SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS (This Is Gettin' Scary)

New York Post ^ | September 16, 2004 | KENNETH LOVETT

[publius1]

SOROS' $$ TOPPLES DA IN WAR OVER DRUGS By KENNETH LOVETT Post Correspondent September 16, 2004 -- ALBANY —

In an unusual infusion of big money into local upstate politics, billionaire George Soros poured cash into the Albany County district attorney's race — and engineered a stunning defeat of the incumbent because the DA supports the strict Rockefeller drug laws.

The Soros-founded Drug Policy Alliance Network — which favors repeal of the Rockefeller laws — contributed at least $81,500 to the Working Families Party, which turned around and supported the successful Democratic primary campaign of David Soares.

Trying to become Albany's first black DA, Soares on Tuesday unexpectedly trounced his former boss, incumbent Albany DA Paul Clyne, who has opposed changing the drug laws. The victory was overwhelming: Soares took 62 percent of the Democratic vote.

"This was more than a local race, that's what the [Soros] funding shows," said Assemblyman John McEneny, who supported the challenger's candidacy.

Soros, an international financier and philanthropist who says he is dedicating his life to defeating President Bush, favors legalizing some drugs.

Clyne backers claim that the Working Families Party, using the Soros money, illegally involved itself in the Democratic primary. They charge the Soros cash was used to target Democratic voters with mass mailings and phone calls labeling Clyne as the reason the drug laws were not reformed, as well as highlighting his anti-abortion stance.

[tacticalogic]

Do you honestly believe that the framers would have had such a hard time answering such a simple question?

Don't underestimate what RP is willing to believe if it gets him what he wants.

[getsoutalive]

"Do you honestly believe that the framers would have had such a hard time answering such a simple question?"

You betcha.

OK, Fine. So why does the type of plant change whether or not the interstate commerce clause is applicable or not?

[TKDietz]

"People who smoke cannabis will always choose the stuff with the most THC."

That's not true. I smoked pot for years and I didn't like the really strong stuff. I always seemed to get high easier than other people and I didn't like the really strong stuff because it was hard to smoke just enough to get the mild buzz I liked without getting too stoned. Some of the stuff we came across was so strong that I'd only take about a half a normal puff because any more than that would put me on the couch. I was much happier with cheapo Mexican. It was more like beer whereas the sticky skunk bud was more like whiskey, except that you didn't have much of an idea what "proof" a batch was until you smoked from it a time or two. The super powerful stuff was fun to have sometimes for a change but I almost always opted for the cheap stuff.

And I was by no means alone in this. A lot of people I knew didn't care for the really strong stuff. When you first start smoking pot it might be fun to see just how stoned you can get but that gets old for most people (actually smoking pot in general gets old for most of us and most who smoke it lose interest in it as they get older). Now, pot does affect different people differently, and some people don't feel anything unless they smoke more pot than most. They might always opt for the stronger stuff, but for the average smoker and smokers like I was who don't need much to do the trick, that's not necessarily the case. Besides, the really expensive stuff often isn't nearly as powerful as it looks and smells like it should be even though it might cost several times what a bag of the cheap stuff costs. People might appreciate it for the smell and taste like some savor expensive single malt scotch, but it's often no bargain potency wise.

[green iguana]

especially considering that alcohol is classified as colorless, tasteless, and odorless.

I can personally guarantee that alcohol is neither odorless nor tasteless.

[green iguana]

Drug use is down 60% since the late 70's.

Oh I hate to do this - I sound too much like MrLeroy, but I have to ask if you have a source for this stat that goes against much that I have read?

[Protagoras]

A college student who is high on cannabis is no more likely to be arrested than a college student who is drunk from alcohol.

So you would be in favor of amending the laws so that no jail time is possible for users? Or just for college users? Why have a law if you don't advocate enforcing it?

[TKDietz]

"Because I don't think that people smoke cannabis for the taste - I think they smoke it for the effect of the THC.

Cannabis smokers can modulate their use to make sure they do not get high, but why would they even bother smoking in the first place if they did not want to get high?"

Are not getting any buzz from three beers or a couple of glasses of wine? I sure do. It's only a pleasant little buzz, but it's a buzz nonetheless. It is mild intoxication. What makes you so sure that all pot smokers are trying to get stoned out of their gourds and not just a pleasant little buzz? You've never even smoked pot, how can you presume to know how it affects people? What is it that makes you so sure of these things you are saying? I know you are wrong because I've been there done that. I've smoked it myself and been around an awful lot of other people smoking it and I promise you not all of these people are trying to get as stoned as possible. As is the case with alcohol some are frequently going way overboard, especially young folks who are also the type who like to drink themselves into oblivion. But overall most people tend to find their "buzz limit" with marijuana and limit their intake accordingly. Those that don't tend to be the same types that feel compelled to drink way too much.

[Protagoras]

However, I don't believe Soros is HARMLESS.

Odd comment. It addresses a point I never made.

[tacticalogic]

Odd comment. It addresses a point I never made.Seems to be contaigous. Declaring victory over a point that wasn't in contention seems to be a popular exit strategy.

[Quix]

True.

You SEEMED TO ME

to be CLOSE to saying that.

[Protagoras]

Best to stick to what I ACTUALLY say. It's easier. Most have trouble enough with that without jumpimg to incorrect conclusions.

[Quix]

True enough.

However, are you really saying now, that you do consider Soros a significant threat to our Republic and way of life in any serious sense?

[wideawake]

So you would be in favor of amending the laws so that no jail time is possible for users?

Of course not. People who repeatedly abuse legal alcohol often wind up in prison, why shouldn't abusers of illegal cannabis?

[BunnySlippers]

•

[tacticalogic]

Of course not. People who repeatedly abuse legal alcohol often wind up in prison, why shouldn't abusers of illegal cannabis?

Now there's a classic example of sophistry if ever I saw one.

[wideawake]

It's hardly sophistry. If someone can do time for driving drunk, why should prison time for driving high be taken off the table?

It's illogical.

[tacticalogic]

It's hardly sophistry. If someone can do time for driving drunk, why should prison time for driving high be taken off the table?

The issue was jail time for use, in and of itself. You're arguing as if it means pot users can't be jailed for anything, period. People who chronically abuse alcohol frequently end up in jail, all right. Some for DWI or public intoxication, more often for assault, domestic violence, or other crimes.

[green iguana]

People who repeatedly abuse legal alcohol often wind up in prison

No one winds up in prison solely for the repeated abuse of alcohol. Being stinking drunk in public (where you could be a threat to yourself or others) may result in a little jail time, but that's hardly prison. Those who wind up in prison are there for doing other illegal things while drunk. No one here is suggesting that those laws shouldn't apply to everyone, regardless of level (or type) of intoxication.

But the question remains. Would you go along with a law that resulted in no jail time for a casual user? As Protagoras asked, why have a law if you are not going to enforce it?

[wideawake]

Peace officers often use discretion in deciding whether they arrest someone, ticket someone or warn someone.

I think this is legitimate.

[tacticalogic]

A declaration of victory over a point not in contention (or even brought up).