Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge takes swing at war on drugs
Rocky Mountain News ^ | January 29, 2003 | Karen Abbott

Posted on 01/30/2003 6:38:26 AM PST by MrLeRoy

America's war on drugs is costly, ignorant and doesn't work, a federal judge said Tuesday.

Denver U.S. District Judge John Kane Jr., who has been speaking and writing against the nation's drug policy for about five years, won a standing ovation from a packed City Club luncheon at the Brown Palace Hotel.

"I don't favor drugs at all," Kane said.

"What I really am opposed to is the fact that our present policies encourage children to take drugs."

Ending the present policy of interdiction, police action and imprisonment would eliminate the economic incentives for drug dealers to provide drugs to minors, Kane said.

He said the government has no real data and no scientific basis for its approach to illegal drug use.

Since the policy began in the early 1970s, drugs have become easier to obtain and drug use has only increased, he said.

Last summer, Kane said, a friend in his 60s was being treated for cancer. The man joked to his family that he wished he knew where to get marijuana to help him bear the effects of chemotherapy.

The next day, the man's 11-year-old grandson brought him three marijuana cigarettes, Kane said.

"Don't worry, Grandpa - I don't use it myself, but if you need any more just let me know," the judge quoted the boy as saying.

Although officials vow zero tolerance for drugs, even children know that's not reality, Kane said.

"Our national drug policy is inconsistent with the nature of justice, abusive of the nature of authority, and wholly ignorant of the compelling force of forgiveness," he said. "I suggest that federal drug laws be severely cut back."

The federal government should focus on keeping illegal drugs out of the country and regulating the manufacture of drugs transported across state lines.

Each state should decide how to regulate sales and what should be legal or illegal, he said, and the emphasis for government spending should be on treatment.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last

1 posted on 01/30/2003 6:38:26 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Wod_list ping
2 posted on 01/30/2003 6:38:42 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
This judge is obviously a drug-addled pothead, 'cause only such types favor reform of federal drug laws...
3 posted on 01/30/2003 6:39:51 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
This judge is obviously a druggie . . .
4 posted on 01/30/2003 6:41:51 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
LOL - beat me to it
5 posted on 01/30/2003 6:42:09 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: MrLeRoy
The next day, the man's 11-year-old grandson brought him three marijuana cigarettes, Kane said.

Anybody have this kid's beeper number?

7 posted on 01/30/2003 6:48:56 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
The federal government should focus on keeping illegal drugs out of the country and regulating the manufacture of drugs transported across state lines.

Isn't this exactly what we are currently doing?
8 posted on 01/30/2003 6:49:13 AM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
What a dumbass.

Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing while reading your screed.

9 posted on 01/30/2003 6:51:45 AM PST by FreeTally (How did a fool and his money get together in the first place?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
Isn't this exactly what we are currently doing?

No, that's only a small part of what we're currently doing.

10 posted on 01/30/2003 6:53:24 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
America's war on drugs is costly, ignorant and doesn't work, a federal judge said Tuesday.

Gee...what was your first clue Sherlock?


11 posted on 01/30/2003 6:54:04 AM PST by unixfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
The federal government should focus on keeping illegal drugs out of the country and regulating the manufacture of drugs transported across state lines.

Isn't this exactly what we are currently doing?

The feds go quite a bit further, especially regarding the medical marijuana issue, where the pot does NOT cross state lines, and regarding cultivation for personal use, where no commerce occurs. And the judge recommends that the feds REGULATE drugs, not issue idiotic blanket prohibitions that usurp powers that should be left to the states.

12 posted on 01/30/2003 6:54:51 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Of course the dirty little secret of this thread is that Judge Kane was appointed in 1977, that means appointed by Jimmy Carter.
13 posted on 01/30/2003 6:55:11 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
"I don't favor drugs at all," Kane said. "What I really am opposed to is the fact that our present policies encourage children to take drugs."

How?

Answered in the text you quote just below.

Ending the present policy of interdiction, police action and imprisonment would eliminate the economic incentives for drug dealers to provide drugs to minors, Kane said.

Oh really. So removing penalties or punishment for illegal activity will STOP them from selling drugs to minors?

Removing penalties for selling to adults, while retaining them for selling to children, will give them an economic incentive to not sell to children---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult business.

How about following the law and not rewriting it.

Where does it say he's rewriting the law?

The federal government should focus on keeping illegal drugs out of the country and regulating the manufacture of drugs transported across state lines.

NO S&%T Sherlock. WTF do you think they are doing everyday?

That, and much else that they have no Constitutional authority to do.

14 posted on 01/30/2003 6:56:50 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Judge Kane was appointed in 1977, that means appointed by Jimmy Carter.

And Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Ronald Reagan; does that make her a conservative?

15 posted on 01/30/2003 6:58:51 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
And Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by Ronald Reagan; does that make her a conservative?

She's probably a lot more conservative that your Jimmy Carter nominated "drugs are benign" "super" jurist, Judge Kane.

16 posted on 01/30/2003 7:01:08 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dane
She's probably a lot more conservative

You don't know jack, do you, bigmouth? Do you even know what court she sits on?

17 posted on 01/30/2003 7:02:29 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Dane
"drugs are benign" "super" jurist, Judge Kane.

Please show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.

19 posted on 01/30/2003 7:04:25 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
You don't know jack, do you, bigmouth? Do you even know what court she sits on?

Testy aren't you? Oh well I guess that is what I should expect when the "elephant in the living room" is exposed on this thread, that Judge Kane is a Jimmy Carter liberal.

20 posted on 01/30/2003 7:05:33 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
"our present policies encourage children to take drugs."

Reread for comprehension: "Removing penalties for selling to adults, while retaining them for selling to children, will give them an economic incentive to not sell to children---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult business."

Based upon his answers he rules from the bench consistant with his opinion.

That is a lie; the article says nothing about his rulings.

21 posted on 01/30/2003 7:06:34 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Do you even know what court she sits on?

Testy aren't you?

So that would be a no. Got it.

22 posted on 01/30/2003 7:07:25 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"drugs are benign" "super" jurist, Judge Kane.

Please show where Judge Kane said anything remotely like "drugs are benign"; that appears to be merely your baldfaced lie.

23 posted on 01/30/2003 7:08:47 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WORLD SUCKELS USAS BREAST
Again, what is the policy that makes drug dealers sell to children.?

It's the lack of policy that encourages them to sell to anyone, including children. How many illegal beer sellers willing to sell to children are there?

24 posted on 01/30/2003 7:09:23 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
What a dumbass.

Funny. I was thinking the exact same thing while reading your screed.

I'll second that ....

25 posted on 01/30/2003 7:13:24 AM PST by clamper1797 (Per Caritate Viduaribus Orphanibusque Sed Prime Viduaribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Did you ever get the apology I sent you some time ago ... If not ...

I offer it again

26 posted on 01/30/2003 7:16:27 AM PST by clamper1797 (Per Caritate Viduaribus Orphanibusque Sed Prime Viduaribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Of course the dirty little secret of this thread is that Judge Kane was appointed in 1977, that means appointed by Jimmy Carter.

Another dirty little secret is a republican appointed panel told Nixon this WosD was stupid in the 70's.

Let's have a real investigation into the Dallas coverup last year, show our drug warriors in their true light.
27 posted on 01/30/2003 7:18:21 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
So that would be a no. Got it

Sandra Day O'Connor serves on the Supreme Court.

Her fellow justices are Renquist, Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsberg.

Sheesh you are a loud mouthed testy person, but what else should I expect from a person who holds a Jimmy Carter appointee in such "high" esteem.

28 posted on 01/30/2003 7:19:19 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Judge Kane is a Jimmy Carter liberal . . .

Yes, indeed. That's because the ideology of pro-doperism is a socialist cause--not a conservative cause.

29 posted on 01/30/2003 7:22:21 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Last I looked, booze and smokes are still legal - how much of a deterrent is that to keeping kids from doing them?
30 posted on 01/30/2003 7:23:49 AM PST by trebb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Bump.
31 posted on 01/30/2003 7:27:49 AM PST by alex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Last I looked, booze and smokes are still legal - how much of a deterrent is that to keeping kids from doing them?

There's a difference between keeping kids frm doing something, and keeping kids from personally buying something. There are penalties for selling beer and cigs to minors, and stores won't do it. It was much easier for me to get marijuana in high school than it was to get beer or smokes - go figure. You tell me why.

32 posted on 01/30/2003 7:28:16 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Nathaniel Fischer
Who appointed Justices Stevens and Souter? How about Byron White, one of the more conservative judges on the court before he retired?

Ford appointed Stevens and Bush 41 appointed Souter and I beleive it was Kennedy who appointed Byron White.

So? That doesn't change the fact that Carter appointed Judge Kane is following a major tenet of the modern American left and that is the tenet of drug validation.

34 posted on 01/30/2003 7:34:31 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
The thing I like best about your posts is that they reflect your wide variety of interests.
35 posted on 01/30/2003 7:40:30 AM PST by IncPen ( God as my witness I thought turkeys could fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

To: Kevin Curry
Yes, indeed. That's because the ideology of pro-doperism is a socialist cause--not a conservative cause.

Actually, it's a liberal cause.

37 posted on 01/30/2003 7:41:28 AM PST by IncPen ( God as my witness I thought turkeys could fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Last I looked, booze and smokes are still legal - how much of a deterrent is that to keeping kids from doing them?

Guess its time to start arresting the adults who smoke and drink. That should keep it away from the kiddies.

38 posted on 01/30/2003 7:42:10 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dane
That doesn't change the fact that Carter appointed Judge Kane is following a major tenet of the modern American left and that is the tenet of drug validation.

Dane, Dane, Dane. Once again, you're doing your feeble best to deflect to debate, in this instance trying to apply the liberal label to anyone in favor of changing the federal drug war. Despite the wide range of figures on the right who are questioning the approach the feds are taking towards drugs, you insist that it's all just a bunch of liberal hooey, as if anyone except a few of your cohorts on FR believes you. But go ahead, spew your nonsense, because more and more people in positions of power and influence are questioning the insanity of doing more and more of what is failing.

In other words, better sane ... than Dane.

39 posted on 01/30/2003 7:42:45 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Probably a libertine too.
40 posted on 01/30/2003 7:43:19 AM PST by Jason_b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
bttt
41 posted on 01/30/2003 7:43:37 AM PST by lodwick (Wishing a superior day to all the Guild.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Guess its time to start arresting the adults who smoke and drink. That should keep it away from the kiddies.

That'd show 'em, huh?

42 posted on 01/30/2003 7:45:18 AM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
the ideology of pro-doperism

Don't forget to throw in something about satanic music.

43 posted on 01/30/2003 7:46:20 AM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
That'd show 'em, huh?

Sure would. Not that I'm expecting even a modicum of intellectual consistency on the subject.

44 posted on 01/30/2003 7:49:05 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Dane, Dane, Dane. Once again, you're doing your feeble best to deflect to debate, in this instance trying to apply the liberal label to anyone in favor of changing the federal drug war. Despite the wide range of figures on the right who are questioning the approach the feds are taking towards drugs, you insist that it's all just a bunch of liberal hooey, as if anyone except a few of your cohorts on FR believes you. But go ahead, spew your nonsense, because more and more people in positions of power and influence are questioning the insanity of doing more and more of what is failing.

Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

I guess the real world isn't allowed to intrude into your tiny but vocal pro-drug mutual admiration society on FR.

45 posted on 01/30/2003 7:49:22 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; Dane
William F. Buckley funded National Review with donations by George Soros after all. Milton Friedman's chair in economics was financed by NORML.

Dane, KC and the lot just make themselves silly. So, just let them keep posting. I know more prominent conservatives opposed to the WOSD than liberals. If Dane would like to get me the quotes from Paul Wellstone, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Maxine Waters, and Barbara Boxer calling for the end to the WOSD, I am glad to hear it.

46 posted on 01/30/2003 7:49:25 AM PST by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797
I thought we settled our differences somewhere along the line. But for the record, I accept your apology.
47 posted on 01/30/2003 7:52:15 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Sandra Day O'Connor serves on the Supreme Court.

And it took you only 14 minutes to find that out. Very good---have a cookie.

Now you have another 14 minutes to find out whether she's a conservative like her appointer, Ronald Reagan.

48 posted on 01/30/2003 7:54:30 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Huh I guess the defeat of the 3 main pro-drug intitatives(in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio) pushed by the pro-drug lobby and defeated by wide margins last November doesn't mean a thing. The only place where a pro-pot intiative passed was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco.

There have been many, many state initiatives regarding pot, some pass, some don't. Several states have decriminalized pot. So state action gives us a range of laws to see what works and what doesn't. But the state initiatives that pass are setting up a challenge to federal usurpation regarding these laws, as the feds are currently ignoring medical marijuana laws in several states, despite the fact that the pot in question does not cross state lines. That, in the end, is the true positive of the entire pot debate - states are fighting to regain their 10th Amendment right to set their own laws regarding matters that do not cross state lines.

I guess the real world isn't allowed to intrude into your tiny but vocal pro-drug mutual admiration society on FR.

I'm not pro-drug, Dane, I'm pro-Constitutional government. If individual states wish to inact pot restrictions, that is their perogative under the 10th. The federal government has no proper authority to inact three-quarters of the laws they force on the American public, pot laws are just one small aspect of that usurpation. But since you have your own agenda that blinds your to emotion instead of reason (a very liberal tendency, mind you), you applaud usupration instead of fighting it.

Once again, better sane than Dane.

49 posted on 01/30/2003 7:55:42 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Thanks ... now lets get back the job at hand ... getting rid of the INSANE WOsD.
50 posted on 01/30/2003 7:56:23 AM PST by clamper1797 (Per Caritate Viduaribus Orphanibusque Sed Prime Viduaribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-369 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson