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."
The citations you posted are old news....and are simply opinions. The LAW is that pot is ILLEGAL. End of story.
They were opinions that were the basis for making marijuana illegal. And the fact that it is illegal is not the "end of story".
Marijuana should not be illegal, which is the point of the article.
Once again, marijuana REMAINS ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE LAW SO STATES. Now, if you WANT it to be legal, take it before the courts to get it legalized, OR, as I said, try to get any RED STATE to pass a referendum to get the law repealed.
Otherwise, recoginze the Law is in place, and wishing it away won't do any good.
WTF..? I am well aware that the law states that marijuana is illegal, I don't know why you keep repeating it, Captain Obvious. And nobody is "wishing" it away, advocates are trying to get the laws overturned. The biggest barrier in the way is the federal classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which is the same family as LSD and heroin- a ridiculous determination made 50 years ago.
Funny though, do you apply your "it's the law" logic to abortion? Just because something is "the law" doesn't make it right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted below is a couple of sentences from "The Single Convention on Narcotics" article on Wikipedia (the whole article is worth reading):
(snip)For the first time, cannabis was added to the list of internationally controlled drugs. In fact, regulations on the cannabis plant as well as the opium poppy, the coca bush, poppy straw and cannabis leaves were embedded in the text of the treaty, making it impossible to deregulate them through the normal Scheduling process.(snip)
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs
Anslinger's lies led all the way to influencing the U.N. to write laws that now cause 3/4 of a million U.S. citizens to be arrested for cannabis violations.
Last line should read:
Anslinger's lies led all the way to influencing the U.N. to write laws that now cause 3/4 of a million [per year] U.S. citizens to be arrested for cannabis violations.
Otherwise, recognize the Law is in place, and wishing it away won't do any good.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's been tried all the way to the supreme court-
Raich v. Gonzales
545 U.S. ___ (2005)
Docket Number: 03-1454
Abstract
Decided:
June 6, 2005
Argued:
November 29, 2004
Facts of the Case
In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana.(snip)
(snip)Conclusion
No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.(snip)
Abuse of commerce clause and 10th amendment.
Don't worry... drugs will never be legalized. There's too much money in it the way it is. To legalize many drugs would utterly destroy the funding of most inner city gangs, and they'll never let that happen.
This is true! My wife really likes it. (winston2)
Thanks for the tip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive effects
Increased awareness of sensation, including visual stimulation, music, taste, and sexual pleasure
[via]
Dilation of blood vessels (vasodilation),[20] resulting in:
Increased blood flow and heart rate
Heh.
I suppose it doesn't matter to you, but those things you present as facts are simply wrong.
Beginning in 1803, with the Marbury opinion, it has been recognized as a principle of our system that laws repugnant to the US Constitution are null & void from enactment, -- "whether YOU approve of it or not".
Read much?
The LAW is that pot is ILLEGAL. End of story.
"-- The LAW that pot is ILLEGAL, --" is repugnant to the Constitution. --- So we see the 'end of your story' claiming to be a supporter of our constitution.
Abuse of commerce clause and 10th amendment.
I was aware of the decision there, but was bantering with a "pot must be legalized because the law is wrong" type. There's no question, in my mind, that the illegality is established in case law, but the idea that a NATION-WIDE legalization effort would not pass by a majority vote.
Which ones would those be? Please enlighten me....
Feel free to cite supposed "experts" who coincidentally agree with your argument, as most weak-arguers do.
Again, one fact will always remain right now: pot is illegal, use of pot is against the law, and no amount of whining will result in National passage of repeal....
haha, hard to argue with that rigid logic
ps. you and Soros are on the same side on this
'Scuse me, citing case law is fine, but subsequently (as another poster correctly pointed out) includes
Raich v. Gonzales
545 U.S. ___ (2005)
Docket Number: 03-1454
Abstract
Decided: June 6, 2005
Now, since Marbury v. Madison is old news, and has been subsequently mooted by this decision at the USSC, your personal opinion (which bears no legal weight) doesn't nullify the law against marijuana use or a State's opportunity to make contrary law without being trumped as in the case above cited.
Read much?????
Thanks!
FYI, Soros wants ALL drugs legalized:
As I said, the money behind the push to legalize drugs includes Billionaire George Soros, George Zimmer and Peter Lewis, who funded these:
"through the names of organizations involved in promoting the acceptance of the medical benefits of marijuana. As revealed by an analysis of the Internet, these include Americans for Medical Rights (and its subsidiaries the Coloradans for Medical Rights 2000, Mainers for Medical Rights, Floridians for Medical Rights, Alaskans for Medical Rights, Washington Citizens for Medical Rights, and Oregonians for Medical Rights) as well as Californians for Compassionate Care. Californias Proposition 215 was also referred to as the Compassionate Care Act of 1996 and the Arkansas Alliance for Medical Marijuana stated that 66% of your Arkansas neighbors support this compassionate reform (Ardpark.org)."
Soros wants to limit individual liberty, so do you ... ergo you are partners
I can't wish you luck on your endeavors
Great point. The biggest advocates of keeping drugs illegal are drug dealers.
OK. So what? I'm not arguing for repeal. I realize it isn't going to happen. Not speaking for myself, but I do know a number of friends and colleagues that enjoy pot. None of them really care one way or the other about legalization. The supply is plentiful, the quality has never been higher, and the price is low. They all are successful professionals and good parents. There's basically no problem. Their kids are successful and their careers are on track. They keep their habit to themselves, don't hurt anybody and don't get hassled by police.
That it remains illegal is an amusing nuisance, but it has no particular effect on them, and they present no particular risk to the public at large. Who cares?
With regard to harder and actually dangerous drugs like cocaine (really, mainly just crack), there's no way it'll ever be legalized. The gangs won't permit any action to legalize, ever. The black market for coke/crack gives serious money to thousands of inner city gang bangers that no regular job could ever touch. City budgets are also dependent on the same money, just from the other side. Nothing about that is going to change any time soon.
Beginning in 1803, with the Marbury opinion, it has been recognized as a principle of our system that laws repugnant to the US Constitution are null & void from enactment, -- "whether YOU approve of it or not".
Read much?
The LAW is that pot is ILLEGAL. End of story.
"-- The LAW that pot is ILLEGAL, --" is repugnant to the Constitution. --- So we see the 'end of your story' claiming to be a supporter of our constitution.
Scuse me, citing case law is fine, but subsequently (as another poster correctly pointed out) includes Raich v. Gonzales 545 U.S. ___ (2005) Docket Number: 03-1454 Abstract Decided: June 6, 2005
'Raich' does not trump the Constitution. It is yet another erroneous opinion 'finding' that Congress has a power to prohibit, a power they obviously did not possess in 1919 [see the 18th].
Now, since Marbury v. Madison is old news, and has been subsequently mooted by this decision at the USSC,
Good grief.. The principle behind Marbury [the supremacy of our Law of the Land] cannot be "mooted". Get a grip on your empty rhetoric.
your personal opinion (which bears no legal weight) doesn't nullify the law against marijuana use or a State's opportunity to make contrary law without being trumped as in the case above cited.
Of course my opinions, - or yours, - have no legal weight. Our Constitution's facts however - are not that hard to understand. - You aren't even trying.
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.