Skip to main content

If News Journal staff ever paid attention to third parties, they'd know the answer to their own question

Today the editorial page of the News Journal laments the fact that candidates from neither wing of the Demopublican Party have provided answers to the question of what to do about illegal drugs:

We have heard candidates take tough stands on what they will do to criminals who get caught. But they said little to nothing about the drug business that is causing the violence. 
In Wilmington, where the violence is the greatest, there was little discussion of what to do about drug trafficking. Should the laws be changed and how? Should drugs be legalized or decriminalized? Should the penalties be changed? What kind of alternatives should be made available? 
We are not endorsing any of these views. But it is curious that all that most candidates have done is rant against crime. Where are their solutions?
If Libertarians had been allowed to debate at the University of Delaware this week, or if the News Journal had ever noticed press releases or announcements of campaign activities from the LPD through the last three months, the editors would know that one party actually has proposed specific solutions to these problems.

Libertarian candidates in Delaware are running on a platform that calls for legalization of marijuana.  We note that it costs roughly $30,000/year to keep a non-violent drug offender incarcerated in Delaware, and that more than one-third of our state's prisoner population fits into this class.  If marijuana were legalized and regulated like wine, we would not only eliminate that strain on our prison system and our budget, but we would have plenty of money left to treat those who actually had addiction problems (at a cost of around $9,000/person/year instead of $30,000).

Legalizing marijuana would, in one fell swoop, put a high percentage of Wilmington's drug traffickers out of business.

Our candidates for General Assembly and statewide offices have all advocated such a change.

But legalization (which is on the ballot in places like Colorado and Oregon this year) will not be sufficient without changes in Washington DC.  The Feds (primarily the Drug Enforcement Agency) under President Obama's directives, refuse to pay attention to state laws about drugs.

For example:  Delaware passed medical marijuana, but cancer patients still cannot access it.  Our doctors are afraid to prescribe it, and no suppliers will step forward because they are afraid of the DEA.  Our congressional delegation has employed the silence of cowards with regard to this issue.

This year the only candidate for Federal office will to discuss the failed "war on drugs" is US House candidate Scott Gesty.  But Scott can't discuss the issue and get it into the political discourse as the News Journal editors wish because . . . their own paper refuses to cover third party candidates.

You do not have to support or vote for a candidate or party to need them in the news or in the debates.  You need them there to raise the uncomfortable issues that Demopublicans do not want to talk about.  Democrats won't talk about drug legalization because it makes them look soft on crime.  Republicans won't discuss it because their evangelical base would abandon them.

If there were Libertarian candidates on the stage, Demopublicans would have to deal with this issue.

On the State level it will take Libertarians (as, indeed, it took Libertarians on the national level) to push the issue of drug legalization to the forefront.

So, editors of the News Journal (several of whom are among my personal friends and associates), if you want specific answers to uncomfortable policy questions, how about covering the candidates willing to provide them?

Comments

delacrat said…
" The Feds (primarily the Drug Enforcement Agency) under President Obama....."

"Yes, I inhaled. That was the point." - Senator Barack Obomba, October 2006

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/barack-obama-i-inhaled-that-was-the-point_b3582

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...