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