Candidates/Races

A couple weeks ago, I noted the contradiction between Obama's call for reduced incarceration of first-time nonviolent drug offenders and his support for the heinous Byrne Grant program that has filled our prisons with petty offenders and subsidized mindblowing episodes of racist drug war excess.

These completing agendas in Obama’s crime platform deserve more discussion, thus Radley Balko has a piece at Slate that digs into this.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Paul Armentano at NORML points to Sarah Palin's glorification of "Joe Sixpack" in the vice presidential debate. Indeed, one could scarcely overstate the naked hypocrisy of portraying daily drinkers as American heroes, while our nation continues to arrest nearly a million Americans each year for using marijuana.

I usually leave the alcohol analogy alone, assuming that it often speaks for itself, and when it doesn’t, the guys at SAFER can be counted on to point it out. But there are moments -- like hearing a major party VP candidate canonize alcohol users in a massively public forum – that remind us how truly discriminatory and fundamentally illogical this disparity is. If regulated sale is the best policy for alcohol, then it is the best policy for marijuana. And if people who drink a sixpack after work can be American heroes, so too are those who derive pleasure and relaxation from cannabis.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

At a campaign appearance in Jacksonville, FL, Barack Obama proposed federal drug war funding as a solution to the city’s problems with violent crime:

I will ensure that we fund the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, which has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need. And I will make sure our federal law enforcement agencies are equipped to fight terrorism and crime by ensuring that the FBI and DEA are appropriately staffed and that federal-local law enforcement task forces have the support they need. [Florida Times-Union]

Because most Byrne grants are also tied directly to drug arrests, they encourage local police departments to use their manpower and resources on nonviolent drug offenses instead of more serious crimes like rape, robbery, or murder.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

The Chicago Tribune on Biden:

He has proven to be a reliable moderate on crime issues--particularly where narcotics are concerned--and was a principal author of the 1994 crime bill which sought to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets through a federal grant program. That bill also expanded the reach of the federal death penalty.

Um, Biden coined the term "drug czar" and created ONDCP, the propaganda wing of the federal drug war. He tried to one-up the Republican anti-drug plan by calling for larger foreign drug war investments. He authored the RAVE Act to allow federal prosecution of property owners who fail to successfully prevent drug use. He championed research into biological warfare techniques to eradicate South American drug cultivation, even after experts said it was way too dangerous to even consider. He was last seen proposing ridiculous drug war legislation only a month ago. Really, the list just goes on and on.

So no, Joe Biden is not a "moderate" when it comes to crime issues. His hard-line authoritarian record speaks for itself, runs out of breath, and then speaks for itself some more. To call him a "moderate" is just ignorant and wrong, to the point of utterly trivializing the word and conjuring a wretched spectacle of what it would take to earn a more fitting description of his extensive jail-mongering credentials.

I can only assume this profound mischaracterization of Biden's record was arrived at through the tired assumption that democrats are "soft" on crime, republicans are "tough," and therefore "moderates" are democrats who support harsh laws. Joe Biden is exactly the reason such stereotypes should be avoided by responsible journalists.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

…from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.

On the other hand, Biden has recently spoken out against the crack/powder sentencing disparity and introduced legislation to address that issue. Pete Guither also notes that Biden's votes on civil liberties issues have consistently improved over the years, which may be a sign that he's evolving in his thinking. But I see no evidence that Biden has ever stepped back in any meaningful sense from his rabid drug warring ways. If he's made any philosophical realignments on drug policy in general, he hasn't said so out loud.

Thus the silver-lining may be that as Vice President, Biden would no longer be serving on the judiciary committee, where he's exerted his influence in the form of the various atrocities outlined above. As VP he'd technically be losing his authority over drug policy issues, except to whatever extent Obama may seek his advice when selecting the drug czar and so forth. It's certainly possible that Obama's more enlightened views would prevail within his administration, or even that Biden's "tough on crime" credentials could provide cover for reform, but Biden would be a strange ingredient in the behind-the-scenes reform agenda that's so often attributed to Obama by liberal reformers. It was bad enough when Obama softened his reform positions to avoid attacks from the right. Will he now begin watching his step around his own running mate?

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

The former Republican Congressman from Georgia released a statement on his presidential campaign website about the July 29 Prince George's police and sheriff's raid on the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo.
…

The raid, he wrote, "illustrates how the drug war threatens the liberties of all Americans."

He said he believed that law enforcement has become more arrogant and less accountable, usually with very little public attention, and promises that as president, he will improve the situation.

"As president I will ensure that federal law enforcement agencies set a good example for the rest of the country," he said. "In a Barr administration, government officials will never forget that it is a free people they are protecting." [Washington Post]

I'm still getting used to hearing words like these from former drug warrior Bob Barr, but I'll take it. Barr, despite his unfortunate history, is now speaking out against abusive drug war policing with a vigor unmatched, or even attempted, by the major party candidates.

Unfortunately, we can be reasonably sure we won’t hear a word about this from Obama or McCain. Sure, it is an ugly national controversy with a fairly obvious right and wrong side. And yes, a careful statement promising to defend the rights of innocent, everyday people against government abuse would be politically safe, in and of itself. After all, there's nothing anti-police about standing up for professionalism in law-enforcement.

But implicit in all this is the central question of how far we as a society are willing to push the limits of peace and freedom in the name of a war on drugs that has already exhausted many of us to the point of unrestrained bitterness. It's a conversation that can't be avoided once Cheye Calvo's name is spoken and one which the major party candidates remain hesitant to explore. Their silence becomes increasingly hard to explain as it becomes steadily more apparent each day that the drug war blood bath sometimes doesn't discriminate as well as it's supposed to.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers $500 billion since 1973. Nearly 500,000 people are behind bars on drug charges today, yet drugs are as available as ever. Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs, or will you make some significant change in course?

Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.

The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives -- it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense.

I've heard it said, and I agree, that this is a solid response from a mainstream politician on the presidential campaign trail. But I also think it simply reflects a realistic summary of what the centrist, mainstream view on U.S. drug policy sounds like. In other words, rather than commending Obama for not spouting tired war metaphors, let us welcome the new status quo.

We've reached a point at which this type of rhetoric is probably the most politically palatable perspective a serious candidate could offer. We've heard McCain making some similar points, and while I certainly won't be holding my breath, I think the possibility exists that we'll make it through the entire campaign without witnessing any serious controversy surrounding the concept that our drug war needs a major ideological makeover.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

A crazy woman, Dr. Ada M. Fisher, was authorized to speak to the press on behalf of the McCain campaign at the NAACP convention. She took that opportunity to make some of the most unfortunate and incoherent remarks about drug use in recent memory:

AF: "…Obama in his book about his father talked about his use of drugs. And I think it’s disingenuous of people to vote for somebody for President when you won’t allow a drug user in any secure or nuclear facility. Yet we as a nation, are willing to consider making somebody President of the United States I think that speaks very poorly…Bill Clinton said he smoked but he didn’t inhale…But he didn’t come out and flagrantly say he used drugs…and if that’s going to be our standard God helps us in nuclear facilities and secure facilities who have this kind of history..and this nation must be very careful when it lowers the bar on who and what it will accept.
…

AF: See, if you admit it, it should disqualify you. Otherwise, we’ll have to let all those people who …applied for jobs in these facilities…There is a reason that those rules are there. I was a detox director for 16 counties in North Carolina , so I have a great understanding about what drugs and what they do to people. And I know that in moments of weakness, people tend to revert those things that they’ve used in the past. I don’t think it’s disingenuous, I don’t think its fair. If I ran for President of the U.S. and I had that history, I would expect people to look at that very carefully. We cannot have a nation high on drugs and have the President… as an example. I’m sorry I disagree with that. [Wonkette]

Note: Pete Guither has more at DrugWarRant, observing among other things that no one seems to have a problem putting recovering alcoholics in the White House.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

PHILADELPHIA -- The question for Sen. John McCain at a town hall meeting here was one of those softballs that Republicans historically use to demonstrate their law-and-order toughness: What are you going to do about teen gangs?
…

But the Republican presidential nominee did not talk the way many Republican candidates do about the need for a crackdown on gangs, or tougher prison sentences or a need to enforce gun laws. (The answer might have been different had former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani been the nominee. The former mayor repeatedly talked about crackdowns on crime.)

Instead, McCain repeated his belief that gang members "need mentors. I think they need role models" and related a story about a program run by a Baptist college in Arkansas. "We've go to have mentors."

"We've also got to give them an opportunity and a path and away out," he added. "Some of these gangs have now become almost international ... incarceration has sometimes made them worse criminals when they get out than they are when they went in."

Given the opportunity to pounce atop the law & order podium, McCain instead sounds more thoughtful, endorsing education and even acknowledging the unintended consequences of massive incarceration. Other than a passing reference to stopping drugs at our border, all of this is pretty easy to swallow.

We've heard disappointing statements from McCain on medical marijuana and the drug war in general, but none of that precludes the senator from recognizing the need for alternatives to incarceration. It's an issue that's generating increased public awareness and could become an asset to Obama if McCain appears indifferent. Needless to say, a bipartisan consensus on reducing incarceration would be a powerful step forward, even if neither candidate is prepared to support the drug policy overhaul that's necessary to achieve it.

Unfortunately, painful experience has taught us not to expect a presidential campaign free of mindless tough-guy crime rhetoric and it's way too soon to take comfort in what we've seen so far. Even if McCain aims to stay out of the fray, we can expect attacks on Obama's pro-reform positions to intensify as the contest heats up. As always, what matters won't be those positions in and of themselves, but whether Obama is prepared to defend them with confidence and vigor.

Update: Tom Angell suggests that it's a mistake to even concede the term "tough-on-crime" to those who think hurling human beings behind bars at alarming rates will make us safer. He's right that bad policies create new crimes, cause more of the old ones, and distract police from what should be their primary public safety priorities. The drug war isn't tough, it's clumsy and barbaric.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)