Mike Gravel, a dark-horse Democratic candidate from Alaska, really rocked my world in this week's Howard University Presidential Forum. Here's why:

• He supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and an end to this bullshit war.
• He supports ending Nancy Reagan's "War on Drugs" (see my recent post regarding DPA's Incarcerex ad for some reasons that we should all support this policy).
• He supports eliminating the IRS and the income tax, replacing it with the transparent Fair Tax, a progressively-structured sales tax.
• He'd like to implement a National Initiative for Democracy, essentially creating a federal ballot initiative process1 to empower the American electorate.
• He supports single-payer healthcare, and he lambasted the other Democrats on the stage (Kucinich excluded), who all want to give more money to the broken and greedy private insurance industry.
• He's scared of Hillary Clinton.

In short, he was the only Democrat with something new and unique to say, rather than just towing the standard party line. This is clearly a man who is NOT part of the "politics as usual" crowd. Now, if only he stood a chance...

1. 1. I have mixed feelings about ballot initiatives, especially given the way they've been implemented in California, but I remain hopeful that, done right, they could be a powerful tool to re-enliven our democracy

I love this new ad from the Drug Policy Alliance (via boing boing) - let's make the drug war an issue in 2008!

While we're on the topic of Nancy Reagan's "War on Drugs" (thanks to Boaz for pointing out that connection), allow me to briefly explain why the war on drugs is both futile and destructive.

• The government will never be able to successfully dictate what people do to their own bodies. It's simply not feasible. If it bans one substance, people will just find an alternative. Methamphetamine, anyone?
• On a related point, prohibition doesn't work. Didn't we learn this lesson in the 1920s? Newsflash: alcohol is a drug!
• The drug war has created a massive black market economy where 12 year old kids walk around with thousands of dollars in cash and automatic weapons. If this isn't a recipe for violent crime, I don't know what is.1
• The incarceration rate in the United States has more than quadrupled since the "War on Drugs" began in 1980,2 after 50 years of stability, from about 315,000 (.14% of the population) to nearly 1.5 million in 2005 (.49% of the population), and over 2 million today (.70% of the population).3 The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world.4
• Assuming an average cost of $100/inmate/day,5 we are now spending $150 million per day to incarcerate American citizens, the vast majority of them for drug or black market-related offenses. That adds up to nearly $55 billion per year!
• If the incarceration rate today were the same as it was before the War on Drugs began, we would have only 412,000 citizens incarcerated, for a total annual cost of only $15 billion per year. That's a $40 billion difference in incarceration costs alone. Imagine the collateral economic effects of adding an additional 1.5 million people to the workforce, and the cost savings are even greater.
• Substance abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal activity. Treating the public health aspects of substance abuse -- addiction, disease transmission, and organ damage -- while eliminating the black market, would make America safer and save billions of taxpayer dollars per year.

1. 1. No, I'm not making this up... anecdotal evidence from an ex-cop of 20 years.
2. 2. Yes, I am aware that there may be other causes for the increase in the prison population, notably the deinstitutionalization of mental health treatment, but the War on Drugs and the related black market are by far the largest factor
3. 3. Source: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics
4. 4. Source: International Centre for Prison Studies
5. 5. This varies considerably from state-to-state; I chose $100 as a nice, round number; YMMV.