Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge takes swing at war on drugs
Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 29, 2003 | Karen Abbott

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 361-369 next last
Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: dirtboy
Hardly. Little "l" libertarian Ron Paul has written a compelling anti-abortion argument based upon the same starting philosophy, because in his view the fetus is also an individual and therefore deserving of protection under the law.

Huh he voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.(Jun 1999)

and

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

To be fair he has voted against partial birth abortion in 2000 but that was an election year. Seems like Mr. Paul knows where his bread is buttered in election years.

82 posted on 01/30/2003 8:34:40 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.

In fact, Judge Kane indicated otherwise:

"I don't favor drugs at all," Kane said.

Not that the facts will stop Dane's abuse of logic and language.

83 posted on 01/30/2003 8:34:54 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh he voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion.(Jun 1999) and Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Probably because the federal government has no standing on such laws, as those are state matters. But, given your position on the federal drug war and the 10th Amendment, I hardly expect you to understand the concept of limited government as it applies to other areas of society.

To be fair he has voted against partial birth abortion in 2000 but that was an election year. Seems like Mr. Paul knows where his bread is buttered in election years.

Ron Paul doesn't need to pander to his constituency to get re-elected. But trolls like you find it necessary to impunge his character by questioning his motives.

84 posted on 01/30/2003 8:37:18 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
According to ladydoc, Kevin Curry, Dane, Cultural jishad, Roscoe, and a few others, opposing the WoD makes one a druggie.

Jim Robinson is NOT in favor of the current WoD.

They have the guts to call you and me druggies, but will they take it to the logical end?

85 posted on 01/30/2003 8:38:03 AM PST by Eagle Eye (One cannot support the WoD and still support the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dane
why would he care about an election if he was an appointed judge,
I thought that meant he was not elected?????
86 posted on 01/30/2003 8:38:23 AM PST by vin-one (I wish i had something clever to put in this tag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Interesting that you have to reach all the way back to the 1960s to make your point, whereas I can name all kinds of modern-day conservatives from all ranges of the conservative spectrum. And, once again, please show where I have tried to advocate or validate drug use, Dane. Hint: I haven't, but that doesn't stop you from lying about my positions and motivations

Still it seems that you want to forget the 60's when the modern drug culture got it's start. Also i can name the one person who is the main moneyman giving money for the pro-drug cause, Hillary friend George Soros.

Bill Buckley writes a couple of articles, but it is uber socialist Soros who is putting his money where his mouth is.

87 posted on 01/30/2003 8:38:36 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"cultivation for personal use, where no commerce occurs."

So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

You're saying that growing your own has no effect in interstate commerce. Sure it does. Affects intrastate commerce, too.

88 posted on 01/30/2003 8:39:36 AM PST by robertpaulsen (Where's he going with this? Is this a trap?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vin-one
why would he care about an election if he was an appointed judge, I thought that meant he was not elected?????

Uh dude, I was referring to Ron Paul in reply #82. Oh I forgot that short term memory problem. Never mind.

89 posted on 01/30/2003 8:41:39 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Still it seems that you want to forget the 60's when the modern drug culture got it's start.

Drugs are as old as humanity, Dane. Some of us can read history instead of only having the limited intellectual capacity to remember what they've seen on TV.

Also i can name the one person who is the main moneyman giving money for the pro-drug cause, Hillary friend George Soros.

Goody for you, Dane. You can name one name.

Bill Buckley writes a couple of articles, but it is uber socialist Soros who is putting his money where his mouth is.

Buckley, Friedman, George Schultz, and many others. I could compile an exhaustive list of conservatives questioning the current approach to the war on drugs, Dane, but it wouldn't sway you a bit. Enough to let your lies and propaganda on this thread speak for themselves. BTW, we're still waiting for you to document any pro-abort sentiments voiced by Judge Kane.

--- crickets ---

90 posted on 01/30/2003 8:42:49 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

You guys jump to such absurd ends that it is utterly hilarious.

91 posted on 01/30/2003 8:43:15 AM PST by FreeTally (How did a fool and his money get together in the first place?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
Again, what is the policy that makes drug dealers sell to children.?
Economics 101.

Today's Lesson: Black Markets.

The government bans or limits the consumption of a product. Demand exists beyond what the law allows.

The Law of Supply and Demand is one of the Basic Rules of Economics, as unrepealable as the Law of Gravity. It tells us that demand always creates supply.

The created supply network has banned by the law. Therefore it exists outside the law.

Participants in the network have no effective legal constraints on their behavior. Any and all methods of competion may therefore be used.

The most ruthless competitors take control of the supply network. They recognize no rules or standards of behavior.

The controllers of the supply network have no problem selling to children.

-Eric

92 posted on 01/30/2003 8:44:34 AM PST by E Rocc (it's really that simple)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So, wouldn't you then conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs? Just a thought.

I thought only liberals tried this absolutely convoluted view of the commerce clause for justifying federal intrusion into every aspect of our lives. Are you really sure you want to trash what is left of your intellectual reputation on this conservative website?

93 posted on 01/30/2003 8:45:46 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

Comment #94 Removed by Moderator

To: robertpaulsen
So, then wouldn't you conclude that cultivation for personal use interferes with interstate commerce because, as a result, no commerce occurs?

Under that interpretation, a family's vegetable garden would be subject to Federal regulation.

95 posted on 01/30/2003 8:47:43 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dane
You may see a 10th amendment issue, I see stopping the spread of the drug culture in which marijuana use is a big component.
Statists often have trouble understanding the difference between disapproving of something and wanting it banned by law.

-Eric

96 posted on 01/30/2003 8:47:47 AM PST by E Rocc (it's really that simple)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Under that interpretation, a family's vegetable garden would be subject to Federal regulation.

Or my mom's quilting or grandma's knitting. Ammo reloading as well. Any product or item one makes for himself/herself would be.

97 posted on 01/30/2003 8:50:17 AM PST by FreeTally (How did a fool and his money get together in the first place?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Oh well I guess that is what I should expect when the "elephant in the living room" is exposed on this thread, that Judge Kane is a Jimmy Carter liberal.

Is anybody surprised?

98 posted on 01/30/2003 8:51:30 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"drugs are benign" "super" jurist, Judge Kane.

Show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.

99 posted on 01/30/2003 8:53:03 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 361-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson