Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs From: "Paul Hager" <[h--ge--p] at [cs.indiana.edu]> Subject: On the Campaign Trail -- Part 3 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1993 13:55:52 -0500 On the Campaign Trail -- A Journal Part 3 SATURDAY, 2-OCTOBER-1993 A confluence of events and initiatives came together on this day. As I wrote in a previous "Frontline" report, the pot has been stirred by public reaction to the local police department's "zero tolerance" policy with regard to marijuana. It has become possible to question the drug war -- even establishment types are wondering about its excesses. Taking advantage of this, some local folks organized a rally against the actions of the police and contacted me to be one of the speakers. I should mention that one of the things that has been most exciting about recent events is that all of the grassroots activity has occurred WITHOUT our drug policy group's instigation or direct involvement. For example, a guest editorial appeared in the local paper authored by an ex-narc, ex-CID (military) officer which "apologized" for his 16 year participation in the drug war. He acknowledged that the drug war is a disaster and threatens basic freedoms. When I read this wonderful piece, I called up our local people and no one had heard of this fellow. (We have since made contact.) In fact, a whole spate of letters critical of the drug war have appeared in the paper -- virtually all from people who have no connection whatsoever to our drug policy group. The rally organizer, also unknown to us, put things together and got pretty good coverage in the local paper. Because I was attending the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) annual conference later the same day, I was scheduled to be the first speaker. I ended up talking for about 20 minutes or so on the topic, "Winning the Drug War." In my introduction I said that I had been conversing with an acquaintance who had seen that I was scheduled to speak and said that she might show up but was "on the other side." Are you against civil liberties or individual rights, I asked. No, was the answer, but she did have a number of relatives and friends who were police. My response was that I wasn't going to engage in police bashing -- in fact, I saw the police in the drug war as being in the same unenviable position as the soldiers in Vietnam. In both instances, they were fighting an unwinnable war and just doing what society had asked them to do. As I related this conversation to the crowd, I said that it was at that point I knew what I was going to speak about: the drug war as a "domestic Vietnam." I said that I proposed to offer two alternative approaches to winning the drug war. I began by giving out some facts that show that the war is not going well -- by the government's own admission. I then said that, like Vietnam, some were now claiming that we were losing the drug war because we were fighting it with "one arm tied behind our backs." Accepting this as a valid view, I sketched out a "plan" for winning the war which I termed, "when in doubt, escalate." The escalation strategy was very simple, beginning with repeal of the posse commitatus laws and bringing all the troops home to use in domestic policing. This would, I said, envision garrisoning troops in "high risk neighborhoods" and probably billeting them in private homes. My friend and comrade-in-arms, Dennis Withered, was in the audience (he spoke later) and I saw him standing with a portable copy of the Constitution sticking out of his jacket pocket. I pointed to Dennis and said, "I see someone standing there with a copy of the Constitution," and Dennis, taking the cue, took it out of his pocket and waved it. "I already know what you're going to say -- quartering troops violates the 3rd Amendment. My answer is, we've been pretty much ignoring the rest of the Bill of Rights and shouldn't worry too much about this one." While I spoke, Dennis gave a good impression of a fellow taking vigorous exception to my suggestion by gesturing and waving his Constitution at me -- we're a pretty good team. I proceeded to enumerate a series of draconian, unconstitutional, actions. My final suggestion was to set up what I called work camps or labor camps. I said that Bill Clinton's boot camps were the inspiration and were a good idea and that I was going to "take the ball and run with it." I said that my escalation strategy would result in the arrests of millions of people who would have to be housed somewhere. In order to deal with this massive influx into the prison system and, at the same time, to make the war "self-financing" to some degree, I said that concentration camps should be co-located with factories or manufacturing plants in order to provide a source of cheap, convict labor. It would be a real boon for American business. "In the future, you get busted for a joint and you are sentenced to 20 years on the GM assembly line," I said. The program which I outlined was massive in scope and was going to cost a lot of money. I offered my "back-of-the- envelope" calculations and came up with close to $300 billion per year. I pointed out that, as everyone knows, government is usually pretty inefficient so a more conservative figure would be closer to one half trillion dollars per year. "This amount is clearly insane," I said. It would push us over the brink and into bankruptcy. This brought us to the second option, I said. I hesitated briefly and looked over the crowd. Then I said, "Declare victory and withdraw!" After the previous Swiftian satire, this went over pretty well. I briefly stated some of the more obvious benefits of re-legalizing drugs and getting government out of the prohibition business and then wrapped things up by addressing the political dimension. In that morning's paper, the letter that I submitted the previous week was run (a copy was posted on the net). I alluded to both it and the excellent editorial that appeared in the paper on the same page which attacked the absurdity of the drug excise tax. I said that a big part of our problem was that politicians who knew better -- who should be on our side -- didn't have the guts to stand up for what was right. "I'm going to name a few names," I said. First was state representative Mark Mark is basically a good guy, I said. "In 1991 he won the ICLU's Distinguished Legislator award for his support of the ICLU position on over 90% of our targeted legislation." Last year, he voted on the egregious drug excise tax. Later, he publicly admitted that "it was a mistake." I spoke to him personally about this, I said. I asked him if he'd sponsor legislation to repeal it. "No, no," I said, in a sort of whining imitation of Kruzan, "I don't want to get out in front on this." My second "name" was Francis X. McCloskey, my esteemed opponent. I said that, although I didn't know Frank personally, we had many friends in common. I was 100% sure, I stated, that Frank knew that the "marijuana laws are a crock." However, when one of our people approached Frank and asked him if he'd support re-legalizing cannabis, his response was, "No, it would send the wrong signal." Something is wrong, I said, when a legislator is too craven to do the right thing, or thinks that his role is to pass laws that "send signals" irrespective of social consequence. I summed up by saying that there was only one way to deal with such as these, "Invoke the electoral death penalty: when you go into the voting booth, pull that lever and vote them out of office." The speech went over pretty well and as I circulated through the crowd afterward I got a lot of positive feedback. Because I was wearing two hats at this event (ICLU and LP candidate) it may have diluted things somewhat. I did, however, give out a bunch of ICLU membership cards to folks and hope to augment the drug task force. Around 1:30 I left for the ICLU conference in Indy. The conference turned out to be a good networking opportunity. I made some contacts with a couple of I.U. professors. I encountered them engaged in earnest conversation with Molly Ivins, our guest speaker. Ivins is a syndicated columnist, frequent talking head on TV, and the author of a book, "Molly Ivins Can't Say That Can She?" (The title comes from a letter that appeared in a Fort Worth, TX newspaper which took exception to her description of a member of the Texas legislature. She said of him, "If his I.Q. were any lower they'd have to water him twice a week.") As I joined them, Molly quickly drew me in and said, "Hi, I'm Molly Ivins. Here are a couple of liberal left- wingers who favor school vouchers." She's a real character -- laser wit belied by a bluff manner and Texas drawl. The drawl, by the way, broadens whenever she launches into a story, but virtually disappears when she gets "earnest." I introduced myself and mentioned that I was running for Congress. She left presently and I ended up talking with the two profs. It transpired that one of them was a "good friend" of Frank McCloskey's but was "disillusioned." After a long conversation, it appeared that he might become a potential supporter. I continued to circulate. A little later I was talking to some folks and Molly Ivins reappeared. She had an entourage of admirers. As she joined our group she saw me. Brightening, she "introduced" me around to her group by saying I was "running for President." "Not quite yet," I demurred. Just before the reception ended, I ran into Jack Hopkins, the President of the Bloomington City Council, and his wife. Hopkins was on hand to receive an award on behalf of the City Council for the so-called "Gay Rights Ordinance" which they passed a few months ago. Hopkins knew me from the "Old Farts" meeting I had attended awhile back (see my "Frontline" report about this). Hopkins greeted me quite warmly and had seen my letter. He actually complimented me on it! His wife volunteered that she agreed with everything I had to say. It looks as though the proposed ordinance our group is putting together to take to the Council should get a favorable reception. (This ordinance will direct the police to move enforcement of misdemeanor MJ possession to its lowest priorty and to not seek search warrants for misdemeanor MJ violations.) MONDAY, 4-OCTOBER-1993 A ratcheting up of data acquisition efforts. o I called the Heartland Institute in Chicago which has produced an economic analysis of the Health Care system and ordered it. o I called the Cato Institute and discovered that they have produced an economic study on replacing the Income Tax with a sales tax. I've been talking about this informally for some time and have considered making "repeal the 16th Amendment" a campaign slogan. I quickly ordered this report. o I called The Concord Coalition, Tsongas' and Rudman's budget reform group. They are going to send me all of their material including a recently completed report on how to achieve a 0 deficit by the year 2000. This is really only the beginning -- I want to be fully booked up by the time I go toe-to-toe with Frank and his Republican challenger. -- paul hager [h--ge--p] at [moose.cs.indiana.edu] Hager for Congress, c/o Libertarian Party PO Box 636, Bloomington, IN 47402-636