(Update) Democratic Prez Candidate: “It is time to face the facts” about the War on Drugs
By Mona
I never thought I’d live to see this. A major party candidate for president — other than a former Libertarian Party member like Ron Paul — waxes aggressively anti-prohibitionist at his campaign web site:
My position on this issue is to face it directly, though other politicians run away from it. I agree with the many law enforcement officials and experts in the field that we must find a new way of dealing with illegal drugs.
I have studied the issue for decades and recognize that our “War on Drugs” has failed. In fact, because our War on Drugs drives up the price, it encourages violence. Prohibition simply doesn’t work. It only creates thousands and thousands of Al Capones. Prison should be for people who hurt other people, not themselves. We don’t jail people for merely drinking. We jail people when they drink and drive or hurt another human…
The supporters of the drug war have only one solution to this debacle — more money for law enforcement, more people, more power, more prisons — with no end in sight. Of course, these happy drug warriors who justify their living hunting down drug users come on TV and promise us that they see light at the end of the tunnel. They promised us a drug-free America by 1995, and instead we see new and more exotic drugs constantly being added to the mix….
The rampant corruption of the criminal justice system spawned by the $400 billion-a-year black market could be ended with the stroke of a pen. So also would be the wholesale devastation we have brought to other countries. Countries like Colombia, where we send billions of dollars of military aid and spray hundreds of thousands of acres of populated land with dangerous herbicides in a country with nearly a million displaced people…
It is time for an honest dialogue on this issue. Time to stop the documented lies, half-truths, and propaganda that got us into this mess in the first place. It is time to face the facts.
(via libertarian Logan Ferree at Freedom Democrats)
Kucinich is pretty bad (awful, really) on economics and is essentially a social democrat, but dang if I wouldn’t have to seriously consider voting for him if he could manage to get the nomination; he won’t, so that is an internal wrestling match I shall not face. But the mere fact that a congressman who aspires to be president will take such a vehement position on the obscenity that is the “war” on (people who use) drugs is an important step forward.
******** Update: to go from the sublime to the authoritarian ridiculous, guess what Kenneth Starr is up to now that he has no semen stains to sniff out on dresses? Why, he is acting pro bono in a case on appeal to the Supreme Court, Bong Hits 4 Jesus, in which the free speech rights of high school students are at issue when it comes to drug humor on a semi-political banner; the 9th Circuit found in favor speech, and thus the urgency of seeking to overturn such horrid precedent. Pete Guither summarizes Starr’s beliefs and arguments as set forth in his brief:
- that libertarian principles are wrong and dangerous
- that the 9th Circuit is wildly libertarian, and
- that being opposed to libertarian principles will be attractive to the Supreme Court.
Comment by Gary Farber —
January 30, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
“…and is essentially a social democrat….”
What does that mean to you? I take it that it’s something bad, but what the borders and descriptions are, I could only vaguely guess. (Myself, I tend to find Kucinich frequently fairly dubious, but I have much worse to say about many who aren’t “social democrats.”)
(I figure it’s better to ask than to issue you a stereotypical libertarian set of ideas usable more in my head than in accurately describing your thinking.)
Comment by Gary Farber —
January 30, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
And, for better or worse — some of both, I think — describing Kucinich as a “major party candidate for president” is a bit of a stretch. I mean, yes, he’s a candidate for the nomination of a major party, but his chances of getting said nomination are 100% zilch, which makes him no different whatever from, say, Shirley Chisholm, or quite a few other candidates on the fringes of the major parties who ran with equally non-existent chances of coming within dreaming distance of getting their party’s nomination.
So, as a point that frankly didn’t spring when I wrote my first comment, the notion that this is some sort of milestone — that an utterly fringe candidate with no chance whatever of getting even remotely within dreaming distance of their major party’s nomination is… well, frankly, doing anything whatever, and has no influence on anything, and nothing whatever to do with reality beyond the fringe… leads me to wonder what’s new or notable about that.
Mind, I absolutely wish it weren’t so. I abhor the drug war, and am absolutely for legalization (though, ha, taxation also!) of, essentially, everything.
But pointing to Kucinich as some sort of… anything other than a political extreme fringe… makes me scratch my head, once I pause for a moment to consider it.
“…an important step forward.”
Um, well, you know: no, it isn’t. Wish it were, but no, I have trouble seeing that. More important than, say, Kurt Schmoke, or Milton Friedman, or William F. Buckley, on drugs? (Mind: I’m a liberal, more or less.)
A noticeable percentage of the country uses illegal drugs (or in even more cases, legal drugs obtained illegally); that one of the most obscurely fringe members of the Democratic party stands up for them somewhat, and for sense, is, so far as I can see, not significant at all. But I’m entirely prepared to learn that I misunderstand this. Really.
Now, if someone with a real chance of actually gaining a presidential nomination speaks up for legalization — then we’re talking. It seems to me.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 30, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Kucinich will only win the nomination if we openly go to war against Moqtada Al Sadr and then invade Iran. Which is to say that we can’t rule it out.
The most important thing here is that another sitting member of Congress (besides Ron Paul, the only other one I’m aware of) is an open supporter of legalization. No “legalization is a great idea but…”, no “well, let’s decriminalize in certain cases but not legalize.” An honest call to end the whole thing with the stroke of a pen.
And, while Kucinich is indeed awful on some economic issues, he’s sounding pretty good when it comes to understanding how the laws of supply and demand apply to drugs. And being right on a “$400 billion black market” means that he’s right on one hell of a big economic issue.
The fact that he analyzes this from an economic standpoint is important. I’ve heard Democrats utter soft criticisms of how the Drug War is prosecuted, but these criticisms usually focus on race. Now, I agree 100% that the Drug War is racist, but focusing on race is not going to win over the American people. First, it sounds like special pleading for a special interest rather than a concern for the wider society. Second, complaining that the Drug War is racist sounds like an argument for arresting more white drug users as well, which will do nothing to alleviate the underlying problems.
To hear an office-holding Democrat argue against the Drug War on economic grounds is truly heartening.
Comment by Nell —
January 30, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Fringe today, mainstream in a while.
It’s a step for any candidate of one of the major parties to speak the truth on this issue.
Rather than spend any pixels questioning expressions of support for Kucinich for so doing, due to his low-to-zero chances of being nominated, I’m going to use the opportunity to ask candidates with a better chance at the nomination to start to take the right position.
Kucinich is a Democrat in good standing, which puts this issue in play. The more time spent dismissing him as fringe — if want to end the War on Some Drugs is not a major part of what makes him fringe to you — the less power you grant him to put issues in play that the major candidates are afraid to deal with.
I’m fed up with preemptive cringing.
Comment by Gary Farber —
January 30, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
“I’m fed up with preemptive cringing.”
Since I adore Nell, I will assume that had nothing to do with anything I said.
My political wants are a topic I could go on at great length about; I tend to assume they’re not a topic of general interest.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
January 30, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
If we triple that number, fully 1% of Congress - albeit a (so far) particularly marginal and uninfluential percent of Congress - would publicly oppose the drug war.
I don’t know that this is something. This sort of thing could encourage other people in Congress to speak out, or it could discourage people to speak out on the basis that they don’t want to be associated with a far-leftie or a libertarian.
I do hope this is more than I suspect, though.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 31, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Eric-
Agreed, but it’s still significant that a Congressman with name recognition came out on this. Kucinich might not be the main mover and shaker in his party, but he has more influence among Dems than Ron Paul has among Republicans.
It’s also significant that Kucinich has rejected the usual liberal arguments about drug prohibition (something about racism, a concern that could be plausibly alleviated by arresting more white people too) in favor of a solid economic argument. Granted, Kucinich may be bad on all sorts of other economic issues, I’m not here to make any apologies. But if the economic argument against prohibition has finally found a friend on the left, an elected official with real influence over a small but important wing of the Democratic party, well, I’m going to celebrate a small step forward. It’s sort of like the saying that only Nixon could go to China.
Comment by Nell —
January 31, 2007 @ 1:14 am
Gary, my comment did have to do with what you posted, but it’s not a personal attack. The ‘preemptive cringing’ remark might be a little harsh, sorry. But I stand by the substance of the point.
Political change doesn’t happen in a clean, easy way. Positions that have been considered beyond the pale of ‘respectable’ discussion don’t gain legitimacy all at once. They’re almost never advanced by popular, broadly credible politicians without first being advocated on the extremes of our rigid two-party system.
Focusing on the taint that this association with its early advocates supposedly throws on the issue only slows the process of it being addressed by others.
Social and political change is enough of a frustratingly slow slog as it is. Appreciating progress wherever it occurs, even if it’s a small step, is part of being able to hang in for the long haul.
In this case, we’re talking about a policy that incarcerates and subjects to an increasingly punitive, authoritarian, and violent system a huge number of people — disproportionately people who are already disrespected and discriminated against and powerless.
Even a small step toward breaking the political silence on this issue is worth celebrating.
Comment by MQ —
January 31, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Kucinich is also fantastic on U.S. militarism and imperialism. He has many similarities to Ron Paul as someone who may have some extreme economic views (Ron Paul is a gold standard nut), but is an articulate and forceful critic of the actual extremist policies of the so-called “moderate center” (endless international war, the drug war, etc.). On net, I’m not so sure that either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich wouldn’t be an improvement over either Bush (of course!) or even Hilary Clinton as President.
Kucinich is also (for a politician) sane and not an egomaniac — note how he didn’t even consider running a third party candidacy and instructed his delegates to vote for Kerry at the 04 convention. Compare to Nader.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
January 31, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Gary: A social democrat is someone who is broadly in tune with the policy prescriptions that follow Rawlsian political philosophy circa A Theory of Justice. This is unfortunate because it basically represents the left adopting the worst idea we libertarians ever had (ie, the social contract).
Second, Nell is right and you’re wrong. Remember the Overton window. Kucinich advocating legalization basically means it has become a radical position, rather than an unthinkable one, and this is genuine progress.
Comment by Leonard —
January 31, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
I’d suggest rather than Rawls, who few have read, the list of views of social democrats today at wiki is a better definition.
Comment by required —
February 1, 2007 @ 12:41 am
I’d support him just because of his babelicious wife, Liz.
Comment by witless chum —
February 2, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
I don’t believe this is anything new, though I’ll admit I cast my vote for Kucinich in the 2004 Michigan Democratic primary without exhaustively going through his positions.
He was clearly the leftest leftist.