Neither candidate has seen fit to endorse even the most popular drug reform issue, medical marijuana. In a recent MTV interview, Gore opposed legalizing medical marijuana, fatuously lying that "thus far, there is absolutely no evidence" for its medical efficacy. (This from a candidate who claims to have a comprehensive plan for prescription drug coverage and says decisions should be made by patients and doctors, not bureaurcrats!) Surprisingly, Bush's position is somewhat better. While stating that he is personally opposed to medical marijuana, he has said it is an issue that should be left to the states - a not unappealing prospect to Californians oppressed by the Clinton-Gore administration's crusade against Prop. 215.
Some say the most important difference between Bush and Gore would be their appointments to the Supreme Court. Yet here too the difference is equivocal. A Gore court would presumably be more receptive to civil liberties, although Clinton's appointees have shown no inclination of applying such principles to marijuana or drugs. A Bush court, on the other hand, would probably be more receptive to states' rights, which could be advantageous to states like California that have voted to liberalize drug laws.
For voters understandably distrustful of both Bush and Gore, there are attractive third party candidates this year. Green party candidate Ralph Nader, who has preferred to emphasize economic and environmental issues, has broken his public silence on drugs this year (though his website still doesn't mention it: www.votenader.com) . Calling the nation's drug laws "self-defeating and antiquated," Nader joined New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson in endorsing marijuana decriminalization. He also supports industrial hemp cultivation and harm reduction policies for hard drugs. "Addiction should never be treated as a crime; it has to be treated as a health problem,'' Nader said.
For voters who prefer free-market economics and limited government, Libertarian Harry Browne is calling to "end the insane War on Drugs that has turned the drug business over to criminal gangs, locked up a million non-violent Americans, spawned law-enforcement corruption, and provided a justification for destroying your individual liberty." Browne, who favors total drug legalization, promises to pardon everyone who has been convicted of a non-violent federal drug offense on his first day in office (www.HarryBrowne2000,org).
Modeled on Arizona's successful Prop. 200, Prop. 36 would allow first- and second-time offenders charged with simple possession of drugs to opt for a diversion program instead of jail or prison. Criminal charges would be dismissed upon successful completion of the program.
Prop. 36 would save taxpayers money by alleviating California's record-busting non-violent prison population. California has the highest proportion of drug prisoners in the nation. As of December 31, 1999, the state prison system held a record 45,000 drug offenders, 20,000 of whom were convicted for simple possession of drugs. Thousands of others are in county jails.
According to the official budgetary analysis by the Legislative Analyst, Prop. 36 would save the state $100 - $150 million annually in prison costs plus a one-time saving of $475-575 million for new prison construction. Counties would probably save another $50 million annually in jail costs.
Prop. 36 is tightly written to exclude dangerous and violent criminals. It does not apply to defendants who are charged with other crimes simultaneously, or who have had a serious or violent "strike" in the past five years.
Prop. 36 would have only a modest effect on marijuana users, who are presently protected from prison for possession of less than one ounce. However, Prop. 36 would end imprisonment of offenders charged with simple possession of more than one ounce or for hashish.
Predictably, Prop. 36 has drawn fierce opposition from the state's bloated law enforcement establishment, including the prison guards, district attorneys, sheriffs, police chiefs, narcs and drug court judges. Opponents have gone to great lengths to misrepresent Prop. 36, claiming that it would forbid drug testing and decriminalize "date rape" drugs. They have even sneakily hijacked the website name www.yesonprop36.com.
Prop. 36 is backed by the California Society for Addiction Medicine, the California Nurses Association, the California Labor Council, and a host of drug treatment providers and drug reform groups.
A victory for Prop. 36 would be an unmistakable vote of no confidence in the nation's drug enforcement establishment and a message that voters support drug reform, not criminal penalties against users.
Campbell's record stands in stark contrast to that of his opponent, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (www.diannefeinstein.org), who has one of the most abysmal voting records in Congress on marijuana and drug issues. Feinstein, who sits on the powerful Judiciary Committee, has repeatedly lined up with the Senate's most reactionary drug warriors to support tougher and more draconian penalties, expanded government powers, and restrictions on civil liberties.
Campbell and Feinstein stand on opposite sides of this year's most under-discussed issue, America's record-breaking number of non-violent drug prisoners. "It's time we started helping people by giving them treatment instead of sweeping them under the rug by locking them away or starting another Vietnam," says Campbell, who endorses Prop. 36. Feinstein, on the other hand, opposes Prop 36, saying "the problem is we aren't trying hard enough."
True to her word, Feinstein has consistently backed the most repressive and mean-spirited anti-drug legislation. Disregarding California's marijuana decriminalization law, she has voted to deny public housing and welfare benefits to persons convicted of drug misdemeanors - including personal possession of pot. She has reliably pushed for longer and tougher prison sentences. This year she joined the likes of Sen. Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch, and Jesse Helms in co-sponsoring a bill to end the 100-to-1 disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine by increasing sentences for powder, rather than reducing them for crack.
Campbell has one of the best voting records in the House on drug sentencing issues. He has voted against bills that would drastically expand the number of drug prisoners, opposing mandatory minimum sentences on the grounds they eliminate judicial discretion. He has consistently opposed federal mandates, including the notorious federal "Smoke a Joint, Lose Your License" law.
Campbell boasts an excellent record on medical marijuana, having consistently supported reform legislation in both the legislature and Congress. ``I would let the people of California have medical marijuana," he says. Feinstein not only opposed Prop. 215, but, more disgracefully for a member of the Judiciary Committee, has done absolutely nothing to defend California's law against the federal government.
Feinstein and Campbell likewise take opposite sides on the administration's $1.8 billion military anti-drug aid plan for Colombia. Campbell opposes the plan, drawing parallels to Vietnam. Feinstein not only supports it, but has also urged anti-drug trade sanctions against democratic Mexico - corrupted as it has been by American drug laws - even while advocating free trade with authoritarian China.
Feinstein has shown a prudish hostility to marijuana ever since becoming mayor of San Francisco, when she disregarded the city's newly passed marijuana ordinance, Prop W. More recently, she ordered an IRS audit of the Marijuana Policy Project, alarmed by the fact that a pro-marijuana group could enjoy tax-exempt status. Not surprisingly, she is endorsed by the California Narcotics Officers' Association.
On issues of personal privacy and civil liberties, Feinstein tends to favor big government where Campbell favors individual freedom. Whereas Campbell backed a recent asset forfeiture reform bill to raise the standard of proof for the government to take private property, Feinstein backed an alternative that would have made matters worse. Feinstein's support for censorhip of the Internet has earned her the rating as one of the "5 least net-friendly Congresspeople" (http://www.zpub.com/un/un-df.html).
In her most recent foray against civil liberties, Feinstein joined Sen. Hatch in co-sponsoring the notorious amendment to the anti-methamphetamine bill prohibiting distribution of drug-related information via the Internet, print, or spoken word. This measure, which is now a part of the pending Bankruptcy Bill, would make it a felony to inform Prop. 215 patients on how to exercise their rights to use and grow marijuana.
There is no excuse for a California Senator to vote against the Internet, free speech, and Prop. 215. Campbell deserves kudos for opposing Feinstein's bankrupt anti-drug politics. Campbell's generally liberal views on social and environmental issues are combined with staunch free-market economics and Republican politics, making him a decided maverick. Unfortunately, he has also been forced to backpedal, stung by criticism for having proposed an experimental plan to let states permit distribution of heroin to addicts. He has backed off from supporting legalization, and advocates the death penalty for narcotics sales to children 12 and under.
For voters seeking other alternatives to Feinstein, there are excellent third party choices. Green Party candidate Medea Benjamin (www.medeaforsenate.org) has joined Campbell in calling for new drug policies, strongly denouncing the Colombia drug war and endorsing Prop 36. She also believes adults should have the right to use marijuana. Libertarian Gail Lighfoot has been a longtime drug war critic Like her party, she opposes drug prohibition and supports complete legalization. (http://www.marvista.com/Lightfoot/Index.shtml).
More than the Presidency, the most crucial national issue this year is control of Congress, where a change of six seats can shift control to the Democrats. Under the anti-choice leadership of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde., the Republican Congress has been militantly hostile to drug reform, pushing bills to expand penalties, prohibit medical marijuana, block needle exchange, and promote the drug enforcement establishment. Should the Democrats regain the House, control of the Judiciary Committee will shift to Rep. John Conyers, a strong supporter of drug reform. Also in line for promotion will be medical marijuana advocates Rep. Barney Frank and San Francisco's Rep. Nancy Pelosi.. Democratic capture of the House could thus have profound implications for drug legislation.
With the departure of Tom Campbell, California's House delegation is notably short of decent Republicans. Incumbents Rep. James Rogan, Rep. Doug Ose. Rep. Mary Bono and Rep. Steve Kuykendall have been especially obnoxious. However, a few Republican underdog candidates have dared to pronounce themselves in favor of marijuana decriminalization, among them Jim Chase (North Coast), Bill Quraishi (Palo Alto), and Adam Sparks (San Francisco).
In many races, neither the Republican nor the Democrat is satisfactory, so voters may wish to turn to third parties. The Green Party (www.GreenParty.org), which favors environmentalism and progressive economic policies, supports industrial hemp and medical marijuana, harm reduction, and decriminalization of marijuana and drug possession. The Libertarian Party (www.lp.org), devoted to individual rights, the free market and limited government, vociferously advocates outright repeal of the drug laws and legalization of all drugs.
Control of the state legislature appears certain to remain with the Democrats this year. With few exceptions, Republicans tend to be more hostile to drug reform than their Democratic opponents. Democratic Senate President John Burton, Sen. John Vasconcellos, and Assemblywoman Carole Migden have been a bulwark for drug reform. However, many Democrats have unacceptable records. Once again, dissatisfied voters may wish to turn to the Green or Libertarian parties, whose candidates are generally receptive to marijuana and drug reform.