"Douglas Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >>Maybe the difference has to do with the sort of thing it means for a leader >>to state a position, versus a follower. I think among the rank & file >>there are plenty who'll go along with drug reforms, in that they'll agree >>with that side in a survey or when you ask them. But I think it's a lot >>harder for a leader to take a public position like that.
>Back in the 1970s, all politicians who were pro-choice on abortion felt >obligated to make the statement "I am personally opposed to abortion but >..." That has certainly changed. At this point, no one cares about a >candidate's "personal" views on abortion, but only about the public policy >stance that person takes. Perhaps the same will happen with the drug issue. Perhaps, but that won't be enough. Unfortunately in the labor-saving process of political categorizing, room has been made in most people's minds for only a few categories, and the one that has drug policy reform in it is the one that says, "anti-establishment", "pro-counterculture" which in many cases means "anti-YOU". >>And I think this is a result of something I've noted at lesat elsewhere >>(DRCtalk) and maybe here too. That is, as the issues are lumped >>symbolically, a lot more people are HIGHLY MOTIVATED to be anti than pro. >>For instance, when it comes to medimar, the vast majority of people of all >>kinds are in favor. However, the issue affects relatively few people >>directly, and few people in favor would make it a priority. Meanwhile, >>there are a great many more people for whom the "narcotics issue" is to be >>considered as a symbolic bloc (because one doesn't often get a chance to >>state a nuanced position and have enough people pay att'n), and who are >>highly motivated to oppose any reform. >Why are they so motivated? This is one of probably a very few (maybe only this one) important areas of gov't policy thinking which I have to attribute to malice. In general I think most people are of good will, and don't intend harm to innocent persons, although they may cause them harm as a by-product of the policies they promote. However, I've concluded that drug prohibitionism is driven by a small minority of highly motivated sadists. What they've managed to do is confuse enough other people in high and low places as to the real issues that they've gotten a much larger number of people to think they're doing good by promoting this policy, and they also benefit by the interests of some people who are not malicious but who gain monetarily or power-wise. Both the sadists and the non-malicious gainers argue disingenuously; I've heard enough of it to have figured it out. >>As an isolated issue, secret ballot, many reforms win in a landslide. But >>among people who will vote for or against a candidate based on this single >>issue, a lot more are against than for. And in this case, it doesn't help >>that the "universe" is "known" to be polarized into "liberal" and >>"conservative" camps, in which the "conservative" side is "supposed" to be >>anti-sensual. It will take a VAST amount of communication to overcome this >>"convenient" categoriz'n. >So if you're a politician who favors legalizing medimar, the logical thing >to do would be to push for a referendum on the issue. Then, post-vote, you >could say "the people have spoken and I have to uphold their view." Seems >better than continuing to back positions both you and your constituents >oppose. It would SEEM so, but the people who are motivated to vote against you based solely on this issue will take your action in favor of a referendum as a "wrong" vote. Meanwhile hardly any of the people who'd favor a referendum will vote for you based solely on this issue. We've gotten some very interesting and self-contradictory answers from candidates when, during a screening by the Bronx Conservative Party (members of which committee generally favor medimar) ask them about medimar. Frequently the candidate responds about how much sick people are suffering, and say that they'd want their own relatives to get it, but as to its legality, they'll trail off with, "...I don't know." or, "I just couldn't go for it." I think what they'd like is for people to be able to get it without anyone else FINDING OUT that they'd gotten it, or that it'd been made legal for them to do so. Secret legaliz'n is what they'd like. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
