California judge blasts drug war at pro-marijuana rally in Reno

Las Vegas Sun ^ | May 03, 2003 | MARTIN GRIFFITH

[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.

[Dane]

So to end this irresponsible behavior, I can either pay tens of thousands of dollars per user per year to arrest, try, and jail them, or I can relegalize drugs at no cost. Tough choice

JMO, your "solution" will not end this irresponsible behavior, but promote it, by validating the use of drugs.

[jmc813]

Point taken. But you do realize that there are plenty of threads that make light of death, even when it is no fault of the victims. Unless you are willing to go to each of them and repremand any poster who jokes around, then maybe you should give the people on the other thread a pass. Just a suggestion.

BTW, I consider myself one of the more "prude" FReepers when it comes to the aforementioned "gallows humor". As clever as some of the comments may be, I have a hard time getting over the fact that the victim leaves behind a greiving family. But that's just me.

[MrLeRoy]

There is a Soros connection, Soros(Hillary friend and uber socialist) is the biggest funder of the pro-legalization drug lobby. It's a fact.

Are you familiar with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation?

I am. They support the War On Some Drugs and also fund gun-grabbers, proving by DaneLogic that to support the WOSD is to support gun-grabbing.

[biblewonk]

I hope you are not trying to compare smoking pot to killing an unborn baby.

It's the same argument. It's all about liberty either of the pot head or the femanist. That same person then gets to define what hurts whom or what doesn't hurt anyone.

[MrLeRoy]

In your opinion, not that of the femanazies who believe they define when an unborn person is a person..

Define me a person A whose rights are violated by person B's drug use.

If person A is hurt by person B's self destruction then it is not as simple either.

Unless that "hurt" is a violation of rights, it is simply none of the government's business.

[MrLeRoy]

We're in the Backroom. I guess the fanatical pro-WOD AM is back from vacation.

[MrLeRoy]

JMO, your "solution" will not end this irresponsible behavior, but promote it, by validating the use of drugs.

"You're saying that if these mushrooms were for sale at 7-11, as a number of legal intoxicants already are, then the dopers would have cut the fence down anyway?"

[TBall]

What drugs did you do to come up with such a silly argument?

[biblewonk]

Define me a person A whose rights are violated by person B's drug use.

Person B's spouse and kids.

[biblewonk]

What drugs did you do to come up with such a silly argument?

What ones have you done to think that silly old cliche is in any way clever or new.

[MrLeRoy]

Should we ban drugs---including the deadly and addictive drug alcohol---for ALL adults (including those with no spouses or children) because SOME adults with spouses and children who use drugs neglect their obligations?

[TBall]

It is my body and I have the right to drink myself silly = Its is my body and I have the right to kill my unborn child?

[biblewonk]

It is my body and I have the right to drink myself silly = Its is my body and I have the right to kill my unborn child?

I didn't say that I said that they are the same thing, only that the same argument is used by people who seem to be deceived into thinking those two are the same thing.

[MrLeRoy]

people who seem to be deceived into thinking those two are the same thing.

Since it's a deception, why even bring it up?

[biblewonk]

Should we ban drugs---including the deadly and addictive drug alcohol---for ALL adults (including those with no spouses or children) because SOME adults with spouses and children who use drugs neglect their obligations?

Therefore I've already won the first argument so you have switched to your second one. You sure surf from one argument to the next nimbly. None of them are very good but you are quick on your feet.

[MrLeRoy]

Should we ban drugs---including the deadly and addictive drug alcohol---for ALL adults (including those with no spouses or children) because SOME adults with spouses and children who use drugs neglect their obligations?

Therefore I've already won the first argument

Which argument is that? And will you be responding to the text above?

[robertpaulsen]

Now who said that you'd be allowed to have your own tree?

[biblewonk]

Which argument is that? And will you be responding to the text above?

Are you really that confused as to what has just happened? If not then you are lying, if so then why bother talking to you.

[MrLeRoy]

Should we ban drugs---including the deadly and addictive drug alcohol---for ALL adults (including those with no spouses or children) because SOME adults with spouses and children who use drugs neglect their obligations?

Therefore I've already won the first argument

Which argument is that? And will you be responding to the text above?

Are you really that confused as to what has just happened?

Yes. Please enlighten me.

[MrLeRoy]

Now who said that you'd be allowed to have your own tree?

Or your own back yard?