LEAP of faith
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.
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 personal stance 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 12:03 pm
Gotta respect anyone who can use “myriad” correctly. =)
September 1st, 2006 at 12:07 pm
I can understand the necessity of setting up a broad tent and all that, but when a member of an organization dedicated to reforming or eliminating one type of prohibition turns around and advocates and creating an even bigger one, you’ve got to wonder if he really understands the concept.
September 5th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
OK, I grant that Mr. Allison is in a difficult position here; He is attempting to build a broad coalition on a politically charged subject. In a sense, he needs all the allies he can get.
And I give him full marks for discussing, debating, and defending his position with such firmness without ad hominem attacks.
Given all that, and given that I support his goal, I will offer him some suggestions, which I hope he finds useful;