ftp.u.washington.edu:/public/alt.drugs/politics-officials
Fri, 26 Feb 93
TOPICS
Subject: Candidates Views on Drug Legalization
Subject: Tsongas and the Drug War
Subject: Drug Court (attorney general appointee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [K J PHELAN] at [SUNRISE.ACS.SYR.EDU]
Date: 25 Feb 92 19:44:00 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Candidates Views on Drug Legalization
The following is from the AP NewsWire service 2/25/92
Reprinted without permissions
========================================================================
NEWS 2/25/92 PAGE 1 OF 6
The Issue: Candidates' Views
On Drug Decriminalization
---
Here are the views of the major presidential candidates on the question:
''Should drug abuse be decriminalized so that government can put more emphasis
on education and treatment and less on law enforcement?''
DEMOCRATS
- Jerry Brown: ''While I do not support decriminalization of drugs, I
believe the government should put more emphasis on education and treatment.
The reason the drug war is failing is because of the impoverishment of the
people, so we should concentrate on bettering the economic conditions and
education of our citizens.''
- Bill Clinton: ''I oppose drug decriminalization and believe we need
to take tougher steps in the war on drugs to decrease both supply and demand.
In particular, I support drug treatment on demand, so that people with drug
problems can get the help they need."
- Tom Harkin: ''No. I think thatlegalizing drugs is like surrendering, and
I'm not about to surrender when my kids are at stake. Legalization will not
solve the problems caused by drug abuse - it will lead to more drug abuse
... Legalization won't help addicts because it will take away an incentive
to get help. We don't need to surrender in the drug war. We need a commander-in
-chief who will fight for American kids.''
- Bob Kerrey: ''No. We do, however,need to focus more resources on drug
education and treatment to end the demand for illicit drugs. I am the only
candidate with a plan to provide drug treatment to all Americans. ... I will
also see that all American children receive quality drug education. And I
will reorient federal priorities to more effectively support local law
enforcement so that they can adapt their deployment, prevention and community
relations activities to the realities of confronting problems."
- Paul Tsongas: ''No. Drugs are ravaging the lives of too many people for
them to be decriminalized. I believe the government must step up its
enforcement at the borders, but also offer treatment on demand and education
for drug addicts.''
REPUBLICANS
- George Bush: Does not support decriminalization of drugs.
- Patrick Buchanan: ''No.''
- David Duke: ''No.''
============================================================================
------------------------------
From: [s--ev--c] at [orodruin.tivoli.com] (Steve the not-so-foolhardy)
Date: 5 Mar 92 05:23:46 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Tsongas and the Drug War
I picked this up on a local politics news group. I think that it
bears repeating to the wide world.
===========================================================================
~From: [t c m] at [tcm.austin.ibm.com] (Tom McDonald)
~Newsgroups: austin.politics
~Subject: Re: Texans for Tsongas Information
~Date: 4 Mar 92 18:37:56 GMT
Distribution: austin
Organization: IBM, Austin
In article <[1--9--0] at [awdprime.UUCP]> [s--d--s] at [sanders.austin.ibm.com] (Tony Sanders) writes:
>[t c m] at [tcm.austin.ibm.com] (Tom McDonald) writes:
>> Looking for more information about the Democratic candidates for
>> President?
>I read somewhere that Tsongas was quoted as stating that the death penalty
>should be reserved for drug dealers. Can anyone confirm or deny this quote?
>
>-- sanders
Reprinted without permission from _A Call to Economic Arms: Forging a
New American Mandate_ by Paul E. Tsongas:
Capital Crimes Against Society
Crime in America today falls into two categories in my mind. The
first is the level of crime inherent in any society. There will always
be a criminal element and there will always be crimes of passion.
The second is crime that is drug-related. And this is not a level
of criminal activity that should be acceptable. It is a threat to our
very being.
This threat does not result from guns or bombs or knives. This
threat results from commerce. It is entrepreneurial. Yet it kills. It
kills in massive numbers. Some of the people it kills die. Others
live but in a larger sense they die as well. This is not your every
day one-on-one street crime. Or your crime of passion. This is a
methodical, planned, knowing slaughter of the many in pursuit of money.
Massive amounts of money. And this slaughter is today the greatest
threat to our domestic common security.
It is the threat of big-time drug dealing.
How can we tolerate this dissipation of our collective strength?
Drugs are overwhelming us. No society ravaged by drugs is going to
compete with anybody. Yet those who engage in and profit from this
trade are considered lesser criminals by the criminal code. I kill one
person in a fit of passion and I am a murderer. I kill thousands of
people by methodical drug trafficking and I am not a murderer. By what
standard of logic? By what definition of true threat?
Who truly kills the drug user found in an alley with a needle in
his arm? Who truly kills the store owner murdered by a drug user in
search of quick money for a drug purchase? Who truly kills the
intravenous drug user who contracts AIDS? Who truly kills the victim
of an automobile crash caused by drug use? Who truly kills the newborn
cocaine dependent baby?
The major drug trafficker does. Yet in states that impose the
penalty he is immune. I repeat. By what definition of real threat?
By what recognition of actual damage to our societal core?
If the death penalty is society's way of identifying the greatest
threat, it must look past the one-on-one crime of passion or criminal
intent. It must concentrate on those who would destroy all of us. It
must focus on the trafficker and, once and for all, declare a war on
drugs that is a war on drugs. Billions upon billions for defense
against fading foreign threats embodied by the Soviets and only
hesitance in addressing the true angels of death within our borders.
Unless drug dealing is significantly reduced, we will never be a
viable nation. We will never compete. We will be dragged down by our
fellow citizens lost in the demonic caverns of drug dependence.
---- End of quoted passage ----
This clearly states Tsongas's position and reasoning on the death penalty
for drug traffickers.
Of course, I encourage everyone to look at the candidate's positions on
all of the issues, not just the ones that fit into a sound bite.
The Austin office of Texans for Tsongas will be happy to mail you his
book and position papers. Call them at 472-7404. Or stop by at 707
Rio Grande.
------------------------------
From: Per Henrik Lofgren <[pl 19] at [andrew.cmu.edu]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 17:04:15 -0500
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: Drug Court (attorney general appointee)
The Washington Post today featured a front page article about
the recent attorney general appointee's (Bond?) involvement
with the above program in Florida. Apparently it takes drug offenders who
either are not involved in violent crime or are considered low
risk for such crimes, and rehabilitates them just for drug abuse.
They do not go to the same prison as other offenders and are given
probation comensurate with their abstinance from drugs; i.e.
regular urine tests. Sounds like a much better alternative than
sending the user to regular prison and trying to "punish" the addiction
out of the addict. The article states that as attorney general, she
likely represents a national change in the Drug War focus towards
treatment and a "health problem" agenda.
Clinton is also said to be familiar with the program and it has been
implemented elsewhere.
Maybe some one who types better could post the article so a discussion
could ensue.
Per
------------------------------
End of ftp.u.washington.edu:/public/alt.drugs/politics-officials
****************************************************************