Posted on 08/21/2006 5:54:00 PM PDT by Know your rights
Former Seattle police Chief Norm Stamper doesn't have dreadlocks, a Zig-Zag T-shirt or a single Phish album. He just sounds like it. "It's laughable when people say we are winning the drug war," said Stamper, who had just finished a main-stage speech to the crowd gathered Sunday at the Seattle Hempfest in Myrtle Edwards Park. "The people who are prosecuting the drug war are invested psychically and financially. It's a holy war for them.
"We should legalize all drugs."
While the comments might be unusual for most law enforcement careerists, they are nothing new for Stamper, who was Seattle's top cop from 1994 to 2000. That is why organizers brought him in for the popular two-day, pro-pot festival.
Organizers estimated 150,000 people flowed into the waterfront park, which for the weekend turned into a dense village of food booths, stages, arts-and-crafts sellers, hemp product manufacturers, leafleteers, hackysack circles and picnickers.
Now in its 15th year, Hempfest is at its core all about decriminalizing marijuana. So is Stamper, especially after years of witnessing firsthand what he sees as the futility of the federal drug war.
The drugs are winning, he said. It's time to change tactics.
"Police should be focused on violent crime," he told the crowd.
Stamper, a member of pro-legalization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said many of his peers agree with him but will only say so privately. He told a story about a recent chat with a police chief in a "major American city" who had read Stamper's 2005 book, "Breaking Rank."
In it, Stamper advocates legalizing and regulating drugs as a way to reduce collateral problems such as addiction, violence and property crime.
"He came up to me after a talk and said he agreed with the chapter on drugs," Stamper said. "I asked, 'Can I quote you publicly?'
"He said, 'What have you been smoking?' "
Stamper saw similar reticence Sunday, as he preached to the choir in the sunny, 90-degree heat.
Waiting for hand-dipped ice-cream bars in the festival's munchie midway, Seattleites Tony Witherspoon, 31, and Neil Toland, 28, said they don't see pot as a rip in society's fabric.
"I wouldn't think a little weed is going to hurt anybody," Witherspoon said.
Added Toland, "There needs to be a little space for (pot)."
Creating that political space is what the festival is all about, chief organizer Dominic Holden said.
Hempfest has matured over the decade and a half it's existed, he said. Initially, it went unnoticed by local police. Then, Holden recalled, it became tense and even adversarial between organizers and police in the late 1990s -- at a time when Stamper was chief.
"For a while there, it seemed like it would go downhill," Holden said. "They were doing backstage raids looking for pot. They didn't find any."
Since then, the political landscape has changed, Holden said.
First, state voters approved medical marijuana. Subsequently, Seattle residents said they are not worried about pot as a law enforcement issue.
Now, he said, the relationship is much more mellow.
"We all want it to be a safe festival," Holden said. "The police have been great. Very collaborative.
"This might be our biggest festival ever."
No.
Then why are you still posting it?
The federal government has declared marijuana to have no recognized medical value in order to justify it's scheduling status. By responding to this treatment your neck, shoulder and spine are interfering with Congress' ability to regulate commerce. If you had any respect for the law you'd stop feeling better.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what I say about this is true.
The police force is finite. All they can usually do about burglary in my city is investigate after the fact.
Gee, what about all the "victimless" traffic stops the police make?If you are referring to speeding, illegal turns, running light etc. - those all put others at risk and deserve punishment.
How many domestic disturbances (not ending in an arrest) are they involved in?
"Domestic disturbances" indicates there was a dispute between two or more citizens and if a citizen called the police, they deserve assistance.
I call the police "historians".
"It doesn't take a genius to figure out what I say about this is true."
But it takes a doubter to ask for proof. I'm a doubter, especially when it comes to your posts.
So humor me. Provide some statistics, reports, studies, articles ... anything to support your statement that the police are not responding to assaults or property events because they're too busy with some drug arrest.
You can stop right there. He doesn't.
I thought we were outlawing it in order regulate commerce among the several states.
Can. Probably won't.
Every minute wasted by police and our court system dealing with cannabis users and growers is a minute that could be used to fight events where there is actually a victim.
(results from a popular search engine) - Results 1 - 50 of about 102,000 for "police overtime". (0.23 seconds)
-----------------------
DRUG WAR DEMANDS OVERTIME
Last month, Mayor Robert E. Bruchey II went to Annapolis to ask state officials for $400,000 in additional overtime funds to help combat the city's drug problem.
(snip)The 118-employee police department is on pace to more than triple its overtime expenses in the last six years. The department spent $438,044 on overtime in the first six months of the fiscal year starting July 1, 1997, according to city finance records.(snip)
Police overtime costs soaringMind you that this is an old article. Has anything go easier for the police? Back then - we didn't even have meth or terrorists to deal with.
-----------------------------------
Austin police overtime soaring
City paid patrol officers $3.9 million extra last year to meet staffing goal.(snip)
Hey - I'm glad you asked the question. It's real easy to find the info. about the police being stretched to fight crime.
As always - I say that someone toking on a joint and bothering no one else is not a crime!
You can stop right there. He doesn't.
So says paulsen, FR's most open dis-respecter of our Constitutions law of the land.
In fact, all citizens are pledged to defend against 'laws' that are repugnant to the Constitutions principles.
-- Most of us can understand that obligation. Socialists like paulsen cannot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regrettably - that is too true in many cases.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I raise my right hand and do solemnly affirm.
Huh?
Congress is using their constitutional power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the interstate commerce of marijuana.
What, they had the rats smoke teeny-tiny joints?
They found a link between delta-9-THC and the shrinking of some tumors in rats. Interesting to note that the cannabinoid CBD (in marijuana) appeared to enhance the growth of those same tumors.
Isn't it amazing that Congress couldn't use that same 'power' to prohibit the interstate commerce of booze in 1918.
Couldn't? Who said they couldn't?
They used the commerce clause power to prohibit the commerce of booze with the Indian tribes in 1802. The used the commerce clause power to prohibit all commerce with Europe in 1807.
Domestically, in United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 425 (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court said, "Acting within the authority conferred by the Constitution it is for Congress to determine what legislation will attain its purpose. The control of Congress over interstate commerce is not to be limited by State laws."
So, I'd say they could have, had they chose to do so.
Couldn't? Who said they couldn't?
The 18th amendment is an admission that they couldn't. There is no 'power to prohibit' delegated within the US Constitution.
They used the commerce clause power to prohibit the commerce of booze with the Indian tribes in 1802. The used the commerce clause power to prohibit all commerce with Europe in 1807.
They used their power to regulate trade with hostile Indians & foreign nations. -- States within the Union are not hostile. Trade among the several States cannot be prohibited, as no such power exists.
Domestically, in United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 425 (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court said, "Acting within the authority conferred by the Constitution it is for Congress to determine what legislation will attain its purpose. The control of Congress over interstate commerce is not to be limited by State laws." So, I'd say they could have, had they chose to do so.
Silly quote; - of course state laws are subordinate to the 'Law of the Land'; -- but Congress must in turn obey the Constitution. -- It has no mandate to prohibit commerce among the States.
Nor does Congress have the power to decree prohibitions on booze, guns or drugs.
Oh baloney. Was the 19th amendment necessary? Wouldn't the U.S. Supreme Court today void any state law that denied a woman a right to vote without the 19th amendment?
"There is no 'power to prohibit' delegated within the US Constitution."
As pointed out to you numerous times, the courts have ruled that the definition of "to regulate" in the Commerce Clause includes "to prohibit".
Couldn't? Who said they couldn't?
The 18th amendment is an admission that they couldn't.
Oh baloney. Was the 19th amendment necessary? Wouldn't the U.S. Supreme Court today void any state law that denied a woman a right to vote without the 19th amendment?
Weird comment. Why does the 19th have any relationship to a supposed Congressional power to prohibit?
There is no 'power to prohibit' delegated within the US Constitution.
As pointed out to you numerous times, the courts have ruled that the definition of "to regulate" in the Commerce Clause includes "to prohibit".
Court "rulings" do not change the Constitution, only Amendments can do that. -- This has been pointed out to you ad nauseum. -- Yet you refuse to face that fact. More weird behavior.
They used the commerce clause power to prohibit the commerce of booze with the Indian tribes in 1802. The used the commerce clause power to prohibit all commerce with Europe in 1807.
They used their power to regulate trade with hostile Indians & foreign nations. -- States within the Union are not hostile.
Trade among the several States cannot be prohibited, as no such power exists.
Domestically, in United States v. Hill, 248 U.S. 420, 425 (1919), the U.S. Supreme Court said, "Acting within the authority conferred by the Constitution it is for Congress to determine what legislation will attain its purpose. The control of Congress over interstate commerce is not to be limited by State laws." So, I'd say they could have, had they chose to do so.
Silly quote; - of course state laws are subordinate to the 'Law of the Land'; -- but Congress must in turn obey the Constitution. -- It has no mandate to prohibit commerce among the States.
Nor does Congress have the power to decree prohibitions on booze, guns or drugs.
WHOA! Nearly half the public strongly opposes legalization, and less than a quarter strongly supports it.
So much for your misleading 41%.
Nothing misleading in my accurate statement, as it neither claims nor even implies anything about strength of support.
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.