Bookmarks: MAP's link to shadow convention items:
http://www.mapinc.org/shadow.htm
Items by Ethan Nadelman:
http://www.mapinc.org/authors/nadelman

ETHAN NADELMANN SAYS...

"The Shadow Convention presented a unique opportunity to get the issue of
drug-policy reform out there."

Ethan Nadelmann is executive director of the Lindesmith Center- Drug Policy
Foundation, which was one of the hosts of this week's Shadow Convention in
Philadelphia. http://www.drugpolicy.org/

NR: Why did the Lindsmith Center participate in the Shadow Convention?

Nadelmann: The Shadow Convention presented a unique opportunity to get the
issue of drug-policy reform out there, to get people to focus on the failed
consequences of the drug war, and to begin to appreciate the alternatives.
It was far and away the most significant opportunity we've had to provide a
platform for some of the most prominent Americans who have spoken out
against the drug war. Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, who has really
stepped out on this issue, had an opportunity to speak. On the other hand,
he was juxtaposed with Reverend Jesse Jackson, a leader among
African-Americans in this country, coming from a very different political
place, but speaking to the same issue, which is the failed drug war. And
then going back to Tom Campbell, the congressman from California who is
running for Senate on the Republican ticket, and once again, condemning the
drug war, condemning the U.S. aid package to Colombia, calling for more
drug treatment, calling for the drug issue to be treated as a health issue.
So it was an opportunity to take some of the most prominent figures
associated with us, and combine them with, for example, a very emotional
ceremony involving dozens if not hundreds of people who have family members
incarcerated. We also heard from a black minister, Edwin Sanders, who has
spoken out against the drug war. This was the biggest and most significant
event to date in the young history of the drug-policy reform movement.

NR: Do you think there might be a place for you inside the convention in 2004?

Nadelmann: I would be surprised if things change that quickly. For every
Gary Johnson, there is a much more substantial number of people who think
about it the same way but don't yet have the guts to come out and say so.
What we're looking for is enough of a critical mass that politicians find
safety in numbers speaking out against this policy. There's a chance that
enough people will have come out of the closet in support of drug-policy
reform by 2004 that our issue will begin to be part of the mainstream-party
agendas. My guess is it will probably focus specifically on issues like
asset forfeiture, over-incarceration, and medical marijuana, in which areas
significant majorities of Americans already support reform. We do feel as
if the issue is beginning to have some currency in mainstream circles. And
we now have some victories under our belt. We've won 12 out of 13 ballot
initiatives since 1996. We've begun to be successful in changing state laws
ranging from methadone and needle exchange to medical marijuana and
sentencing. Five years ago none of that was true. Now we're winning
victories on the state and local level.

NR: You mentioned politicians who have had the courage to come out of the
closet. Tom Campbell is probably the most...

Nadelmann: I always put Johnson and Cambpell together. Johnson's the first
sitting governor to do it. In a way, Kurt Schmoke, the mayor of Baltimore,
was the one who broke the ground in 1988, but Gary Johnson was the first
sitting governor -- he was in a position to follow through on the ground,
appointing a task force, and, as he put it in his speech yesterday, to call
for a new bottom-line drug policy. That was remarkable. And now Tom
Campbell is remarkable because he's the first guy to actually be running
for statewide office on a platform that includes major drug-policy reform.

NR: You actually introduced Tom Campbell. Could you go into a little more
detail on what he had to say?

Nadelmann: Campbell harshly criticized the U.S. aid package to Colombia as
a waste of money, as money thrown at a problem where the U.S. could
accomplish very little and where there were no good criteria for success or
failure. He also powerfully supported more funding for drug treatment. He
said the money we're spending in Colombia should be spent instead on
increasing drug treatment within the United States, and he justified this
both in human terms and in cost-benefit terms, that money spent on drug
treatment is a good investment. And then he strongly endorsed Proposition
36, which would require treatment instead of incarceration for nonviolent
drug offenders. The California legislative analysts' office has estimated
it will save taxpayers $1.5 billion in five years in terms of reduced
expenditures on maintenance and building of new prisons, while at the same
time increasing by $120 million a year the money available for drug treatment.

Now we're going to do the whole thing over again in Los Angeles in two
weeks when the Democrats meet, and there we'll have the mayor of Salt Lake
City speaking. And Campbell and Johnson will both be there as well.

NR: If you had a private audience with George W. Bush to discuss the drug
war, what would you say?

Nadelmann: I would suggest to him that the public, including Republicans,
are a little more nuanced and a little more open to reform than he probably
realizes. It's not just the libertarians he bumps into advocating
legalization, that actually it would be in his interest (and I would say
this to both candidates), to do more intensive polling on issues like
treatment instead of incarceration and on medical marijuana. I think that
both candidates would find that not only do they not need to demagogue on
these issues, but there might be some political advantage to campaigning on
them, or at least integrating them into their broader plans. I'm not
looking to either of those candidates to get out ahead of the curve on this
issue. It's hard to believe that either of them is going to show any
leadership on this. But I do think that if they want to look carefully,
they'll find that things aren't the same as they were ten years ago. There
is a shift in sentiment, and people aren't responding to the same old
drug-war rhetoric the way they used to.