CAMPBELL PLATFORM REFLECTS LOSS OF FAITH IN WAR ON DRUGS

It's a rare day when this bleeding-heart progressive votes for a
Republican. Rarer still when the Republican is running against an incumbent
Democratic senator with the balance of power in the U.S. Senate at stake.

Yet that's the decision I've made. I plan to vote for Rep. Tom Campbell
against Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday.

Regular readers can guess my reason. Campbell is the first major-party
Senate hopeful to repudiate the nation's war on drugs as ineffective and
antithetical to the principle of personal freedom the country was founded on.

Of course, polls show Campbell trailing Feinstein, which may explain why
Campbell chose to talk about fundamental reform of the nation's drug laws ­
he had nothing to lose.

Campbell also is backing Proposition 36 on Tuesday's ballot, the initiative
that would mandate treatment for all first- and second-time drug offenders
in California who are not charged with other crimes. Drug court judges
oppose the initiative, saying drug abusers need the threat of jail or
prison to provide them the motivation to kick their unhealthy habit.

While Campbell, a Stanford professor who is pro-choice and supports gay
rights, criticizes the lock-em-up philosophy that has dominated American
drug policy, his platform still calls for the execution of dealers who sell
drugs to children.

"That's to shore up his base," observed a supporter close to the Campbell
campaign. "He wants to assure voters that he is still against selling drugs
to kids, but he is also saying that we have lost the war against drugs."

Drug policy is at the heart of the ongoing prosecution of former Olympic
Valley residents Steve and Michele Kubby in Placer County.

Steve Kubby was one of the leaders of the 1996 Proposition 215, and was
running for governor as a Libertarian in 1998 when Placer County law
enforcement launched a six-month investigation after an anonymous note
alleged that he was selling the marijuana he grew.

One of the other candidates in that gubernatorial race, Dan Lungren of
Roseville, has now become a presence in the Kubby case. Lungren was the
California attorney general when Prop. 215 passed, and issued a guideline
to local law enforcement afterward that said, "(O)ne can argue that more
than two plants would be cultivation of more than necessary for personal
medical needs."

On Tuesday, Dep. District Attorney Chris Cattran referred to Lungren's
notorious two-plant standard, which medical marijuana advocates say was an
attempt to thwart the intent of Prop. 215, in challenging a defense
expert's conclusion that the Kubbys' garden was for personal, medical use.

In other developments, Judge John L. Cosgrove tossed out three minor
charges of the 19 counts against the Kubbys. And Cosgrove ordered the
sheriff's department to investigate who planted anti-medical marijuana
fliers in the jury room.

"We infer that it was an inside job," said defense attorney Tony Serra. "It
must have come from someone privy to the workings of the inside room, which
in the jury process is the holy of holies."

Serra thanked Cattran for bringing the discovery of the fliers to the
court's attention.

"I share your outrage," Cosgrove said in ordering an investigation. But the
judge noted that witnesses and attorneys have access to the room on two
days a week, complicating the search for the culprit.

Last weekend, I joined other volunteers in making phone calls to registered
voters on behalf of Measures V and W, the sales tax and advisory measures
that would breathe life into the Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural
Conservation Program.

As I approached the bank offices where the volunteers gathered, I was
pleased to see Helen Bale, the Journal's editor emeritus, who had also
decided to donate her time for the worthy cause. Making such calls is a
thankless but necessary part of running a political campaign, but Bale and
I enjoyed swapping war stories in between phone calls.

Calling dozens of registered voters about a worthy cause I believe in was a
sobering experience. Few potential voters were knowledgeable about the
innovative open-space program.

I felt like shouting, "Didn't you read my column?" to a few of the clueless
voters.

On Friday I asked Placer Registrar of Voters Jim McCauley why Measure W
shares the same letter of the alphabet as last year's successful $41.5
million bond measure for the Placer Union High School District.

The election codes require counties to start over each year with the letter
A and work their way through the alphabet, was McCauley's explanation. With
a dozen measures on the ballot in Roseville alone, it was strictly
coincidental that Measure W, the quarter-cent sales tax, was assigned the
same number as last year's school bond.

But referring to a serious subject beyond any confusion over alphabet soup,
McCauley expressed strong reservations over Proposition 37 on Tuesday's
ballot. The measure would prohibit an increase in local user fees without a
two-thirds vote of the electorate. Depending on how the courts interpret
what fees are covered by the initiative, voters could face ballots with
hundreds of local measures, McCauley warned.

"We're talking about literally hundreds of potential measures. A county has
thousands of fees; do all of them have to go to the voters?" McCauley
asked. "If they did, I'd definitely run out of letters."