Unregulate drugs but regulate guns?
Norm Stamper, former chief of the Seattle Police Department and an advisory board member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition – some LEOs who oppose the drug war, writes:
Drug criminals have an unlimited supply of high-powered weapons at their disposal. Kingpins pay mules, usually impoverished, always expendable, to travel to the States and pick up a firearm or two at a gun show. Using the Brady Bill “loophole” (and congressional and presidential failure to extend the ban on assault rifles), all it takes is a phony stateside driver’s license and a handful of cash to walk out with semiautomatic Uzis, AR-15s and AK-47s.
You really think that these guys buy at gun shows? Gimme a damn break. And you also think that the assault weapons ban would have stopped any thing since the ban only impacted the aesthetic features rifles could have?
I’m against the drug war. I’ve supported LEAP in the past. It will not happen again.
Update: In comments, Allison from LEAP writes:
While we support Norm Stamper’s efforts to end prohibition you should understand that LEAP’s only goal is to end prohibition and the accompanying crime and violence. Any statements that a LEAP speaker makes regarding any other issue does not represent the opinions or perspective of LEAP as an organization. Thank you for your support and the support of the entire blogging community.
Norm is on the advisory board and held himself out as such. I don’t think it’s a far stretch to conclude that was LEAP’s position. Regardless, individuals who spread misinformation about the ban on weapons that look like assault weapons, the supposed gun show loophole, and gun control do not endear themselves to me.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Do you mean that you will no longer support LEAP in its efforts to end the drug war? While we support Norm Stamper’s efforts to end prohibition you should understand that LEAP’s only goal is to end prohibition and the accompanying crime and violence. Any statements that a LEAP speaker makes regarding any other issue does not represent the opinions or perspective of LEAP as an organization. Thank you for your support and the support of the entire blogging community.
August 28th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Allison,
He’s on the advisory board. And his position there was displayed in the piece. To me, it seemed to be a de facto endorsement of his support for a silly piece of gun control legislation. So, if that’s not the case, I apologize.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Uncle:
Don’t apologise. You didn’t err, here.
Allison: Please clarify the Official Position of LEAP as regards the allegations of Norm Stamper?
Do you agree or disagree with his allegations?
This is not something to be lightly brushed off, or “That isn’t our focus”. It is now. Your Board Member just made it a policy issue that I, for one, would insist that you clarify.
Your Board Member has used the position accorded to him by LEAP to make (wildly inaccurate and ignorant, in my opinion) allegations.
This apparently – so far – means that LEAP will support, or allow “gun prohibition” in order to end “drug prohibition”. I, at least, would like to have much more explanation of your position than that.
August 29th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
If a senior member of that organization is selective with information and spreads mis-information (even in a non-official capacity), it reflects poorly on the organization he represents.
And if he is clueless (or lying) about the gun-related elements, is he equally wrong on drug-related issues?
If he is a representative of LEAP in any official capacity, then he is – by association – a representative in many other facets. It’s not a 9-to-5 job.
August 31st, 2006 at 11:38 am
LEAP is a single issue organization. Every board member and supporting member of LEAP agrees on one thing: the drug war has proved a dismal failure leaving us with one solution: legalized regulation of all illicit substances. While I understand that it is tempting to conflate Mr. Stamper’s or any other LEAP Speaker’s personal opinions on certain issues with his or her vocal role in LEAP as an opponent of the drug war, it must be understood that there is a very opaque line between the two.
If a LEAP Speaker brings up gun control during a LEAP presentation he or she would be speaking out of turn. Mr. Stamper’s comments did not take place in the context of a LEAP presentation and therefore LEAP is not responsible for his opinions. LEAP simply does not have one cohesive stance on gun control. The official position of LEAP on gun control is that we have no official position on gun control.
Regarding the allegation that Mr. Stamper used his role in LEAP to further an independent agenda:
In this particular instance Norm did not, as you charge “use the position accorded to him by LEAP” to state his opinion on gun control, rather the status and experience that he has gained based on his own work afforded him the opportunity to have this particular op-ed syndicated in many newspapers and journals. Norm Stamper is a prolific writer on myriad topics, many of which have nothing to do with drug prohibition.
Regarding the allegation that a representative of an organization in any official capacity, is – by association – a representative in many other facets. It’s not a 9-to-5 job: This claim cannot necessarily be contested or denied. Sure, practically, we associate someone’s views with the organizations that they belong to. We also see someone committed to a particular issue that we identify with and naturally assume that this person’s views on all issues coincide with our views.
People will congregate under one umbrella issue but their viewpoints on other issues are likely to vary or be entirely disparate. Drug policy is certainly an issue within which people will arrive at the same conclusion by following very distinct paths; libertarians, conservatives, anarchists, communists and liberals alike fall under the drug reform umbrella. Our speakers are not elected officials representing an electorate. They are former members of law enforcement who disagree with the drug war for various reasons. They are resolute in their stance that prohibition must end to improve the current situation. Their opinions on other issues simply are not the prerogative of LEAP.
The bottom line is whether or not you feel that one speaker’s personalstance on gun control is reason enough to refuse support for an organization with a goal of affecting a broad social and economic policy.
September 1st, 2006 at 8:11 am
[…] In response to my post on Law Enforcement Against Prohibition’s apparent support for gun control (see here), Allison from LEAP writes: LEAP is a single issue organization. Every board member and supporting member of LEAP agrees on one thing: the drug war has proved a dismal failure leaving us with one solution: legalized regulation of all illicit substances. While I understand that it is tempting to conflate Mr. Stamper’s or any other LEAP Speaker’s personal opinions on certain issues with his or her vocal role in LEAP as an opponent of the drug war, it must be understood that there is a very opaque line between the two. […]