Triangulation
The Senatorial debate between Senator Maria Cantwell, Republican Mike McGavick, and Libertarian Bruce Guthrie is being televised right now. Sadly, I'm at the office for another joyous late night work shift instead of watching it at the Montlake with everyone else, but I just read Postman's account, and the drug war apparently came up:
Guthrie's jab at McGavick over drug testing welfare recipients was pretty good. McGavick's position here is pure politics. If a parent has a drug problem that's affecting their ability to be a parent, it will be readily apparent without having to actually test them. Taking a child away from a caring family is not something you do lightly, but McGavick apparently disagrees. In his world, having a caring, but poor, parent who uses illegal drugs is a worse environment for a child than being in foster care. I'm not sure too many people who actually work with children would agree with that.
Cantwell's position is consistent with the nonsense she's said in the past. She's unabashedly part of the old guard of the Democratic Party that stubbornly refuses to question the drug war. Considering that a 2005 poll showed that nearly half of the people in the Western United States support legalizing marijuana, this position can not be attributed to political calculation any more. It's either force of habit or cluelessness. In many ways, it mirrors her earlier stubbornness on the war.
As for her support of "tougher laws for meth," that's little more than a play for some rural votes. No one seriously believes that meth abuse will be stopped by putting people in jail or making it more difficult to buy cold medicine. In fact, the latter remedy has just diverted more of the meth market south of the border. As I need to mention every time this issue comes up, I'm voting for Cantwell no matter what because of the bigger issues involving the balance of power in Congress. But her position here will continue to alienate younger voters, many of whom don't pay close enough attention to politics to be aware of the political calculus involved and will continue to point to this issue as a big reason to distrust both parties.
Of course, McGavick's position is just as bad. Saying that laws about drug dealing are too lenient is almost (but not quite) as out-of-touch as Dick Cheney saying that Iraq is going "remarkably well". Even the Rand Corporation has complained about the fact that penalties for drug dealing are unnecessarily harsh and hugely wasteful. For someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, this is laughable.
The irony here, of course, is that while McGavick criticizes Cantwell over her willingness to rely on high tech gadgets to keep out illegal immigrants and Cantwell supporters criticize McGavick for his use of the word 'illegals', neither candidate seems to have a clue about the negative impact that America's drug prohibition is having on the Mexican economy, which plays a major role in why so many hardworking Mexicans choose to come north in search of work. The efforts to increase jail sentences for drug dealers and the efforts to fight meth by making it more difficult to buy the precursors have only given Mexican and other Central American gangs more control over our drug markets and therefore more money to buy out their local law enforcement officials. If you lived in a place where the police were on the payroll of drug gangs and work opportunities were nil, I don't think the threat of being called an "illegal" is going to do too much to dissuade you from doing what you need to do to make a living.
On the drug war, Guthrie showed libertarian leanings and said marijuana should be decriminalized, at least as an experiment. "If there is widespread social chaos, we'll back up from there." Speaking of his late wife, he said that medical marijuana laws should also be defended so people like her could have access to drugs to minimize pain.For a libertarian, Guthrie gives a pretty tame endorsement for ending the drug war, but it's certainly better than what Cantwell or McGavick have to say. Knowing that marijuana has been decriminalized in other parts of the world without social chaos, you'd have to think that the possibility of that happening here would be a result of something specific to America. I've heard these arguments before, and they generally boil down to a belief that our culture is so based on irresponsibility that we must protect us from ourselves. I seriously doubt Guthrie actually believes that, but since that notion has been so ingrained in our collective consciousness, he has to add that disclaimer. It's like saying "I support sending a manned mission to Mars, but if we discover that it would cause the Martians to declare war on us, we'll back up a bit."
As an aside to another answer, Guthrie said about McGavick's call to drug test some welfare recipients, "I support drug and alcohol testing of members of Congress and the Senate."
Cantwell said she would not support legalizing any drugs and wants tougher laws for meth.
McGavick turned the question into one about border control, criticizing Cantwell's support for better technology at border crossing as "taking pictures" of people crossing the borders illegally. He also said that laws about drug dealing are too lenient.
Guthrie's jab at McGavick over drug testing welfare recipients was pretty good. McGavick's position here is pure politics. If a parent has a drug problem that's affecting their ability to be a parent, it will be readily apparent without having to actually test them. Taking a child away from a caring family is not something you do lightly, but McGavick apparently disagrees. In his world, having a caring, but poor, parent who uses illegal drugs is a worse environment for a child than being in foster care. I'm not sure too many people who actually work with children would agree with that.
Cantwell's position is consistent with the nonsense she's said in the past. She's unabashedly part of the old guard of the Democratic Party that stubbornly refuses to question the drug war. Considering that a 2005 poll showed that nearly half of the people in the Western United States support legalizing marijuana, this position can not be attributed to political calculation any more. It's either force of habit or cluelessness. In many ways, it mirrors her earlier stubbornness on the war.
As for her support of "tougher laws for meth," that's little more than a play for some rural votes. No one seriously believes that meth abuse will be stopped by putting people in jail or making it more difficult to buy cold medicine. In fact, the latter remedy has just diverted more of the meth market south of the border. As I need to mention every time this issue comes up, I'm voting for Cantwell no matter what because of the bigger issues involving the balance of power in Congress. But her position here will continue to alienate younger voters, many of whom don't pay close enough attention to politics to be aware of the political calculus involved and will continue to point to this issue as a big reason to distrust both parties.
Of course, McGavick's position is just as bad. Saying that laws about drug dealing are too lenient is almost (but not quite) as out-of-touch as Dick Cheney saying that Iraq is going "remarkably well". Even the Rand Corporation has complained about the fact that penalties for drug dealing are unnecessarily harsh and hugely wasteful. For someone who claims to be a fiscal conservative, this is laughable.
The irony here, of course, is that while McGavick criticizes Cantwell over her willingness to rely on high tech gadgets to keep out illegal immigrants and Cantwell supporters criticize McGavick for his use of the word 'illegals', neither candidate seems to have a clue about the negative impact that America's drug prohibition is having on the Mexican economy, which plays a major role in why so many hardworking Mexicans choose to come north in search of work. The efforts to increase jail sentences for drug dealers and the efforts to fight meth by making it more difficult to buy the precursors have only given Mexican and other Central American gangs more control over our drug markets and therefore more money to buy out their local law enforcement officials. If you lived in a place where the police were on the payroll of drug gangs and work opportunities were nil, I don't think the threat of being called an "illegal" is going to do too much to dissuade you from doing what you need to do to make a living.
posted by thehim at 9:36 PM
<< Home