Kansas - 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 Kansas 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. Note: Out of the first 15 state guides completed, this is the first where one party has gotten my endorsement for all the races. Usually there's a mix of Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and others. In Kansas, however, not a single candidate other than Libertarians have shown a reasonable approach toward drug policy reform. I suggest you not only vote Libertarian in Kansas, but also get involved with their party to help promote drug policy reform. 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 Samuel D. 'Sam' Brownback (R) Incumbent No NPAT George H. Cook (Reform) NPAT Drugs: d,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Undecided Lee Jones (D) NPAT Drugs: b,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Yes Steven A. Rosile (L) NPAT Drugs: c,f; NPAT Colombia funding: No US House 1 Jerry Moran (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Jack W. Warner (L) NPAT Drugs: c,d,f,g The purchase, sale, or possession of drugs is a personal freedom issue and there should be no laws of prohibition.; NPAT Colombia funding: No This is an easy choice. Warner all the way. US House 2 Ira Dennis Hawver (L) NPAT Drugs: c,d,f; NPAT Colombia funding: No Jim R. Ryun (R) Incumbent NPAT Drugs: a,e; NPAT Colombia funding: No; Hinchey: No/No Nancy Boyda (D) No NPAT US House 3 Kris W. Kobach (R) NPAT Drugs: a,e; NPAT Colombia funding: Undecided Dennis Moore (D) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Richard Wells (Reform) No NPAT Joseph K. Bellis (L) NPAT Drugs: e,f,g Once again the federal government has no constitutional mandate to carry on a war on drugs. Regulation of drug use is the responsibility of the individual states. The federal government does have the power to control the flow of drugs into this country either by banning or taxing the importation.; NPAT Colombia funding: No US House 4 Michael Kinard (D) No NPAT David B. Loomis (L) NPAT Drugs: c,d,f; NPAT Colombia funding: No Todd Tiahrt (R) Incumbent No NPAT; Hinchey: No/No Back to main voting guide page.