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.
I did not mention NARAL and you did not ask that as a questoin so that makes you an MF liar. Still.
I sure don't.
Why not? It's a beautiful, vibrant city with plenty to do and plenty to see. It's clean, safe, and populated by some of the most beautiful women on Planet Earth. AND they love Americans. Why wouldn't you want to live there?
Retract what
As a matter of fact, JR got quite pissed at one particular female poster who no longer posts here because she seemed to post things that advocated/celebrated drug use/the drug culture. JimRob has written emphatically that while he doesn't support the W.o.D., he doesn't support drugs. Unlike you, Dane, JimRob is quite consistent in his conservative ideology.
Drug Warriors are among the duller knives in the drawer.
Are you kidding me? The sum total of your argument in favor of the W.o.D. boils down to "George Soros is for it, and since George Soros is a socialist, I'm against whatever he thinks."I'm sure pro W.o.D. guys like robertpaulsen and Roscoe, who actually put some thought behind their posts, wince that you're on their side.
Were we a 'pro-dope' nation for the century-plus when drugs were legal?
Blaming the problems of addiction on the WOD is a common straw argument on these threads.
No, blaming the problems of the WOD on the WOD is a common sound argument; deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars, enrichment of criminals, and corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals are all caused by the WOD just as they were caused by Prohibition.
But protecting my rights from the certain effects of a stoned society may necessarily involve curtailing what you believe to be 'your rights'.
His rights include every act that doesn't violate somebody else's rights. Which "effects of a stoned society" violate your rights?
Funny, my very liberal, single, admittedly hedonistic ex-college roommate came back from Amsterdam a week ago after a much-anticipated trip.
He described it as seemy, smelly and depressing, unfit for families. He didn't feel safe and said that for all of its promise it was not a place 'on the rise'. He also said that there were trainloads of high school kids (mostly from London) who came up for the party and were unruly and had the run of the place. He cut that part of his vacation short.
He's the last guy on earth I would have expected such comments from.
I did clarify that. If you choose to ignore the clarification, fine. But expect to see the following paragraphs everytime you attemt to misinterpret what I said:
"Congress can regulate non-"commercial" or non-"economic" activity under the third category of its interstate commerce authority. But it can only do so where the non-"commercial" or non-"economic" regulation is, as Lopez explained, "an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1631."
The Court has confined the third category of activities that Congress may regulate pursuant to its interstate commerce power to "cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce." Lopez, 115 S. Ct. at 1630, 1631.
The courts would not, and have not, approved regulations of activities that did not have a substantial effect. Cases in point: VAWA and Gun Free Schools. I said before that I agreed with those decisions.
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. If there is an activity that undercuts that regulatory power, it needs to be addressed. Simply a practical view.
I brought up this whole point to demostrate that when Dane et al try to smear by implication and association and by deception, they also smear JR, and I'm sure that they don't have the fortitude to even disagree with him one on one.
He described it as seemy, smelly and depressing, unfit for families. He didn't feel safe and said that for all of its promise it was not a place 'on the rise'. He also said that there were trainloads of high school kids (mostly from London) who came up for the party and were unruly and had the run of the place. He cut that part of his vacation short.
He's the last guy on earth I would have expected such comments from.
Then he must've stayed in a crappy, crappy place. I've been to Amsterdam several times and I haven't experienced anything remotely like what your ex-college roommate described.I don't mean to say that all of Amsterdam is the Garden of Eden---like all major cities, I'm sure it has its seedy areas. But your attempt to paint Amsterdam as some sort of war zone of a hell hole just because marijuana is decriminalized there is disingenuous. Amsterdam is cleaner, safer, friendlier, and more visually stunning than a good number of American cities.
"cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction"
Now, how do you reconcile that opinion with your own in the context of someone growing marijuana for their own use?
Were we a 'pro-dope' nation for the century-plus when drugs were legal?
No, we didn't need a WOD until the liberal left began their campaign to dismantle this country with the 'free love' and 'pro dope' movements in the 50s. Funny how that coincides with the 'red menace', and the Cold War, no?
The paycheck for free love is rampant STDs, AIDS and 40 million abortions.
The paycheck for the pro-dope agenda is broken families, crime, homelessness and neglected children. That's what we've got when we say we don't want drugs. You're positing that it will be better if we just let everyone have drugs. That's preposterous.
No, blaming the problems of the WOD on the WOD is a common sound argument; deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars, enrichment of criminals, and corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals are all caused by the WOD just as they were caused by Prohibition.
The addictive characteristics of drugs and alcohol are dissimilar physiologically. Cocaine, marijuana and heroin are not comparable to alcohol, which has been synthesized widely in the human species for thousands of years. You're making an apples and oranges argument.
I'm saying the root effects of 'free love' and 'free dope' is a distinct loss of humanity (read: crime, neglected children, abortion, divorce).
For a government (which is made up of people) to throw in the towel on its own citizens is an abomination.
His rights include every act that doesn't violate somebody else's rights. Which "effects of a stoned society" violate your rights?
At a minimum: a PREVENTABLE loss of productivity, increase in welfare and disability recipients, unsafe streets with stoners and addicts driving, higher insurance costs, higher prescription drug costs, child addicts, neglected children, increases in violent crime.
If you think the government is intrusive now, wait til the liberals have us all picking up after- and paying for- the remnants of your little utopia.
As I said, this was the visceral reaction of someone who very much looked forward to going there. No one was more surprised than me that he despised the place.
And if this were only about marijuana I'd probably agree with you. But those promoting this 'cause' are in league- whether they know it or admit it or not- with a failed agenda that's at least 50 years old in this country.
See my post #354.
It would have to be with the second part of that same sentence, "which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce."
One person, no effect. But looking at the aggregate effect, it's obvious the courts feel there is a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. My own opinion? It's a stretch, but valid.
Everyone is losing sight of one key ingredient here -- Conngress must first pass a law. People are getting hung up on how the commerce clause is being interpreted (or misinterpreted) as if that's where the "problem" is. Congress can't just willy-nilly start regulating gardens, and apples, and whatever. That law has to pass both houses and be signed by the President. Then it has to survive court challenges to "essential part" and "substantial effects" -- some do, some don't.
The "problem", for those whose wish to legalize marijuana, is the law, not the commerce clause. Placing the blame on the Supreme Court diverts your attention from the real reason that marijuana is illegal: The voters want marijuana to be illegal.
Unfortunately the second part of that sentence does not stand alone, but is dependent on the first part, which specifies "activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction".
In terms of the explosive growth of the federal government, and it's intrusion into areas of our lives it shouldn't be concerned with, it is the problem, or at least the part of the problem we can deal with without getting into legislating mind control.
Then why were drugs criminalized several decades earlier? Your 'history of drugs' is flawed.
broken families, crime, homelessness and neglected children. That's what we've got when we say we don't want drugs. You're positing that it will be better if we just let everyone have drugs.
No I'm not---except for crime, which is fueled by high drug prices, which are fueled by their illegality.
The addictive characteristics of drugs and alcohol are dissimilar physiologically.
Provide evidence for your claim.
Which "effects of a stoned society" violate your rights?
At a minimum: a PREVENTABLE loss of productivity,
You have no "right" to others' productivity.
increase in welfare and disability recipients,
To give taxpayer money to anyone, drug-disabled or otherwise, is a societal choice, not a requirement imposed by the recipients. I'm for ending ALL welfare, and I'd support denying it to drug or alcohol users.
unsafe streets with stoners and addicts driving,
Equally an argument for banning alcohol. Why should ALL users be punished because of what SOME users do?
higher insurance costs,
You have no "right" to low insurance costs.
higher prescription drug costs,
Why?
child addicts,
If drugs were legal only for adults, there might very well be fewer child users, since drug sellers would have an economic incentive to not sell to children---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult market.
neglected children,
Equally an argument for banning alcohol. Why should ALL users be punished because of what SOME users do?
increases in violent crime.
From the U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (publication NCJ 145534): "Of all psychoactive substances, alcohol is the only one whose consumption has been shown to commonly increase aggression. [...] Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."
Nothing personal, but not as you said, as you refined later on. At first you made your statement as if it were your own observation and an absolute given. Your friend's observations could've been derivative of several different things, none of which necessarily had to be the fact that marijuana is decriminalized in Amsterdam. Maybe your friend's poor and couldn't afford to stay in a decent hotel in the city. Maybe your friend really digs the Red Light district and got caught up in the seamier side of the city. Maybe your friend ended up in one of the many beer blast bars behind the Heineken factory and didn’t like the scenery there. Who knows?
And if this were only about marijuana I'd probably agree with you. But those promoting this 'cause' are in league- whether they know it or admit it or not- with a failed agenda that's at least 50 years old in this country. See my post #354.
Again, nothing personal, but your post #354 represents a simplistic, sanitized version of the Drug War that's highly stylized to fit your political agenda.At the end of the day, the entire Drug War is nothing but a vile, odious outgrowth of big government liberalism designed to self-perpetuate because it makes particular political constituencies feel good about themselves. When you think about it, it really is the most perfect big government liberal construct there is. Hard-core, flag-waving, hippie-hating conservatives like you can feel good about hauling the trash off to prison, while liberals can jack up our taxes to pay for the whole thing.
We conservatives speaking out against the Drug War on Free Republic have no interest in any form of liberalism, and insinuating that we do because hippies, beatniks, or whatever liberal group of yesteryear liked drugs/free love/whatever is about as intellectually honest as insinuating you're a totalitarian dictator because you share the same opinion on drug control as Stalin, Mao, Ho, Castro, or Hitler. Do you really aspire to be Dane Jr.?
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.