US Warns of Marijuana Risks

WASHINGTON, -( AP )- The nation's drug policy director warned parents Tuesday against trivializing the dangers of marijuana to their kids, warning them that more teens are addicted to pot than to alcohol or to all other illegal drugs combined.

MANY PARENTS and children have outdated perceptions about marijuana, said John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. They believe marijuana is not addictive, that it's less dangerous than cigarettes or that it has few long-term health consequences.

In reality, more teens enter rehabilitation centers to treat marijuana addiction than alcohol or all other illegal drugs combined, Walters said.

"Our effort is to correct the ignorance that is the single biggest obstacle to protecting our kids," he said as he announced an advertising campaign by his office and 17 education, public health, anti-drug and family advocacy groups.

"During the six years 1962-1967, some 79% of all marihuana seized by federal authorities was seized in attempted smuggling at ports and borders....
See Bureau of Narcotics, Report on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs 66 (1962); id., at 78 (1963); id., at 84 (1964); id., at 51 (1965); id., at 45 (1966); id., at 43 (1967)." -- SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)

They apparently found the same "facts" applied to carrying a gun within 1000 ft. of a school building.

Sourceless, citeless, quoteless. Naturally.

I'd venture a guess that he's talking about Lopez, which the USSC struck down as absurd. You just better hope and pray they don't apply the post-Lopez standard to the CSA, because then you'll be S.O.L. No?

I'd venture a guess that he's talking about Lopez, which the USSC struck down as absurd. You just better hope and pray they don't apply the post-Lopez standard to the CSA, because then you'll be S.O.L. No?

Yawn.

It is therefore not surprising that every court that has considered the question, both before and after the Supreme Court's decision in Lopez, has concluded that section 841(a)(1) represents a valid exercise of the commerce power. See, e.g., United States v. Edwards, ___ F.3d ___, ___, 1996 WL 621913, at *5 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 1996); United States v. Kim, 94 F.3d 1247, 1249-50 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 90 F.3d 318, 321 (8th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lerebours, 87 F.3d 582, 584-85 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Wacker, 72 F.3d 1453, 1475 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 136 (1996); United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1111-12 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Scales, 464 F.2d 371, 375 (6th Cir. 1972); Lopez, 459 F.2d at 953.
Proyect attempts to distinguish this body of authority by arguing that, while growing marijuana for distribution has a significant impact on interstate commerce, growing marijuana only for personal consumption does not. Despite the fact that he was convicted of growing more than 100 marijuana plants, making it very unlikely that he personally intended to consume all of his crop, Proyect contends that no one may be convicted under a statute that fails to distinguish between the cultivation of marijuana for distribution and the cultivation of marijuana for personal consumption. This contention is without merit.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, No. 253 August Term, 1996, JOEL PROYECT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Roscoe you can play too, but please try to be coherent and don't use the word libertarian anywhere in your answers, K?

Libertarianism isn't a coherent belief system.

You're such a one trick pony it's laughable. One couldn't beat a coherent argument out of you with a 2X4.

Care to try again and this time actually try and answer the questions? Or would you rather not display your empty arguments in public. Your pal CJ certainly keeps shying away from answering them.

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.