process.
It is sheer dishonesty. It is a lie. They know it. They don't care.
Yep according to you all.
And I can say my opinion all on my own without bringing the "owner" of this site into the debate, like you all try to do. (Replies #85 and #318 being exhibit A and exhibit B).
Seriously, who is the "rough individualist" that you on your side always tout being as the ideal.
JMO, but, IMHO, I should be the winner for the "rough individualist" award for this thread, since I responded to inividual posts and not "pinged" allies or implied in my posts that I could get help from the "owner" of this web site.
So you are implying that the people at NARAL should not be called pro-abortion.
IMHO, you sound like Kate Michaelman(the leader of the pro-abortion movement in the US) with your above italicized statement.
Every reply sounds like a "Wah" to you unless the reply says something positive about uberweed, IMHO.
Whatever Phil, it really doesn't matter, there are bigger things in the world than your quest to legitimize your uberweed.
You all lost last November when voters(evil statists according to some in your merry band) rejected your push of pro-drug ballot intiatives in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio. San Francisco doen't count since that is la la land and cogent arguements haven't been heard there for at least 40 years.
The fact is that you all don't really matter in the scope of modern American politics, IMHO. For all your caterwalling and George Soros money, you have nada, zilch, except posting articles constantly that basically no one reads(Oh yeah you will say that these threads generate hundreds of replies but do the math and it only comes out to usually thirty people at most)
Have a nice life Phil. Maybe someday you will find that the world doesn't revolve around pot.
No matter how many times you deny it, if there's no WOD we're a 'pro-dope' nation. Blaming the problems of addiction on the WOD is a common straw argument on these threads. "Medical Marijuana" is another (fervently put forward- ad nauseum- by the person who started this thread). As I said, Amsterdam is the petri dish example of the way it will be if you folks get your way.
It is part of getting the Federal government out of areas not authorized by the Constitution such as healh care, education, the environment and welfare policies.
Agreed, government doesn't belong in people's lives. But protecting my rights from the certain effects of a stoned society may necessarily involve curtailing what you believe to be 'your rights'. And if you think "welfare policies" have run amok today, wait til every high school kid needs to be in detox- and YOU have to pay for it.
You should inform yourself of this by reading the mission statement of Free Republic.
Irrelevant. Last time I checked there wasn't a litmus test for discussion on this forum as long as the rules of conduct are followed. JimRob has never and I dare say WOULD never impose his opinions on me.
Yes, the owner of this site agrees with my position on the WOD.
I have no idea why you addressed this statement to me. In any case, Jim Robinson has never demanded lock-step adherence to any view, least of all his own. He runs a discussion forum. If dissent bothers you, well, play somewhere else.
Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?
If he asks, I'll tell him. He hasn't asked.
We had no WOD until recently and I don't think the US could seriously be called "pro-dope" for most of its history.
Protecting my rights from certain effects of a stoned society may necessarily involve curtailing what you believe to be "your rights".
I believe my rights, and yours, include the First through Tenth Amendments.
Which ones need curtailing?
And if you think welfare policies a run amok today, just wait until every high school kid is in detox and YOU have to pay for it.
We're paying huge bucks now because of a liberal approach to the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses. We'll keep paying big bucks as long as we have a living, breathing Constitution. I'm trying my best to let you keep more of your money.
Last time I checked, there never was a litmus test for discussion on this forum as long as rules of conduct are followed.
Where did you get that?? I never said or implied otherwise. I referred you to the "Mission Statement" to view the context of the WOD discussion as it fits in with the discussion of Federal involvement in education, welfare etc.
I have no idea why you addressed this to me[re Jim Robinson].
Look, you threw an elbow with your "pro-dope" and "your utopia" comments. I just threw one back.
If dissent bothers you, go play somewhere else.
I never said JR wanted no dissenting opinions. I never said I wanted no dissenting opinions. Geez, you read a lot of things into that post that weren't there.
I enjoy good, hard fought debates. Place would would be dreadful without them.
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.