cannabisnews.com: Campbell Urges Change in Drug War





Campbell Urges Change in Drug War
Posted by FoM on September 19, 2000 at 19:37:44 PT
By Mark Simon, Chronicle Political Writer
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
Republican Rep. Tom Campbell, running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein, said yesterday he would win the war on drugs by turning away from prosecuting drug addicts while getting even tougher on drug pushers. Speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, Campbell began a weeklong effort to draw attention to his candidacy by restating that the money being spent on the war on drugs should be channeled to a war on drug addiction. 
That would include, he said, allowing local governments, if they choose, to establish centers that might distribute hard drugs as part of a treatment program. ``Nothing I saw is more likely to be misquoted and contorted by my opponent than this,'' Campbell said. ``I do not propose that we legalize drugs, or that we allow pushers to stay on the street. What I propose is a return to this war's original intent -- getting Americans cleaned up, out of danger and back into the mainstream.'' While shifting the emphasis to treatment, Campbell said the war on drug dealers should escalate, and include the death penalty for anyone who sells heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines to children under 12, even if the child does not die from the drugs. ``What does it mean (when) you intentionally sell such a drug to a child? What does it mean except you wish that child to die?'' Campbell said. Campbell promised a new ``fall offensive'' around the state aimed at gaining attention, and support, for his maverick style of politics. ``I'm not within the confines of normal politics,'' Campbell told an audience of 85. ``I'm willing to say what's unpopular. If I get some attention for doing what's right, not what's politically safe, I'll be your U.S. senator.'' Campbell has lagged well behind Feinstein in public and private polls, including one released yesterday by the Public Policy Institute of California, which showed him 17 points back among likely voters. Feinstein was favored by 48 percent, Campbell by 31 percent. For the first time, the poll also measured voter support for the third-party Senate candidates on the November 5 ballot. Green Party nominee Medea Benjamin was favored by 3 percent, Libertarian Gail Katherine Lightfoot by 2 percent and Reform candidate Joe Camahort by 1 percent. Fifteen percent of the voters said they were undecided. Feinstein led among women, men, in all regions of the state and held a 2-to-1 lead among voters who described themselves as unaffiliated with either of the major parties. But Campbell's approach to the drug issue may have won him one high-profile convert. San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, whom Campbell invited to the Commonwealth Club event, is an outspoken advocate of treatment rather than prosecution of drug users, and he said he is rethinking whether to support Feinstein. ``I like his approach to drugs,'' said Hallinan. ``She has such a bad position, I'm really rethinking what I'm doing.'' Endorsing Campbell ``is within the realm of possibilities,'' he said. Meanwhile, Feinstein campaign manager Kam Kuwata said Campbell is only attacking the drug problem on the supply side, while Feinstein is tackling the issue from both sides. He said she has been a vigilant watchdog of the federal war on drugs to ensure that it is conducted effectively. But she also was an early supporter of Delancey Street, the San Francisco-based rehabilitation and treatment program that is privately financed. ``I'm not saying he's soft on drugs,'' Kuwata said. ``I'm saying he's wrong on drugs. I don't know think it's a good message to send to heroin addicts around the world: `Come to city X and we'll give heroin out as a way to combat drug abuse.' '' Note: Senate candidate would put greater emphasis on treatment for addicts. E-mail Mark Simon at: msimon sfchronicle.com Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Mark Simon 2000 San Francisco Chronicle  Page A5Contact: chronletters sfgate.com Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/ Related Articles & Web Site:Tom Campbell for U.S. Senatehttp://www.campbell.org/Campbell To Unveil 4-Point Drug Plan on Ca. Tourhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7085.shtmlRep. Campbell Unveils Radical Drug Proposalhttp://www.examiner.com/000919/0919campbell.html
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by Tom on September 20, 2000 at 08:46:13 PT
Tom Campbell is a FRAUD!!!
Hasher sentences for "pushers" and the DEATH PENALTYfor selling to kids under 12??? That's DUMB! Thisplan is just more of the same--escalation of thefailed policy of Prohibition. Yet, Tom Campbell pretendsto be some kind of "maverick" and "reformer"--whata joke! This is the same old policy in a differentpackage.So if an 18-year-old sells beer or wine (DRUGS!) toan 11-year-old, the 18-year-old gets the death penaltyfor "pushing drugs", right??? Oh, I'm sure thoseDRUGS will be treated far less severely. After all,beer/wine are the kind of DRUGS that prohibitionistslike Tom Campbell enjoy using!But sell a FAR LESS HARMFUL DRUG (cannabis) to the11-year-old, and I'm sure Tom "Hypocrite" Campbellwill call for the death sentence.Tom Campbell, you are a FRAUD!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Lehder on September 20, 2000 at 03:55:50 PT
Campbell
Calling for the death penalty is no kind of reform.It is "compassionate conservatism".Thanks, observer, for your comments yesterday on another article about this idiot.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on September 19, 2000 at 20:33:35 PT:
My Question
This is the part of the article that really concerns me. It is such a broad statement.While shifting the emphasis to treatment, Campbell said the war on drug dealers should escalate, and include the death penalty for anyone who sells heroin, cocaine or methamphetamines to children under 12, even if the child does not die from the drugs. ``What does it mean (when) you intentionally sell such a drug to a child? What does it mean except you wish that child to die?'' Campbell said. What if a 13 year old would sell a little cocaine to an under 12 year old? I hope that doesn't happen but I'm sure it probably has. Do you give the death penalty to the 13 year old? See what I mean?
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: