Posted on 05/06/2003 10:09:33 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
RENO, Nev. (AP) - A Superior Court judge sharply criticized the drug war and renewed his call for the decriminalization of marijuana at a pro-marijuana rally Saturday.
Judge James Gray of Orange County, Calif., said the drug war has cost billions of dollars and resulted in the United States having the world's highest incarceration rate - with no end in sight to rampant drug abuse.
The former federal prosecutor said he has never smoked marijuana, but supports the strictly controlled distribution of pot to adults.
"We have made an illness into a plague. (This is) a failed and hopeless system," Gray said.
"I believe people should be entitled to do what they want to their bodies, but that they should be held accountable," he added.
Gray, 58, a lifelong Republican until he became a Libertarian earlier this year, has been a judge for 19 years. He's the author of "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It."
More than 60 people attended the "Rally for Cannabis Liberation" at Reno's Idlewild Park.
The rally was sponsored by Cures not Wars, a pro-marijuana group that was to hold similar rallies around the country this weekend.
Group spokeswoman Michelle Buck of Reno said the purpose of the rally was to raise awareness that tens of thousands of Americans are in prisons for non-violent drug crimes.
Of particular concern, she said, are thousands who have been arrested for legally or illegally supplying medical marijuana.
Some people held signs that read "Free Ed Rosenthal." The Oakland, Calif., man's arrest last year was among a string of federal raids of medical marijuana suppliers in California.
A 1970 federal law does not recognize any medical purposes for marijuana. A federal judge refused in January to allow Rosenthal to tell jurors he was operating under state law.
Jurors convicted Rosenthal. When they learned the details they were not told during the trial, several jurors said they regretted their verdict.
"We're here to show our support for people like Ed," Buck said. "Marijuana is not the evil drug the federal government has made it out to be."
In November, Nevada voters rejected a measure to legalize possession of up to three ounces of marijuana by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent.
Gray, appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian to the bench, was the keynote speaker at a Libertarian Party of Nevada dinner Saturday night in Virginia City.
I believe that's nonsense; if it's OK for a judge to express an advocacy position to an interviewer or press member who relays that position to a readership of thousands or millions, it's equally OK for a judge to express that advocacy position to a public assembly.
>You just changed the subject too. Look at the original question, which I answered well therefore Leroy, and you it seems, keep changing the subject.
An interesting reply considering that in quoting me above, you skipped right past the question which preceded it, namely:
(From post #49, for those losing track):
What right exactly is that?
This question is a direct reply to your assertion that someone's rights have been violated, and the questions that follow it are a direct extension of it. There is no changing of subject at all, but rather the following of a logical procession.
So, can you answer this question, and the ones that follow it? Or are you going to continue your pattern of ducking them?
He's not lying. He's simply so incapable of thinking rationally that he will take statement A, warp it through his lens of biases into some very (VERY) loosely related statement B, and claim they're the same without thinking that he's doing anything wrong. I've had many conversations with people like this before.
He has to do that, because he clearly (based on how many times you had to ask your question and how many times he dodged it) cannot face the direct query you made. Either a yes or a no would create a problem, so instead, he changes it into something he can deal with, says "You say that...", answers the now-safe question, and then accuses you of lying when you call him on his strawman. This isn't lying, it's subconscious desperation.
It's sad, because I think this is the only way that the WoD has any support at all. If we took the rules we apply why some substances are illegal, and then applied them to alchohol, there is no way the latter would stand a chance. Someone getting sick at a rave draws gasps of horror, but ten thousand drunkards riot after a football game, and all we get is "Oh, boys will be boys."
It really is sad to see people convult like this to try to justify a stance that is so intellectually bankrupt. But if it means bringing freedom back to a country that is having it taken from them with a bulldozer, I'll gladly put them through this. One's comfort in convincing themselves of falsehoods loses out to one's right to live their own lives in peace.
We've already done that dance.
What was your answer?
We've already done that dance.
What was your answer?
1) Your definition of "some" is out of wack on both alcohol and drugs.
2) You believe there is no victim in a suicide.
3) You believe the government has no "right" to get involved if someone wants to commit suicide.
4) You believe there are responsible hard drug users functioning full well in society.
5) I conclude that can not be reasoned with and though some of your arguments sound lucid and well thought out at first, closer examination shows that you don't see reality very well. A Christian be able to see the truth.
1) Your definition of "some" is out of wack on both alcohol and drugs.
What does that mean? Are you claiming that all drug users, or all alcohol users, who have spouses or children neglect their obligations?
2) You believe there is no victim in a suicide.
3) You believe the government has no "right" to get involved if someone wants to commit suicide.
Both irrelevant to my question.
4) You believe there are responsible hard drug users functioning full well in society.
77% of those who have used heroin did not become dependent; how badly could they be functioning?
A Christian be able to see the truth.
That lets you out.
I agree
but I regret offending you.
Don't worry 'bout it. It wasn't you who offended me. Yours was actually one of the better jokes I've read on the topic.
Your assertion is completey void of any logic or truth. Christ drank wine. Was he seeking to "alter his state of consiousness?" Hardly. While Christ did indeed drank wine, he also railed against drunkeness. Obviously drunkeness is an altered state while "sipping of wine at Church" is not.
Now then, let's just push your riduculous argument out of the way and get down to business. You want drugs legalized for everyone so you can get "high" without the worry of being arrested. Period. Do you have a standard of right and wrong? If you did, you should know that this is wrong. There is NO legitimate reason for society to legalize the abuse of drugs. It has NO redeeming value whatsoever, and can ONLY lead to personal destruction and collateral damage. So what, you say? It's your body and you can do as you please. Is that your next argument? Fine. ALL rights have limitations, even that one. Not only does a free society owe you "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", YOU owe some degree of responsibility to a free society, however infetisimal you want to consider that to be. A proper free socity DOES have a legitimate right, even an OBLIGATION to make certain private activities ILLEGAL. Drug use is certainly one of those. While I want to live in a country that is as free of restriction as possible I do NOT want to live in one in which "private activities" are completely void of any societal interest at all. Legal suicide, incestuous relationships, polygamy, prostitution, unlimited pornography and rampant drug use may be your ideal of what a true "free" soceity would look like. I would submit that it is just an attempt to justify man's most selfish, carnal desires and will ALWAYS lead to the destruction of the society itself.
You have simply repeated the same ridiculous comparison using beer now instead of wine. I won't bother repeating my answer to that since it's the same.
I did not say you wanted to be a scumbag. Who in their right minds "want" to be "scumbags"? I'll bet even people you would regard as such don't "want" to be "scumbags" and may not even regard themselves as such.
You may not have explicity said you get high, but again, let's clear away all of your arguments and get down to business, shall we? Let's quit dancing around it, and be honest; otherwise, it's a useless exchange. You want to get "high" without worrying about any legal "hassles". Am I right or wrong?
You are correct when you say just because people get high doesn't mean they are going to go out kill or destroy property. I did not say the latter is an automatic result of the former; however, drug use (including alcohol) DOES play a part in a large number of crimes. A police officer I know in California thinks the lenient "medical" marijuana laws are an absolute farce and that they should be completely done away with. He says when he's out on a call, it invariably comes down to DRUGS. Not simple possession, but what results from the abuse of the substances. Legalization of drugs certainly won't help this situation whatsoever, and will quite obviously only make matters worse. As big of a "failure" as the WOD has been, legalization of drugs would be an even bigger failure by the only accounting system that matters - the toll on human lives. Do I wish the WOD would be more effective in reducing illicit drug availability and use? Absolutely. The answer isn't to give up the war, but to fight a more effective one. What was the lesson from the Vietnam War? That we shouldn't fight wars because we were not victorious? Obviously not. The lesson leanred was to fight a clearly defined war to WIN, period. Instead of thinking of ways to give up and declare defeat in the WOD, we should be thinking of ways to win the war.
What crimes people commit to obtain drugs or while under their influence is certainly worth noting, but it is not the main issue as far as I am concerned. Again, while a free society should guarantee your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" it also has a duty to protect citizens even from themselves if it comes to that. Unfortunately there are those that are so reckless with their rights to privacy that they cross a line where society has the right to intervene for their own good. I previously listed what some of those circumstances are, which includes drug abuse. Again, NO right is absolute. EVERY right has its limitations. Those who seek ANY right that carries with it NO limitations are interested in only self-indulgent, excessive behavior. RESPONSIBLITY is the counter-balance to rights. Someone who seeks rights without responsibility is on a dangerous, self-destructive path. A society that seeks the same is doomed.
Thank you for clarifying that you are talking about marijuana spefically. That's a step in the right direction, although there are some on this board that are in favor of complete legalization of all drugs. Is MJ as harmful as the so-called "hard" drugs? Obviously not, but the dangers that it does pose are great enough in my estimation that it should still be illegal. Should possession be punished more severely than committing murder? Again, obviously not.
The legalizing of pot only certainly does not stop the WOD, so you can't use that as an arugment.
As for why pot should be illegal I refer you to my previous posts about an individual's responsibility to society and society's responsibility to its citizens. Is it possible for someone to smoke occassionally and not have it negatively effect them in an obvious fashion, such as, say, "social" drinking? I have no doubt that it is. Is it possible that pot smoking adversely effects one's physical and mental faculties, robs one of motivation, and is a gateway drug to harder, more addictive substances? We KNOW this is all true. I have seen first-hand the devestation to lives that smoking POT causes and leads to.
It all comes down to what standards, ethics, or moral value system you want to base a society on. The US is built upon a Judeo-Christian standard. Like it or not, part of that belief system is that we are the creations of a divine Creator and that we have a responsibility to respect the life we've been given by not engaging in self-destructive behavior. Evidently, we agree that "hard" drugs should remain illegal, but we disagree on where that line should be drawn. I believe that MJ is harmful enough and devoid of any redeeming value to be put into the same category as the drugs we agree on. You obviously believe that MJ is benign enough that it should not be lumped in with the other drugs. Until it's proven that MJ is NOT physically and mentally harmful, psychologically addictive, and a "gateway" drug to even more harmful substances my position will not change.
No, not alcohol, just all of the others.
Recent studies by the RAND Corporation, and by economist Steven Pudney of the University of Leicester, have deflated the "gateway theory."
Because alcohol is good and the rest are bad.
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.