Drug Policy and the Presidential Election

[ReformMaryJaneLaws]

Drug Policy and the Presidential Election

--
Introduction

10/8/04

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...eelection.shtml

Drug War Chronicle this week runs a feature overview of drug policy and the presidential election campaigns. We begin with a look at the drug policy records and platforms of major party candidates President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/357/electionI.shtml), followed by a discussion of drug policy and the presidential election among drug reformers from across the political spectrum (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...lectionII.shtml).

We then move on to an interview with independent candidate Ralph Nader (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...ectionIII.shtml). Finally, we reprint our earlier interview with Libertarian Party nominee Michael Badnarik (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...lectionIV.shtml), in order to present the full set of articles all together.

We have not covered the Green Party, whose presidential candidate David Cobb has been largely overshadowed by the Nader candidacy, but which also holds progressive positions on drug policy issues. See the Green Party platform on social justice issues at http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1001998 online.

For the record: DRCNet is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization which does not endorse candidates; and Drug War Chronicle is a reporting venue in which we seek to provide complete and accurate information. The information in this election feature is provided purely for educational purposes, with no electoral agenda, and has been compiled objectively to the best of our ability.

[ReformMaryJaneLaws]

The Election I: Bush and Kerry on Drugs: Past Records and Platform Planks

10/8/04

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/357/electionI.shtml

As part of a set of articles covering drug policy in the presidential campaign, we here examine the respective records of President George W. Bush and his challenger, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. While both independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Badnarik have responded to interview requests, we did not bother to seek interviews with either Kerry or Bush because it seemed too unlikely that either would grant one. And since neither the Kerry nor the Bush campaigns responded to DRCNet requests for comment this week, we will have to rely on their platform positions and their records to examine where they stand on drug policy.

When President Bush came to office in January 2001, some drug reformers dared to hope he would be amenable to change, especially given his campaign comments suggesting he would rethink mandatory minimum sentencing and that medical marijuana could perhaps be handled as a states' rights issue. But as president, George W. Bush has reverted to the tough "law and order" politics on which he has based his political career.

With a few exceptions, however, President Bush has not radically deepened the war on drugs, but has instead largely adopted the course of his predecessors, both Republican and Democrat. Instead of adopting broad changes, for better or for worse, the Bush administration has tweaked its drug policy to emphasize what it has identified as the issues of the day.

* The Drug-Fighting Budget: The Bush administration has presided over modest increases in funding for the federal war on drugs while maintaining the rough 2-to-1 ratio of spending on enforcement over spending on treatment and prevention. (It did, however, attempt to distort this pattern by budgetary legerdemain; in the fiscal year 2004 budget it removed the costs of incarcerating federal drug prisoners from the mix, giving the misleading impression that treatment and prevention had increased as a proportion of the federal anti-drug budget.)

* The War on Medical Marijuana: Under Attorney General John Ashcroft and drug czar John Walters, the Bush administration has fought a desperate rearguard action against medical marijuana users and providers in the states where it is legal. While the Clinton administration also opposed medical marijuana, it was only under President Bush that the Justice Dept. unleashed the full weight of criminal law against the medical marijuana movement.

* Holding the Line Against Hemp: Under Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) spent three years and untold taxpayer dollars in a vicious, ridiculous, and ultimately failed effort to block the sale and use of hemp-based food products.

*Attempting to Block Drug Reform in Other Countries: The Bush administration has been particularly shrill in its efforts to stop other countries from liberalizing their drug laws. It has growled threateningly at Jamaica as that island nation considered marijuana decriminalization, but most brazenly, it has threatened long-time ally and close neighbor Canada with all sorts of dreadful consequences (mostly relating to trade interruptions) if the Canadians have the temerity to adopt a decriminalization scheme similar to that already in effect in many US states.

* Escalating the Latin American Drug War: Under the Bush administration, the Clinton-era drug war in Colombia has merged seamlessly into the "war on terror." As US taxpayer dollars continue to flow into the Colombian morass, the administration is currently seeking to increase the congressionally-imposed ceilings on US troop and mercenary levels. But while the administration has been rigid in demanding coca eradication as the centerpiece of its Latin American drug policy, even spraying vast stretches of Colombia with herbicides, it has also recently begun to show the faintest hints of flexibility, not in Colombia, but in Bolivia. In the face of instability there, generated at least in part by the US-imposed "zero coca" option, the State Department last year increased alternative development funding and last week did not scream when the Bolivian government signed an agreement with Chapare coca growers to allow limited coca production this year.

* Student Drug Testing: In his State of the Union speech in January, President Bush announced a new $25 million initiative to encourage school districts to embark on student drug testing programs. Such programs have been found to be ineffective in reducing student drug use. Bush administration lawyers have also forcefully defended testing students before the Supreme Court and have suggested that recent court rulings mean that random suspicionless testing of any student may be legal.

* Maintaining Harsh Prison Sentences for Drug Offenders: While the Bush administration has, as a rule, not pushed for harsh, new anti-drug legislation, as occurred in the anti-drug frenzy of the 1980s, Attorney General Ashcroft has directed an administrative and legislative offensive designed to reduce vestigial judicial discretion in sentencing even further and to ensure that judges never depart downward from statutory mandatory minimum sentences.

* Compassionate Conservatism: In addition to touting his school drug testing initiative, Bush's campaign highlights as part of his "compassion agenda" the Access to Recovery program, a three-year $600 million drug treatment initiative designed to "give recovering addicts expanded access to a full range of faith-based and community providers." He mentions a three-year, $150 million initiative to provide 100,000 mentors from faith-based and community organizations to mentor the children of prisoners. The Bush campaign also calls HIV/AIDS an "urgent problem," notes that Bush has increased domestic AIDS funding to $17.1 billion, and vows to continue to fight the disease, but opposes liberalizing federal needle exchange policy.

Of possibly greater significance is Bush's support for the bipartisan movement to expand efforts to assist prisoners with the process of reentry to society. Within this context, as well as within the pending reauthorizations of the Higher Education Act (HEA) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the administration favors a partial reform to the HEA's anti drug provision to limit its applicability to those students who were in school and receiving federal financial aid at the time of their drug offenses.

Neither the Bush campaign (http://www.georgewbush.com) nor the Republican Party platform (http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf) have much to say about drug policy, or even criminal justice policy, for that matter. While the Bush campaign sounds a bit soft and fuzzy, with its talk of treatment and compassion, the party platform is hard-edged. After citing the administration's "progress" in reducing teen drug use, the platform warns that to continue this progress, "We must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing."



.................................................. .................................................




The Bush administration has an actual record in office, while challenger John Kerry's performance must be assessed by examining what he has done in the past. California NORML head Dale Gieringer examined Kerry's voting record in the Senate and found it decidedly mixed:

* Kerry was part of the congressional mob that in the mid-1980s fell all over itself to pass one draconian anti-drug bill after another. For instance, he supported the Omnibus Drug Bill of 1986, championed by Massachusetts Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neill, which created the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparities that have seen the federal prisons filled with dark-skinned drug offenders. To be fair, only two senators voted against that bill.

* Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: In later votes, Kerry voted against mandatory minimums for selling drugs to minors, for the use of firearms in drug crimes, and for the use of firearms in state drug crimes.

* The Death Penalty: As a senator, John Kerry consistently voted against measures to expand the death penalty to drug crimes, a reflection of his broader stance against the death penalty.

* Drug Testing: Senator Kerry was one of only seven senators to oppose random drug testing of transportation workers. He also voted against a successful bill by then-Senator John Ashcroft to require random drug testing of job training participants, and another proposal to require drug testing of welfare recipients. (He did, however, vote to deny welfare benefits for life to anyone convicted of a drug crime, even simple possession.) But Kerry also voted for a one-year demonstration program requiring drug testing for drivers license applicants and for a measure that would require Veterans Affairs employees to be subject to random drug testing.

* Money Laundering: Former prosecutor Kerry has been very active in promoting legislation against money laundering, arguing that "damping drug traffickers' financial lifeline could be a successful tactic."

* The Latin American Drug War: Kerry has been a staunch supporter of the drug war in Latin America. He sided with the Reagan administration in pushing for decertification of Latin American countries that the US determined were not doing their share in the drug war. He was also among a handful of Democrats who voted to authorize the shooting down of suspected drug smuggling aircraft, a policy that resulted in the deaths of American missionary Ronnie Bowers and her infant child in 2001. And he has been a strong, consistent backer of the US drug war in Colombia. One of the architects of the Clinton-era Plan Colombia, Rand Beers, is currently a key Kerry foreign policy advisor.

* Medical Marijuana: Kerry last year signed a letter with fellow Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy asking the DEA to approve the necessary licenses requested by the University of Massachusetts to perform medical marijuana research. While campaigning for the Democratic nomination in New Hampshire in January, Kerry said he would keep medical marijuana illegal until research to complete the FDA approval process was completed, but would not pursue medical marijuana prosecutions in states that have passed medical marijuana laws in the meantime.

* The Higher Education Act's Anti-Drug Provision: Also in New Hampshire, Kerry said he supports "partial repeal" of the provision. Students should not lose aid for simple drug use, he said. "But if the offense is selling, no."

While the Democratic Party platform (http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf) mentions neither drugs nor crime, the Kerry campaign (http://www.johnkerry.com) does, and it plays up his "tough on crime" credentials, promising more police and more drug war -- all part of the "stronger America" meme rampant in both campaigns. "John Kerry and John Edwards will aggressively target drug traffickers and dealers and provide funding for coordinated regional efforts aimed at cracking down on drug trafficking," the campaign proclaims. "They will also adequately fund drug prevention and treatment, including innovative approaches to requiring treatment for offenders like drug courts." Despite hints from the campaign trail that Kerry might be amenable to looking at mandatory minimums or more kindly disposed toward medical marijuana, there is no mention of either topic in either the Democratic platform or the Kerry campaign.

In the movie "Traffic," the drug czar character played by actor Michael Douglas begged loudly for someone in charge of drug policy to "think outside the box." It appears there is no danger of that happening with either of these candidates.

[ReformMaryJaneLaws]

The Election II: Drug Reformers on Kerry and Bush, Nader and
Badnarik

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...ectionII.shtml

The presidential election is now less than a month away. With the
US waging hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the threat of
terrorist attacks looming over everything, few issues other than
war and terror are getting any play at all. The state of the
economy and concerns about the health care system appear to be the
primary domestic issues, while drug policy is not even on the
radar. The major party candidates have not broached the topic on
their own and their challengers on the left and the right who do
articulate radically sensible drug policies struggle to be heard.

While many argue that the drug reform community skews toward the
progressive side of the political spectrum, it is by no means
monolithic. In addition to social justice-minded progressives,
who presumably are mostly supporting Democratic challenger Sen.
John Kerry, the movement also contains a healthy measure of
libertarians, many though not all of whose natural sympathies lie
closer to incumbent President George W. Bush.

As usual, the drug reform community faces the questions: Do you
support the candidate who best represents your views as a reformer
-- presumably Libertarian Gary Badnarik or independent Ralph Nader
-- despite knowing neither has a chance of winning? Or are the
differences between Bush and Kerry on drug policy sufficient to
support one of them instead?

This week, DRCNet spoke with a variety of drug reform advocates
about drug policy and the presidential campaign. Bear in mind
that many of them are constrained by their nonprofit tax status
from endorsing a political candidate. Most saw no sign that
either Bush or Kerry would break with drug war orthodoxy, but most
also saw little reason to vote for third party candidates.
Interestingly, the degree of difference people saw between Kerry
and Bush on drug policy generally appeared to correlate with their
positions on the ideological spectrum.

"There is not much difference between Bush and Kerry that I'm
aware of," said David Boaz, executive vice-president of the
libertarian Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org). "As far as I
know, both candidates support drug laws as they are. I certainly
haven't heard Kerry criticizing the administration on it."

"There is absolutely no difference between them," concurred Nick
Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason magazine and a self-described
small-L libertarian. "Kerry has always been a drug hawk," he
said, pointing to Kerry's choice of former Assistant Secretary of
State Rand Beers, a key architect of Plan Columbia, as an example.
"Which is not to say that Bush is good. With both Democrats and
Republicans, there is a real commitment to keeping control of all
aspects of drug policy at the federal level. That's why under
both Janet Reno and John Ashcroft you had the Dept. of Justice
attacking legal medical marijuana in California and elsewhere."

But Janet Reno only sicced the Justice Department's civil division
on the medical marijuana movement, while John Ashcroft unleashed a
campaign of criminal investigations and arrests, pointed out Dale
Gieringer, head of California NORML (http://www.canorml.org).
That racheting-up of repression has been typical of the Bush
administration's approach, he said. "This is the first time in
many years that I can see a discernible difference between the
major party candidates regarding marijuana and drug policy," said
Gieringer. "Clinton was terrible on drug policy, and Gore never
repudiated that. In 2000, Bush made encouraging comments about
states' rights and marijuana, but once in office, Bush's record
has been as bad as any we've seen. When John Ashcroft raided and
closed the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center two weeks after
9/11, I knew this administration was a worse threat to our welfare
and safety than Saddam Hussein would ever be. From a drug reform
perspective, we could not do worse than Bush," he told DRCNet.

"We've seen what the Bush administration considers compassion
toward medical marijuana," agreed Steph Sherer, executive director
of Americans for Safe Access (http://www.safeaccessnow.org), the
California-based medical marijuana defense group. Sherer said
that during ASA's conversations with the Kerry campaign, the group
had extracted a promise to put a moratorium on raids. "All we can
do is see if he lives up to his promise," she said.

The Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org) has been
reaching out to both parties on drug reform, but DPA's Bill Piper
also saw clear differences between Bush and Kerry. "Look at
mandatory minimum sentences, medical marijuana, and needle
exchange," said Piper. "Kerry has actually voted against
mandatory minimums and he has supported greater access to sterile
syringes. The Senate hasn't dealt with medical marijuana, but
Kerry did sign a letter along with Sen. Kennedy urging the DEA to
allow medical marijuana research to go forward at the University
of Massachusetts-Amherst."

But Kerry's record isn't all sweetness and light, Piper added.
"He has a history of talking tough on drugs and crime, and he has
been totally supportive of the Latin American drug war. He's been
awful on a host of civil liberties issues, but on his voting
record and his rhetoric, on drug policy he is clearly better than
Bush. How he will govern as president, however, remains to be
seen."

But even a do-nothing Kerry would be better than Bush, Piper
suggested. "Even if Kerry turns out like Bill Clinton, who did
nothing of substance on drug policy, the fact that he would not be
actively working against us would be helpful. It is hard to
imagine that Kerry would appoint such ardent drug warriors and
ideologues like John Ashcroft and John Walters."

For Keith Stroup, the soon-to-retire long-time head of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
(http://www.norml.org), the differences between Bush and Kerry are
clear and stark. "Without question, as you can see from the
information we have on our web site, it is clear that Bush is the
ultimate drug warrior," Stroup argued. "Kerry, on the other hand,
has a relatively soft position. He talks about how when he was a
prosecutor they would exercise discretion and not prosecute simple
marijuana possession cases. I wish he would clearly say he
supported medical marijuana, but marijuana smokers will be in much
better shape under a Kerry presidency," said Stroup.

"Nobody is talking about drug policy so far, and I don't expect it
to happen, but Kerry's record does have a few bright spots," said
Gieringer. "He has voted against mandatory minimum sentences, he
has voted against the death penalty for 'drug kingpins.' I spoke
with him, and the one thing he said without any prompting is that
there are far too many people in prison for drug offenses and that
mandatory minimums have to go. He doesn't say that on the
hustings, though."

For all the nuanced discussion about drug policy differences
between Bush and Kerry, everyone DRCNet spoke with agreed that
neither breaks with the prohibitionist paradigm. But candidates
who are very strong on drug policy, meaning Libertarian Michael
Badnarik and independent Ralph Nader aren't getting much respect
in an election that many are calling critical for the nation's
future.

"Realistically, the next president will be either Bush or Kerry,"
said Cato's Boaz. "If you are a single issue voter, you probably
want to try to determine which of the majors is less bad on this
issue. It would be good if the media paid more attention to minor
candidates, but as long as election laws are set up to sustain the
two party system, the media correctly understand that third
parties face an insuperable barrier," he argued.

"If you're looking to be a purist," said NORML's Stroup, "Ralph
Nader is very clear and good on drug policy, but the problem is
that he is just not a serious candidate." Reflecting the anybody-
but-Bush attitude rampant in broad swathes of the American polity,
Stroup warned that "the impact of voting for Nader may allow Bush
to win. If I were just voting on the best marijuana position, it
would be either Nader or the Libertarians. But because of the
importance of this election and because I think Kerry's position
is as supportive as we can expect from a major party candidate, I
suspect I will be voting for John Kerry."

"The Libertarians, the Greens, and Ralph Nader are all better on
all of our issues than either Kerry or Bush," said DPA's Piper.
"If they were elected president they probably would follow through
on their campaign promises. But they aren't going to win."
Still, he argued, minor candidates are worthy of consideration.
"The more votes they get, the more helpful for drug policy reform,
because they send a message to the major parties."

While both Nader and Libertarian nominee Badnarik have strong drug
policy platforms, drug reform voters determined to cast a protest
vote should note the differences between them, said Reason editor
Gillespie. "There are significant differences between their
general drug policies," he pointed out. "Badnarik is very much
for legalization, while Nader is much more interested in
medicalizing drug use. While Nader's position is better than what
we have, it's not as good as Badnarik's. If you are going to vote
based on the drug issue and you believe human beings have the
right to control their own bodies and ingest what they wish,
Badnarik is your candidate."

[ReformMaryJaneLaws]

The Election III: DRCNet Interview: Independent Presidential
Candidate Ralph Nader

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...ctionIII.shtml

As part of a package of articles this week covering drug policy in
the presidential election campaign, we present an interview with
Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org), the controversial
independent progressive candidate. (He has also won the
nomination of the Reform Party, enabling him to get on the ballot
in seven states.) Nader has a lengthy history as a consumer
advocate, bursting onto the national scene with the 1963
publication of "Unsafe At Any Speed," a devastating account of
safety problems with the Chevrolet Corvair. Since then, he has
spawned numerous consumer advocacy organizations and authored
numerous books, most recently "Crashing the Party," about the
Green Party and electoral reform.

Nader also ran as the Green Party presidential candidate in 1996
and 2000, garnering 1% of the popular vote in 1996 and 2.75% in
the hotly disputed 2000 contest between Democratic Al Gore and
Republican George W. Bush. While the Greens did not offer Nader
the nomination this year, his independent candidacy is
consistently polling at between 1% and 2%, and he is on the ballot
in at least 30 states at this writing, including some key
battleground states.

Nader's candidacy is highly controversial among progressives,
including a broad swathe of drug reformers, who fear that a vote
for Nader is a vote for George Bush. We asked him about that; see
below. This interview was conducted by e-mail over a period of
weeks. We received final responses Monday.

Drug War Chronicle: In your issue statement on the war on drugs,
you say "it is time to bring some illegal drugs within the law by
regulating, taxing, and controlling them." Are you referring
specifically to marijuana, or do you have other drugs in mind?

Ralph Nader: Marijuana is the drug that should most clearly be
brought into a system of regulation and taxation. It is less
dangerous than drugs like alcohol and tobacco as far as addiction
and death. Regulation and taxation would provide greater control
over purity, potency labeling, health warnings and age
restrictions then the ineffective current 'war on marijuana'
approach. In addition, experience with allowing retail sales of
marijuana in Holland have shown effectiveness -- significantly
less marijuana use in all age categories, especially by youth,
twice as many US youth use marijuana on a per capita basis than
Dutch youth.

Regarding other drugs, there has not been enough research done to
show whether regulation and taxation approaches would work.
Research being done in Switzerland on heroin assisted treatment --
where heroin users go to a government controlled clinic, purchase
their heroin and use it at the clinic under the eyes of a health
care worker -- show promise in that they have reduced crime,
disease, death and dysfunction without increasing drug use, indeed
leading to reduced drug use.

Chronicle: You have long been a critic of corporate power. How
would you prevent a legal marijuana market from being dominated by
large corporations? If you are talking about legalizing or
regulating marijuana, how would that work?

Nader: We do not want the forbidden fruit enticement of
marijuana's illegality to be replaced with glamorization by
Madison Avenue advertising. Preventing national advertising that
would create national brand name recognition would help keep large
corporations out. This does not mean all advertising should be
banned -- just national advertising to develop national brand
recognition. Control of large corporations is a broader question
that relates to this issue. The US needs to do more to control
corporations through their corporate charters, taxation, and
enforcement against corporate crime, fraud and abuse and the
ending of corporate welfare.

Chronicle: What about medical marijuana?

Nader: The criminal prosecution of patients for medical marijuana
must end immediately, and marijuana must be treated as a medicine
for the seriously ill. The current cruel, unjust policy
perpetuated and enforced by the Bush Administration prevents
Americans who suffer from debilitating illnesses from experiencing
the relief of medicinal cannabis.

While substantial scientific and anecdotal evidence exists to
validate marijuana's usefulness in treating disease, a deluge of
rhetoric from Washington claims that marijuana has no medicinal
value. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 defines marijuana as
a Schedule One narcotic, making it very difficult for American
researchers to perform rigorous double-blind scientific studies on
marijuana. Even without these difficulties, research has shown
marijuana to be a safe and effective medicine for controlling
nausea associated with cancer therapy, reducing the eye pressure
for patients with glaucoma, and reducing muscle spasms caused by
multiple sclerosis, para- and quadriplegia.

Internationally, scientists are undertaking massive studies to
determine the healing powers of cannabis. In August 2003 the
esteemed British medical journal The Lancet reported that the
world's largest study into the medical effects of cannabis have
confirmed that the drug can reduce pain and improve the lives of
people with multiple sclerosis. The three-year study was the
first proper clinical appraisal of whether cannabis-derived drugs
can help treat MS. Harvard medical doctor Lester Grinspoon has
said he would have loved to do a similar study, but has been held
back by the law. On his website (http://www.rxmarijuana.com), and
in his book "The Forbidden Medicine," Grinspoon documents how
marijuana relieves the pain of people enduring more than 110
different medical conditions -- like AIDS, Crohn's Disease,
glaucoma, cancer, and many more. Marijuana helps increase
appetite, reduce blood pressure and intraocular pressure.

Whenever given the chance, the American public has voted to allow
seriously ill people to relieve their pain with marijuana.
Despite well-funded opposition from the federal government,
citizens in nine states have cast ballots to legalize the use of
medicinal marijuana. No state has ever rejected such a voter
initiative. Medical marijuana community health centers have
opened up in the states, like California, only to be aggressively
attacked and closed by federal law enforcement agents. Physicians
must have the right to prescribe this drug to their patients
without the fear of the federal government revoking their
licenses, and doctor-patient privacy must be protected. The Drug
Enforcement Administration should not be practicing medicine.

Chronicle: There are more than two million people behind bars in
this country, about one-quarter of them prisoners of the war on
drugs. In terms of broader criminal and social justice policies,
what would you do to reduce this number? And what about the
people who are already in prison?

Nader: Repeal mandatory sentencing and "three strikes and you're
out laws" and return power to judges to sentence people as
individuals within voluntary guidelines. Mandatory sentencing
laws coincide with the rapid rise of people incarcerated since the
mid-1980s. This is especially true for the rapid rise of
incarceration of African Americans. Handling substance abuse as a
health problem more than as a law enforcement issue will slow the
expansion of the number of drug offenders arrested and
incarcerated. Regarding people already in prison, first, reforms
in sentencing should be made retroactive. It is an injustice to
say these laws are not fair, but then keep people incarcerated
based on those unfair laws. Second, many people -- indeed
hundreds of thousands -- are being released annually. Government,
rather than providing assistance to these people to help them make
the most of their lives, has put roadblocks in front of them. We
need to remove the roadblocks, and make it easier for people to
get a good education and a good job. Along with this we need to
encourage them to rejoin the community as full citizens by
restoring their right to vote.

Chronicle: Your issue statement on reforming the criminal justice
system says you want to replace the war on drugs with "a health-
based, treatment and prevention focused approach." Now, much drug
treatment is coerced; people are given a choice between treatment
and prison. Should ordering someone into drug treatment be a
function of the criminal justice system?

Nader: The best drug treatment is treatment that the user
chooses. It is a lot less expensive, and less damaging to the
individual, to make drug treatment as available as any other
health service then it is to have the government arrest,
prosecute, incarcerate and then force someone into treatment. So,
the first choice is to make treatment as easily available as
possible. That means making it affordable and user-friendly, i.e.
located in neighborhoods where people can access it, and have
treatment available to treat individual needs. (For example, many
drug addicted women have been victims of sexual or spousal abuse
-- this needs to be incorporated into drug treatment.) Treatment
also needs to include programs that reduce the harm from drug
abuse, e.g. preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS through needle
exchange programs. And, we need to recognize that the most
effective barometer of whether someone is going to succeed in drug
treatment is whether they have a job. Thus, the US needs to be
creating jobs that can give people hope and opportunity in life.
While there are problems with coerced treatment, it is better to
give people a choice of treatment instead of incarceration as done
in many of the better drug court programs currently in existence
and as has been passed by voters in California and other states.

Chronicle: Should drug treatment be available on demand? If so,
how do you pay for it?

Nader: On our web site we have a detailed plan for making health
care available to all Americans -- this should include substance
abuse treatment and prevention. The Nader campaign supports a
single-payer health care plan that replaces for-profit, investor-
owned health care and removes the private health insurance
industry (full Medicare for all). A major problem with our health
care system is that we spend an inordinate amount of money on
unnecessary bureaucracy and duplicative overhead caused primarily
by our reliance on the private health insurance industry. Indeed,
25% of every dollar spent on health care in the US goes to
duplicative and unnecessary overhead. The United States spends
far more on health care than any other country in the world on a
per capita basis, but ranks only 37th in the overall quality of
health care it provides, according to the World Health
Organization. The US is the only industrialized country that does
not provide universal health care. Forty-five million Americans
have no health insurance, and tens of millions more are
underinsured. Providing universal health care can only be
accomplished through a single-payer system: no country ever
achieved universal coverage with private health insurance.
President Harry Truman proposed universal health care in 1948 but
was rebuffed by Congress. The time to act is yesterday. Let us
end our disastrous descent into the corporatization of medicine
and its callous consequences.

Chronicle: Is the drug war, and more broadly, the criminal
justice system, racist?

Nader: The drug war and criminal injustice system certainly have
a racially unfair impact. The facts on this are evident,
according to federal surveys, "most current illicit drug users are
white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of
all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million
Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in
1998." Despite these facts, African Americans constitute 36.8% of
those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal
prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost
58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account
for 20.7%. From racial profiling to discretionary decisions of
prosecutors and judges, African Americans and Latinos are treated
more harshly than European-Americans.

Chronicle: Your issue statements on criminal justice and the war
on drugs illustrate some of the harm done by the drug war. The
evidence of the damage is irrefutable, yet little changes. Why is
reforming our drug policies such an intractable issue?

Nader: Change is always difficult. Their are entrenched
interests that profit from the current system -- within the
government , e.g., the drug enforcement bureaucracy, and outside
the government, e.g. profit-making corporate prisons or the drug
treatment industry that relies on court-ordered clients. In
addition, many politicians who have supported the war on drugs
have a hard time publicly admitting they were wrong. They have no
standard of failure so as to change course. Yet, progress is
being made. States are voting for medical marijuana and treatment
instead of prison. The public seems to see the failure of the
drug war, now it is time for politicians who refuse to see it to
be replaced by elected officials ready to end the expensive and
failed drug war.

Chronicle: Your agricultural policy issue statement does not
mention hemp. What's up with that?

Nader: At http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=29
we have a strong position supporting industrial hemp. The Nader-
Camejo Campaign supports industrial hemp as a renewable resource
with many important fuel, fiber, food, paper, energy and other
uses. Industrial hemp is a commercial crop grown for its seed and
fiber and the products made from them such as oil, seed cake, and
hurds (stalk cores). Industrial hemp is one of the longest and
strongest fibers in the plant kingdom, and it has had thousands of
uses over the centuries. In need of alternative crops and aware
of the growing market for industrial hemp -- particularly for bio-
composite products such as automobile parts, farmers in the United
States are forced to watch from the sidelines while Canadian,
French and Chinese farmers grow the crop and American
manufacturers import it from them. Federal legislators,
meanwhile, continue to ignore the issue of removing it from the
DEA list. It is time to allow hemp agriculture, production and
manufacturing in the United States.

Chronicle: Drug reform ranks include supporters from across the
political spectrum. Most will consider your drug policy positions
very favorably, but many of those who are aligned with the
political left will oppose your candidacy nevertheless, because
they fear splitting the vote and handing the election to George
Bush. Do you think they're wrong, and if so, why?

Nader: The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't
believe in. George Bush and John Kerry have strong pro-drug war
records. George Bush and John Ashcroft have a terrible record on
all the issues discussed in this survey and have been aggressive
in their prosecution of drug offenders including medical marijuana
in states like California where the voters have voted to support
medical marijuana. But, the Clinton administration was not much
better, even on medical marijuana they took steps to enforce the
marijuana laws and close community-based medical marijuana clinics
sanctioned by local governments. Senator John Kerry is a former
prosecutor who was one of the lead sponsors of Plan Colombia and
has supported crime bills that have led to the mess of our
criminal injustice system and the high levels of incarceration.
People who oppose the drug war are showing little respect for
themselves if they vote for candidates who want to incarcerate
them, their friends or their family for addictions; or who support
a policy as damaging as the war on drugs. As your question notes
"fear" is behind voting against your interest for the lesser evil.
When you operate out of fear you are likely to make mistakes.
People need to put aside fear and vote for the greater good, not
the lesser evil.

[ReformMaryJaneLaws]

The Election IV: DRCNet Interview: Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate

10/8/04

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle...lectionIV.shtml

This interview initially ran in Drug War Chronicle two weeks ago, 8/24/04. We are running it again in order to present all of our presidential election-related coverage together.

The Libertarian Party (LP) has for years been a staunch advocate of ending drug prohibition, a plank to which it adheres to this day. In the party's current position statement on drug policy, it says bluntly, "Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions."

While the LP advocates drug legalization as part of a comprehensive and consistent anti-statist approach -- party planks also include ending welfare programs, protecting gun-owners' rights, opposing foreign wars and the war in Iraq in particular, opposing the Patriot Act and any other infringements on civil liberties and free speech, and opposing government regulations that interfere with free enterprise, such as minimum wages -- it has never caught hold with the voting public. In the last 20 years, the LP presidential candidate has never done better than second among the minority parties or important independents -- typically Nader and/or Greens on the progressive left or the Reform Party on the populist right have come in third, except in 1988, when Ron Paul (now a Republican congressman from Texas) beat out Lenora Fulani and the New Alliance Party. Except for businessman Harry Browne in 1996, no LP presidential candidate has since equaled Paul's showing with 0.5% of the popular vote. Browne, who ran again in 2000, saw his total decline to 0.36%.

Carrying the Libertarian Party banner in this year's election is Michael Badnarik, a computer consultant and constitutional scholar living in Austin, Texas. Badnarik was "turned off" from politics and pursuing his professional career until his study of the Constitution led him to the Libertarian Party, according to his biography. He ran for the Texas House of Representatives in 2000 and 2002 before successfully claiming the LP presidential nomination earlier this year. Badnarik answered DRCNet questions via e-mail as he flitted around the county campaigning this week.
Drug War Chronicle: The Libertarian Party has long stood tall against the "war on drugs." Are you continuing that stance?

Michael Badnarik: Absolutely. Libertarians have a number of good reasons to oppose the "war on drugs." The first, of course, is based in the notion of self-ownership. What you or I might choose to eat, drink, smoke, inject or otherwise ingest into our own bodies is none of the government's business. We own ourselves. The government doesn't own us.

Secondly, the "war on drugs," by any reasonable set of criteria, has been an abject failure. Any drug you care to name is just as available now -- perhaps even more available -- as it was when "war" was declared on it. Billions of dollars in government spending and millions of arrests and imprisonments have failed to achieve anything resembling "victory." And they'll continue to fail.

Finally, there are the unintended consequences and side effects. Drug war prisoners constitute a large minority, some say a majority, of the US prison population, and that prison population is the largest per capita in the world. The Bill of Rights -- in particular the 4th and 5th Amendments -- has been eviscerated. Law enforcement has bee corrupted. Lives have been ruined. Communities have been torn apart. There's just no upside to the drug war.

Chronicle: Clearly, drug abuse can be harmful. What do you say to people who argue that avoiding the harms of drug abuse justify drug prohibition?

Badnarik: We could argue all day about whether the "war on drugs" would be justified if it minimized drug abuse. The fact is that it doesn't. As a matter off fact, the evidence militates toward concluding that in encourages drug abuse. The "war on drugs" has encouraged a trend of ever more potent, dangerous drugs which are more addictive and more likely to engender an abusive response in their users. Marijuana is engineered for higher THC content. Opium evolves into morphine and then heroin. Coca leaves become powder cocaine, which becomes crack.

All of these changes are due to the imperative to maximize profit and to create drugs that give more "bang for the buck" in terms of being able to fit a given number of doses into a smaller space to facilitate smuggling. Then, when someone discovers that he or she has a drug problem, they're afraid to seek help. They've been deemed criminals. They're afraid of being arrested -- so they go on with their self-destructive behavior rather than risking it.

Chronicle: What do you see as the primary harms of the "war on drugs"?

Badnarik: I've listed a number of them above. To me, the basic, primary harm is that it gives government more power over the individual. The other harms are the side effects, intended and unintended, of that basic problem.

Chronicle: If we were to end drug prohibition, with what sort of drug control regime might we replace it?

Badnarik: The only sort of "control regime" I'm interested in is the market. Historically, government "control regimes" have produced inferior results to those achieved by letting the market meet demand and maximize benefits. As a matter of fact, government controls usually have an effect counter to the intended one, with numerous bad side effects.

Chronicle: The Libertarian Party's national office under Ron Crickenberger, who died last fall, was very strong on pushing for the end of the "war on drugs." Is the drug war still a major issue for the party? What is the national office doing?

Badnarik: The Libertarian Party adopted ending the drug war as a "signature issue" a couple of years ago. A lot of that was due to Ron's influence, which is very much missed. In this presidential election, foreign policy and civil liberties in a more general sense have taken center stage. However, neither I nor the LP in general have abandoned our goal of ending the drug war. If anything, it's more urgent than ever, precisely because the drug war facilitates the terrorism we now find ourselves at war with.

Chronicle: What are the outlines of the debate within the party over the centrality of the "war on drugs" to the party platform?

Badnarik: It's been said that if you stick two Libertarians in a room and ask them a question, they'll emerge from the room with three conflicting and mutually exclusive points of view. That's as true of the drug issue as it is of any. However, I think that there are certain points on which we agree. We agree that the drug war is a failure. We agree that individuals should be free to make their own choices -- so long as they don't inflict the consequences of their mistakes on others.

Where we disagree sometimes is on the relative importance of the drug issue to others, and on the best approach for achieving our goals. Some Libertarians prefer to emphasize just marijuana, or just medical marijuana. Some Libertarians argue for a "control regime" like that currently in place for alcohol. Others want to tackle the whole subject, top to bottom, with a no-holds-barred, immediate battle for total victory over prohibition. And some Libertarians want to relegate the issue to a less prominent position in our platform, program, and public activities. These are all ongoing struggles within the Party. However, I believe that we're in general agreement on keeping the issue up front and continuing to do battle on it. And we're winning, as the progress of medical marijuana legislation, decriminalization legislation, etc., indicate.

Chronicle: The "war on drugs" is open to attack from across the political spectrum. Why is the Libertarian position superior to, say, the liberal critique of someone like George Soros or the public health-centered critique avowed by harm reductionists?

Badnarik: It really comes back to the libertarian critique of government in general, and to Lord Acton's dictum -- "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The liberal critique and the "harm reduction" critique still rely on government power. They assume that "the right people" or "the right policy" will remedy the situation. But once you hand power to government, you substantially lose control of how that power is exercised. Victories are temporary. Everything depends upon the whim of the politicians and how much influence can be exerted over them at any given time to go in any particular direction. Libertarians want to take the question out of the political arena entirely instead of trusting the transient wisdom and good intentions of bureaucrats and politicians to secure our rights.

Chronicle: Since Ed Clark got 920,000 votes and 1.1% of the popular vote in 1980, the LP presidential candidate has never received more than 0.5% of the popular vote (Paul in 1988 and Browne in 1996), and Harry Browne saw his vote totals decline from 1996 to 2000. Will you be able to break that ceiling and what are you doing that is different from earlier campaigns to enable you to do that?

Badnarik: I'm not even going to try to predict the outcome this November. Every election has certain unique features, and every election presents the LP with obstacles and with opportunities.

Will we bust the million-vote ceiling this time? I don't know. My gut feeling is that we will. Whatever the outcome, though, I know that I'll have earned every vote I get, that those votes will make a difference, and that the people who vote for me will never need to be ashamed for having done so.

How well we do this November depends upon a number of factors. However, I am confident that we can get our message out, affect the outcome of the election and achieve a greater degree of relevance for the Party than any previous campaign.

And, unlike previous campaigns, we're collecting hard data on what works and what doesn't instead of relying on anecdote and subjective perception. We're doing polls. We're coordinating those polls with our media buys so that we can gauge their effectiveness. This will be the best-documented presidential campaign in the LP's history -- and subsequent campaigns will be able to avoid making the same old mistakes over again.

[Grim Bongmaster]

Great article! ..I thought I'd step in and break this vicious cycle of you talking to yourself .

[oiseau777]

I see that the third party candidates will be talking on I believe PBS on Sunday 10/10. I will try and check this out.