A Zealous Prosecutor of Drug Criminals Becomes One Himself

New York Times ^ | February 14, 2005 | RALPH BLUMENTHAL

[Scenic Sounds]

PAMPA, Tex., Feb. 9 - No one prosecuted the war on drugs in the Texas Panhandle more zealously than Richard James Roach. As the blustery and hot-tempered Republican district attorney for five counties overrun with methamphetamines, he had eked out an election victory in 2000 vowing a crackdown and was soon gleefully reeling off the harsh sentences he had wrung from juries: 36 years, 38 years, 40 years, 60 years, 75 years - even 99 years. "I think it's quite clear that the good citizens of this district are fed up with drugs," he said.

He had barely missed riding the issue to victory in an earlier race. "My campaign is centered around doing something with the dope dealers," he told a local newspaper in 1996, complaining that "it's kind of hard to fight drugs when you've got dirty law enforcement."

But of all the quarry brought down by drugs in the district's 4,600 square miles of achingly flat oil fields and cattle rangeland northeast of Amarillo, the biggest by far was the stunned figure clapped into handcuffs by F.B.I. agents in the Gray County courthouse here one morning last month: the $101,000-a-year prosecutor himself, Rick Roach.

[Know your rights]

A conservative wouldn't dream of pointing to them as authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. Why do you?

You don't seriously consider the pro-drug faction here conseravative?

Conservatives are pro-liberty and pro-Constitution; WOD supporters are neither.

[ClintonBeGone]

Conservatives are pro-liberty and pro-Constitution; WOD supporters are neither.

Exactly.

[philman_36]

Nope, just the ones we've made illegal.
Drugs, in and of themselves, aren't illegal. According to the wording of the Controlled Substances Act...
Section 801 (2)
The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.
And Section 802 (6) The term "controlled substance" means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this title [21 USCS Section 812].

So you see, drugs themselves aren't illegal. Actions taken are what is illegal.
Do you feel that that is too far above the average American to undestand?

And something else to ponder...
Section 802 (12) states...The term "drug" has the meaning given that term by section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 USCS Section 321(g)(1)]....
...and 21 USCS Section 321 (g)(1) states that...
The term ''drug'' means
(A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and...
The puzzle here is that in 1941 marijuana passed out of the National Formulary and the United States Pharmacopeia. (54 Fed.Reg. 53767, 53774 (1989)) I can't find the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States to find out if marijuana is recognized therein.
So then, there seems to be a conflict between Section 201, 801 and 802. And the question to be asked then is "If marijuana isn't a recognized article in two of the three records of note how can the CSA cover it when it isn't there to be recognized?" Simply because it's listed in Schedule 1?

[Know your rights]

Conservatives are pro-liberty and pro-Constitution; WOD supporters are neither.

Exactly.

Are you sure you want to agree with that? WOD = War On Drugs; supporter = one who supports or favors.

[Know your rights]

Like the ones that gave us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas? A conservative wouldn't dream of pointing to them as authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. Why do you?

You never answered this question.

[ClintonBeGone]

Are you sure you want to agree with that? WOD = War On Drugs; supporter = one who supports or favors.

Oh, no, not your interpretation. To me WOD = Want Only Drugs.

[ClintonBeGone]

I guess my answer would be can you point me to a more objective group to interpret the constititon? And don't tell me the drug lovers are objective, for they appear to seek but one thing in life.

[Know your rights]

Conservatives are pro-liberty and pro-Constitution; supporters of the War On Drugs are neither.

[Know your rights]

Like the ones that gave us Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas? A conservative wouldn't dream of pointing to them as authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. Why do you?

can you point me to a more objective group to interpret the constititon?

The Constitution is easily understood; it's a liberal myth that it requires "interpretation."

[ClintonBeGone]

The Constitution is easily understood;

Clearly not by your libertine friends.

[ClintonBeGone]

Conservatives are pro-liberty and pro-Constitution; supporters of the War On Drugs are neither.

Repeating it won't make it true.

[ClintonBeGone]

MrLeroy there sure is an obsessed mess. :(

Interesting, Mr(s)Leroy I belive, used to be a drug obessed member of this website. Hopefully he got what was due.

[Know your rights]

Conservatives are pro-liberty and pro-Constitution; supporters of the War On Drugs are neither.

Repeating it won't make it true.

Denying it doesn't make it false.

[Know your rights]

The Constitution is easily understood;

Clearly not by your libertine friends.

They understand the Tenth Amendment better than supporters of the War On Drugs do.

[Know your rights]

Have anything to say about the issue at hand, or is it easier to just yap about Mrleroy?

[Know your rights]

If my position on the issue was as weak as yours, maybe I'd prefer to yap about some long-gone FReeper, too.

[Know your rights]

What's 'my position' anyway?

In the ringside front row, having been punched through the ropes and not having the guts to re-enter the ring of drug policy debate ... that's your position.