Arizona - U.S. Senate and House Candidate Endorsements based on drug war policy reform Note: This is an old Voting Guide. Go to the New Drug WarRant.net Voting Guide Make a difference in Arizona Drug WarRant is providing information to help you make decisions on voting and supporting candidates. Be aware that the information provided here ONLY relates to drug policy reform, and there are other reasons to vote for a candidate. However, drug policy reform is a critical issue, and one that is too often neglected by candidates, unless the voters make it critical. Below each candidate, you will see information about their drug policy reform views and/or voting record. (see the criteria at right for definitions). A red check mark is a Drug WarRant endorsement. A vote for them will be a vote for drug policy reform. In some cases there may be multiple good options. In other cases, there just isn't a good candidate. More endorsements will come as the election nears. If you have additional information about a candidate's drug policy positions, please contact Drug WarRant. If you don't know your district, go to Project Vote Smart and enter your zip code to find out your district and detailed information on all the candidates. Criteria 1. The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asks candidates which items they will support if elected. Not all candidates have answered the questionaire. For the purposes of Drug WarRant's endorsements, we have focused on the following specific items from the NPAT: NPAT Drugs: Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding drugs. Support mandatory jail sentences for selling illegal drugs. Expand federally sponsored drug education and drug treatment programs. Decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Allow doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes. Increase border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. Eliminate federal funding for programs associated with the "war on drugs." Other or expanded principles For the purposes of endorsement, clearly the most important areas are "c, d, and f." A candidate with all three is gold. Selection "a" is a negative factor (although some consider this only for violent or major drug dealers). Selection "e" should be negative, but is confusing. There are some candidates who have an enlightened view of drug policy, who still choose "e" simply because of the heightened border concerns since 9/11, so there may be more involved in that response. At a minimum, a candidate should have chosen "d." The choice of "c" and/or "f" add greatly to their attractiveness. NPAT Colombia funding: Should the United States increase its financial support to Colombia to combat "the war on drugs"? "No" is the preferred answer here (at a minimum -- in fact, the answer should be to reduce funding, rather than just not increasing it). It is possible that someone could claim they are for increased funding to Colombia, but not for spraying or military purposes, but rather humanitarian purposes -- this seems a stretch, however, so I am looking for a solid "No" here. 2. The Hinchey Amendment. The incumbents have had two opportunities (2003/2004) to vote on an amendment that would stop the federal government from interfering with medical marijuana in states where it is legal. There was no legitimate reason to vote against this (and it was a bipartisan amendment), so a "no" vote is generally an indication of ignorance, or being in the pocket of the drug warriors. The proper response is: "Hinchey: Yes/Yes." 3. Other criteria. Where there is useful information from campaign web sites or news reports, those details are added here. If you have additional information (preferably with links), please let me know. US Senate Ernest T. Hancock (L) NPAT Drugs: f,g It is my body and mind and not the government's ; NPAT Columbia Funding: No John S. McCain (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: a,b,e ; NPAT Columbia Funding: Yes Stuart Marc Starky (D) NPAT Drugs: a,b,c,d,e ; NPAT Columbia Funding: No Starky is OK, except for the mandatory minimums, and Hancock's got the right idea. Pick one of them US House 1 Paul Babbitt (D) NO NPAT John B. Crockett (L) NPAT Drugs: c,d,f,g All drugs should be Freely available to all Adults without a prescription. ; NPAT Columbia Funding: No Rick Renzi (R) Incumbent NO NPAT; Hinchey No/No Renzi should be kicked out for voting against Hinchey. As far as I know, Babbitt has not come forward with views here. Crockett is the clear choice. US House 2 Randy R. Camacho (D) NPAT Drugs: a,b,e ; NPAT Columbia Funding: Undecided Trent Franks (R) Incumbent NO NPAT; Hinchey No/No Powell E. Gammill (L) NPAT Drugs: People have a right to do whatever to themselves, those who forcefully oppose this are the criminals.; NPAT Columbia Funding: No This one's easy. Gammill is the only acceptable choice. US House 3 John B. Shadegg (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: a,e; NPAT Columbia Funding: Yes; Hinchey No/No Mark J. Yannone (L) NPAT Drugs: f,g THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE DRUG USE.; NPAT Columbia Funding: No Another easy one. Shadegg has the worst possible set of answers and Yannone has the best possible answers. US House 4 Gary Fallon (L) NO NPAT Don Karg (R) NO NPAT Edward 'Ed' Pastor (D) Incumbent NO NPAT; Hinchey Yes/Yes Stick with the incumbent here. US House 5 John D. 'J.D.' Hayworth (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: a,e; NPAT Columbia Funding: Yes; Hinchey No/No Michael Kielsky (L) NPAT Drugs: c,d,f; NPAT Columbia Funding: No Elizabeth M. Rogers (D) NPAT Drugs: b,c,d,f; NPAT Columbia Funding: No A toss-up. Hayworth needs to go, but both Kielsky and Rogers are good choices. US House 6 Jeff Flake (R) Incumbent; Hinchey Yes/Yes NO NPAT Craig B. Stritar (L) NPAT Drugs: f,g The War on Drugs is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.; NPAT Columbia Funding: No A nice position to be in. An incumbent who has supported medical marijuana rights, and a challenger who is strongly opposed to the drug war. Here, I'm giving the endorsement to Stritar -- let's see if the 6th District is ready to take a step further in reform. US House 7 Raul M. Grijalva (D) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: b,c,d,f,g Our funding priorities need to focus on successful preventative education & counseling programs. We need to set realistic goals for elimination of waiting lists for people to receive addiction and behavior modification treatment to end vicious cycles of drug addition.; NPAT Columbia Funding: No; Hinchey Yes/Yes Dave Kaplan (L) NO NPAT Joseph Sweeney (R) NPAT Drugs: d,e,g Keep drugs & illegal(s) out of this country. Impound Both.; NPAT Columbia Funding: Undecided It's important to keep Grijalva in Congress US House 8 Robert M. Anderson (L) NO NPAT Eva K. Bacal (D) NPAT Drugs: a,b,c,d,e,g Judges & Juries must be allowed flexibility in weighing aggravating or mitigating circumstances re "mandatory Jail sentences."; NPAT Columbia Funding: Undecided James T. 'Jim' Kolbe (R) Incumbent NO NPAT; Hinchey No/No I'm going with Bacal on this, although she needs some definite education in some areas (unless I hear more good news about Anderson). Definitely not Kolbe, though. Back to main voting guide page.