Judge takes swing at war on drugs

Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 29, 2003 | Karen Abbott

[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.

[robertpaulsen]

Let me guess. You work for the Amsterdam Travel Office, don't you?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Let me guess. You work for the Amsterdam Travel Office, don't you?

Can I sign you up for a few tickets?

[MrLeRoy]

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.

[MrLeRoy]

Time for your unconservative nonsense: the CSA is constitutional because federal courts have upheld it, but Roe v Wade is unconstitutional although federal courts have upheld it.

[jayef]

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?

Wasn't this also about the time that the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" took root? I wonder if they have anything to do with the growth of the state and its invasion of every facet of our private life. Hmmmmm?

[IncPen]

Uh, Great Society, 1960s; New Deal, 1930s.

[jayef]

Thanks for the history lesson. The point is that the thinking behind these two massive power grabs was taking hold during that era. The greatest expansion of Federal power took place during our two largest wars (Civil & WWII). The onslaught on our private lives is largely a late to mid 20th century development. These things do take time you know.

[MrLeRoy]

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.

[TigersEye]

"Our national drug policy is ... wholly ignorant of the compelling force of forgiveness,"

Amen!