Robert Goodman wrote:

>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".

That's what things were like on the abortion issue back in the 1970s and even into the 1980s. And if 70-80% support medimar, it seems unlikely that they would oppose a candidate who supports it, though obviously that would turn off the 20-30% who don't. In a close race, I can see why candidates would voice a position they oppose, but what about the blowouts? Or the people who run unopposed?

>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.

That was what motivated Prohibition. The buttinskies plus the profiteers.

>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 close races I understand this, but if you're going to get blown out anyway, why not stand up for your principles. I think someone who did this would do a lot better than you think, partly because he would so shock people that some would vote for him just to shake things up, others because he would appear to be a straight talker.

Doug Friedman


_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw

Reply via email to