Today’s Libertarian Forum sponsored by NORML ISU, the Iowa Free Press and the Iowa Libertarian Party was a success. Below is a transcript of the event. Videos will be uploaded shortly. Libertarian candidates Jake Porter and Marco Battaglia squared off on a number of issues. Iowa Patients for Medical Marijuana’s Jason Karimi was the moderator.
Transcript begins, 4-1-2018 Libertarian governor’s forum at Iowa State University in Curtiss Hall auditorium room 127
Moderator: …and uh, Jake Porter. They’re going to be here, um, answering questions. We will allow kind of an open forum, since the format is different today. If clarifications come go ahead and raise your hand and get his attention back here (points), he will notify me and we will try and flesh out, flesh out some thing. So the topic is criminal justice reform, uh, we are at Curtiss Hall, here at Iowa State University. Sponsored by NORML Iowa State and the Iowa Free Press as well as the Libertarian Party of Iowa. And I’ll go ahead and leave it up to you guys. Who would like to answer the first question? Alright.
So, number one is are there reforms that you would like to propose to civil asset forfeiture laws?
Marco Battaglia: Civil asset forfeiture I think is pretty hard to differentiate from theft when you do it before someone is convicted, before someone has a chance to prove, you know, whether they’re guilty, or whether the items that are taken from them, or their money that’s taken from them is truly involved in a, in a crime. I think that Iowa is actually leading the way, on uh, a number of reforms for civil asset forfeiture. There is um, up to a certain amount, at this point, can be forfeited. But what I would prefer is that we have absolutely no civil asset forfeiture prior to an actual conviction.
Jake Porter: Ok. Civil asset forfeiture in Iowa gets about a D ranking. It’s one of the worst states, when you rank it by the Institute of Justice, it’s one of the worst states in the nation for civil asset forfeiture. Where people work, your property is being taken without due process. It’s a violation of the Constitution, a violation of the Bill of Rights. It’s something that desperately needs reformed. I can recall a couple of years ago there was a lady that built a cash based business, I’m very familiar with. She was making large cash deposits. At some point, they think this looks suspicious, so instead of verifying, she was paying her taxes, instead of verifying anything, the state came in and took that money. There have been other times when people have been driving on I-80 through Iowa, coming back to Iowa, where they’ve had their property taken after they got back from a casino trip in Las Vegas where they won big. Property is taken. The burden of proof is now put on them to prove that they’re innocent. That’s not the way things work. And then they can take a long time to get their property back when they finally do. That’s something, the burden of proof should always be on the state. That’s the way our Constitution, our Bill of Rights is set up, for that specific purpose. Making sure that the state has to prove that you were guilty of a crime. It’s not the other way around, there’s no reason for it to be any other way. And, we can get into some very bad situations when we put that burden of proof on you to prove you are innocent. And this can be used, and eventually will be used to apply to other cases as well if we were allowed to continue. So yes, it does need reformed, and the best thing we can do is to go through the Legislature and revise all of our laws and make it illegal for them to actually take property – or, it is illegal, put a strike in that – make sure they know it’s illegal for them to take property without due process.
Moderator: Do you have anything else?
Marco Battaglia: I would say yeah. If I might add it’s only going to become more of a problem with different states being quicker to decriminalize or end prohibition on certain substances that people are transporting. Obviously, cannabis is a big one. But at what point are we allowing cannabis to be seized from people that are using it medicinally or people that are peacefully bringing in, you know to a family member and it doesn’t really matter honestly why they’re transporting it through Iowa, we’re in the middle of the Midwest, a lot of people come through from Colorado and Chicago. Do we really want to be known as the state that’s confiscating people’s property while there’s so many questions about how quick the future is going to um, come in terms of more freedoms to these different substances in Iowa. I think we have a lot of catching up to do. And by making civil asset forfeiture only to be even be a question in a, after a person has been proven guilty, and then the items that have been possessed have been proven as being part of this crime, I think that that will, you know, that will be big if we can do that and if we can really lead the way on that in a number of ways.
Moderator: So there you go. Very good. So this next question goes to Jake Porter. In a free society, what is the government, or when rather is the government justified in using force against a person?
Jake Porter: The reason why we’ve got the government is the State is allowed to use force. That’s what people have allowed it to do. We obviously don’t want me to say, you know, you’re breaking the law and I’m going to use force. That’s why we created the State. The state should only use force when it’s necessary to protect other people’s property, their possessions, or their life. The state should not use force to protect you from, you know, using a certain substance you don’t like beside your medication. That’s not the purpose of government. The only time the government, the state should use force, is to prevent you from harming others.
Marco Battaglia: Yep. I’ll even simplify it from that. The only time the state should be available to use force as an option is when they’re defending an individual from the others, the other citizenry, whether that’s in citizenry has made up an entity or not. Really, whether you’re a business owner, or an individual, we have so many violations of this line of thought that many people agree with. And one thing I’ve seen first hand is store owners that are having CBD oil taken from, confiscated from them because the laws are confusing. I worry that a lot of people will see, oh we have these dispensaries opening up now. So that’s victory, but there are, we have so, we have so much more work to do to avoid crony capitalism and an unfair environment for people that want to sell these items, that want to be in these businesses.
Moderator: Did you have anything to add?
Jake Porter: No, I think I’d like to summarize it too. If Marco comes in here and punches me, can I hit him back? Well, if it’s self defense absolutely. But that’s what we have, that’s why we have the state there. To make sure that I’m not acting violent, that somebody else is not acting violent, so that we have a civil process to deal with these issues as they come up. So it’s not complete anarchy, we have the state to deal with that, that’s the idea behind it. The problem is that it becomes very easy for the state to take more power than what they’ve been given, and to start using force for all kinds of things. So that’s something to always be on the, on the lookout for. That’s the nature of government. That’s happened throughout our history. You look at 6,000 years of modern man what do you see? All these people consolidating power and the state using power against people.
Marco Battaglia: I think that, whether looking at it from the judicial aspect or any kind of matter where the state has to step in or feels the need to step in that um, (8 minute mark) it’s just more about a system of fairness. And if we look at reform through that lens of actually protecting someone versus any number of other things that are happening now, making profit or keeping a certain item away from people for an outdated reason, a reason that’s not backed up by science. I think it’ll cure a lot of problems, whether it be racial disparities, systematic racism, will be aided, you know we’ll have much less of that if we get civil justice reform through this lens of actually protecting people as opposed to a bevy of reasons that we, that we you know have these laws that are against non-violent activities currently.
Moderator: Um, next one is speaking more to a matter of principle. The question is should motorcycle riders to ride without a helmet. For clarification for the audience Iowa does not require helmet laws, and other states do. So should Iowa require a helmet law, from a criminal justice aspect, if why why not?
Marco Battaglia: I think it boils down to personal responsibility. And I would say no that that would not be an ideal law to add to our long list of laws. Um, Yeah it’s just, to me that, there’s more problems that come along with that than the intention being there being positive.
Jake Porter: No I don’t think so. I mean, that comes down to really a decision that you need to personally make. I’ve read about all these people who ride motorcycles. There’s some people that tells me it creates safety issues for them so I get that as well. Same thing with the seatbelt. I always wear my seatbelt. But it comes down to it being a decision between you and your insurance company. How the insurance company is going to handle that issue if you get in an accident, whether they are going to cover it, or whether you want to have none of the benefits in exchange for a reduction in the insurance rates. But as far as a state law, we’ve seen laws passed. That doesn’t really help so much as more about educating people on safety on what they need to personally do. And also if you just tell somebody that there’s a law out there, a lot of people will see the need to break that law just for fun. I, you see that on teenagers particularly. They consider it fun to break the law. But that’s not a necessary function of government.
Moderator: Alright, so next question goes, does legislation – we kind of touched on this already – there’s currently legislation in Iowa House to reduce criminal marijuana possession penalties for the first time. Um, the question is, while this is leaving marijuana still criminalized, does this legislation actually make the societal cost of prohibition of drugs and alcohol increase decrease or stay the same, so we’re looking at what is the fiscal outcome of such a policy, would it actually make the societal costs increase or decrease or what would you say to that? Reducing first offense marijuana possession penalties?
Jake Porter: You know, it would probably decrease, decrease the cost on our uh, criminal justice system obviously. I wouldn’t see it making that big of an impact, I think the impact you’re going to see is going to have more of the people – and if we decrease the penalties, you might have people as well that uh, right now cannot get work in the future? That’s a cost to society. If we take somebody who smokes a joint at a young age, we can make it to where we take the voting rights away, the gun rights away, and make it impossible for him to find a job. That’s a cost to society right there. And it does cost the state money, you have more people who end up on welfare, you have more problems overall. And when people cannot find work it creates anxiety for things that might happen that are very bad. So in that case this, none of these laws go far enough obviously, but they are a step in the right direction.
Moderator: Complex issue, complex answers. Thank you. Go to Marco.
Marco Battaglia: Yeah. I think that every second that goes by that we’re chipping away incrementally at punishments for possessing any number of currently scheduled items, lives are being ruined, lives are being lost. And crony markets are cropping up and being created. We can chip away at this for another 50 years, but every second there are people that are suffering, that prefer to not break laws, and prefer to start a legitimate business, not participate in the black market, so so, all the black market money is going to all the potentially negative things, and all the people that could be benefitting, or easing their suffering, or curing a number of problems if, you know, that believe it’s happening to them, I think it’s, I think a great, we’re not going to see a significant difference. I think it’s good, but you can’t have a minimum mandatory minimum sentence if you don’t have any prohibition at all. The mandatory minimum of sentences are a huge problem and I would be happy to see them go away so a judge actually has more power to handle the complex case or the unique case, and with that mandatory minimum, there’s so many problems with that. On a first time offender, you take away, what what the book that you’re normally throwing at them, that’s positive, but I don’t think it’s going to be a huge difference if we keep chipping away at the matter. I think we need to move rather quickly to kind of join the states that are looking to the future. Every minute this goes by, you know, we pick and choose who can start a business, who can have a cannabis card, who can have a dispensary or just – we’re creating a crony market that’s unfair to, you know, people who have had access to cannabis their whole lives but they can’t start a legitimate business, or they can’t go into public and say they’re possessing this.
Moderator: Excellent answers. Um, ok so moving on to the next one. Uh, it says since both Libertarian and Democratic platforms, have called for the legalization of all drugs. Is that an issue you could support, and, um, why or why not? So, Democratic Party Platform, Libertarian Platform. All drugs should be legalized and why, for criminal justice reform?
Marco Battaglia: Who are we on?
Moderator: I think Marco?
Marco Battaglia: Ok. Since I announced that I was running, I’ve had messages from hundreds of people about cannabis, but I knew myself, and I quickly learned if we’re talking about scheduled items that have medicinal value, it’s way more than just cannabis. The nice part is that the public in Iowa and even some in the Legislature seem to be in agreement that it’s time to act on cannabis. (16’ minute mark) But there’s, you know, ayahuasca, ibogaine, there’s kratom, psilocybin, MDMA, I mean there’s so many, so many things that are currently scheduled that people are telling me they’re getting medicinal value out of, that I know people are getting medicinal value out of, and mounting scientific evidence to support this. So, there is merit in saying we’re for legalizing all drugs, and the fact that the Democratic Party has that in their platform? I mean that’s huge. For fifty years we were getting, you know, candidates that ran into the Libertarian Party platform whether they were as top profile as Ron Paul or as low profile as Mr. Supreme, the uh, um, you get a lot of ridicule about that issue. But um, anything where you’re making less of a black market, and more of a, you know, a market that is out in the open, is good. And there are so many more people we could help if we include more substances. Maybe that makes it so we’re not chipping away incrementally at substance after substance, and I could see that as very positive. Same goes for, if we’re actually looking at reducing our prison populations, I think that we do need to look across the board if we’re looking at helping – if what we want to do is help people that are addicted, it’s not these substances that are part of the problem, they’re using these substances to treat other symptoms that they have. Is taking their money, locking them up, forcing them not to be able to wean themselves off of these substances, is that helping people? I don’t think it is.
Moderator: Jake?
Jake Porter: I eventually think the government should legalize things as much as decriminalize things. Take away the penalties for it. You know when we had, we tried alcohol prohibition in the past, and we see what that did. It brought forth some pretty dangerous characters, it also when something is illegal, when there is a black market for something people can’t get the help they need. They’re afraid. If by going, I say that I have a problem, with heroin addiction, meth addiction, how do people respond to that? What will happen to me? And in that case it’s so they don’t get caught. They don’t tell people about this. And then you see the problems get much worse, because they cannot get help. They feel that if they try to get help, they’re going to be locked up, they’re going to have their kids taken away, or that they’re going to lose their employment. And so these things get hidden, they don’t get addressed, they get pushed under the rug, and they don’t feel like they can ever come out and say you know what I’ve got a problem with this. And it creates a sort of stigma surrounding these issues. A lot of these addictions are mental health issues that people could get help for and there’s a stigma around it saying you know what I’ve got a problem. As we encourage more people to do that, as we help our friends and neighbors out who suffer from these issues, as we stop prosecuting for addiction and we stop prosecuting people for bad personal decisions that they made, we can actually get them the help that they need. And so it’s not necessarily about the state legalizing or condoning, saying, we’re going to start selling, you know, meth or allowing the production to just go forward, it’s about decriminalizing it more importantly than anything else. There’s certain things that are obviously so dangerous, that uh, I really don’t want somebody making meth right next to my apartment or anything else. So I’m not saying that the state can say oh yeah, go ahead and do that, that is a separate issue though from somebody that is addicted to it. So I think we just remove the penalties for that and when somebody acts in a way that harms others, that’s where we have laws against those things. So if somebody drinks and drives, that’s illegal. If you hurt somebody’s property, that is illegal. So if you’re on some substances and you go out and try and cause harm to somebody or take their property, those are private already. You’ve already set a law for it.
Moderator: Anything else to add?
Marco Battaglia: I would say big things to look at, uh, methamphetamine, it’s not only lingering, it’s resurging in Iowa, and same goes for heroin. I mean, you have to look at what is the opposite of legalization or decriminalization doing? When we make it harder for people to get opioids, or even worse, we’re trying to make it so they can’t have alternatives to opioids, because there’s worry of, of, you know what they’re doing to some of the alternatives. Trying to add to the list of scheduled substances, trying to make punishment more severe, and yet we have people that when they have trouble getting their opioid they move to heroin if that’s easier to get. So why are we seeing an increase in meth use, in heroin, even worse than a synthetic marijuana, bugspray? You know people will utilize these really nasty dangerous things, and the farther you go away from a free market in items that are safer, that are more effective, that are healthier, the more you have these desperate people that are seeking to treat their symptoms or to numb themselves with really nastier and nastier things, I think that’s really big. And we do have examples in the world. We have Uruguay and Portugal, where we see violent crime decrease drastically, and we see overdose deaths decrease drastically. So, let’s look at these examples, and try to actually nip the fear mongering and the criticism that have no basis in the bud together as a statement for this legislature and actually look at the scientific examples that we have where they have tried this. Not only does crime go down, gun violence, violent crime, overdose deaths go down. Let’s address these epidemics head on. And uh, another thing I think, suicide rates also go down, because there’s less people suffering, there’s less people worrying about am I gonna lose my job, my standing, am I gonna go to jail? It’s really going to be a wonderful thing when we can accomplish this.
Moderator: Alright. Um, next one is uh, kind of a contentious issue here. So, you guys are running for governor. Um, right now Kim Reynolds is the only Republican candidate in the field. And she named Steve King as, was it her chair? Campaign co-chair? It was – I believe it was chair. Apologies for that. But Steve King is helping with the campaign. He said some very racially charged things over the years against immigration. So when we’re talking about criminal justice reform, the question is as governor, will you agree with Steve King that immigrants bring more crime, and if so how should we reform, or should we even reform, the immigration laws from a criminal justice perspective and take your times on answering this question. Um, this one is actually for Jake.
Jake Porter: So, I can’t think of a better person than Steve King to co-chair Governor Reynolds campaign. I can’t. So I thanked her for that, I said that’s great, I boasted about it, I told people about it. No immigrants don’t bring more crime. The statistics don’t back that up. Now, when somebody commits a crime, there should be a process for that. They shouldn’t encourage people to commit crimes. But the simple fact is immigrants do not increase crime rates. They actually bring in a lot of diverse backgrounds and most fill a lot of jobs. There’s a lot of uh, especially in the mining field, science field, that we needed here in Iowa. So I would support that. But I’m happy that Governor Reynolds has Congressman King’s support as well. (24 minute mark)
Marco Battaglia: Yeah, there’s no evidence to support that immigrants are bringing crime, or even bringing lower quality individuals. I mean, the whole basis of what was the Great American Dream was that you can come through with nothing and participate at the same way as any other citizen even though you were a new citizen. And I really think it’s sad that we have these pockets in Iowa that seem to respond to those kind of statements. I’ve never been a fan of him. And it’s across the board, it’s dangerous I think, if you look at what he does in terms of the farm bill, there’s so many ways that, that um, I think that he’s distracted from doing his job by getting into some of these inflammatory statements that he responds to for weeks or months or has to answer to them. I mean I can’t even imagine being one of those recent immigrants that that, he’s representing, how they must feel. I don’t know, it’s unacceptable. I don’t know why she sticks with him. Like Jake said, I think it’s really bad for her, and we actually have somebody that’s running against him in the audience, you know, Chuck Aldridge, and uh, I really hope people look into the other people that are running. I think the average Iowan feels embarrassed that that’s someone that’s representing us. And if you’re making these decisions off, off, you know, fake news, off information that is not accurate, and you’re responsible to decide justice reform to a certain degree, that is a problem. Because these are the people that are being disproportionately impacted by that first line criminal justice, that first traffic stop, that fifth to a hundredth traffic stop that someone else that’s not like them doesn’t get. So, it’s a huge problem. And I have even experienced it to a certain degree first hand. I can’t say that my experience is the same as someone who looks different than me. But I used to, oh, I’m a bass player, I play music, I used to have really long hair. Before I cleaned up it was the, you know the T-shirt and jeans. And an old beat up car before I had my truck, which is now getting beat up. But besides the point, I um, I got pulled over so many more times driving around Iowa when I had long hair in an old beat down car. And, you know all they do is just look for your ID, check you out and then let you go. But there’s just something about that, that you can’t deny, that that people are being picked out. And if we reformed our system of criminal justice, there’s so many less reasons to do that to people. There’s less profit out of such a stop. I remember one time where I, before I knew about my rights as an individual, I would pretty much submit to anything, any kind of search, um, one night I got searched, a cop pulls out a cigarette butt and sniffs it, and it was just really absurd in the moment, I was trying not to laugh to exacerbate the problem, you know, just making sure it’s not a marijuana joint. It was very clearly a cigarette butt. But yeah I’ve experienced being what life was like when I had that image versus now, I haven’t been pulled over in years. I would say it was ranging up to hundreds of times. So, it’s happened here in Iowa and we need to admit it. I can’t even imagine what it’s like for someone that’s a different type of minority or someone that looks even different than I do. So, I know what’s happening. I know we need to change things to do that. And someone like Steve King is not helping. He’s making things worse.
Moderator: Very good. Alright, good question, or good answers guys. Um, the next question is about the new medical cannabidiol program. So you guys are going to be Governor. Um, the current governor, Kim, she has not commented on the federal implications of this. So we want to see how you guys feel about handling law enforcement from a federal perspective. So the question is, was seized hemp products, which Marco touched on earlier in the first question, that have been seized from here in Ames from local businesses, they’re fully legal, they were seized anyways due to confusion of the law. What can you do as Governor to do training, provide training for Iowa law enforcement for the new medical cannabis program? And that one goes to Marco for the first answer.
Marco: I would say that if you’re going to have an environment that allows people to seize an item across the board, it’s important that they know what they are doing. And it’s important that there is some kind of repercussion. If they truly seized oil that was legal at the time, at what point are they costing the state money? Are they, is there something to say that they’re going to do anything about that? Or is this store owner just out of luck, out of money out of product? I think that there’s a lot of things that we could do that are, I’ve actually talked through email to the Governor of Minnesota. And I’ve experienced the training that they do in various places for their police, and they are so far ahead of what’s going on in Iowa. It’s not just about cannabis. It’s also about, you know if you’re addressing an officer, and you pull up next to someone whose having a mental health issue, some type of breakdown. If there’s a situation where there is an officer whose a different race than the person that they are addressing, um, you know any number of things that you could come onto and they actually have actors that will play out a certain role. And I’m friends with someone who does that in Minnesota, and I see a lot of positives from what they’re doing. So I think, taking a look at training, and actually making it so kind of that an officer is more of a peace officer. I think that will help in so many ways. I think that will improve, um, civilian and police relations. There will be people a lot more comfortable to say, hey I need help, 911 is my friend. Or say hey, this is the cop that’s out on my beat, I’ll get to know them and know that they’re here to help me and not to go through my property. And, you know, who knows what else. And uh, but yeah, I think training is going to be key. Especially in terms of – we still have police officers that go and round up (32 minute mark) hemp, and ditchweed, and then they’ll put it on their social media. I, I, you know I thought that was a thing of the past but then I saw it this year. Oh, we rounded up all this, you know, devil’s cabbage or lettuce or whatever and they’re really proud of this and it’s absurd and embarrassing and I, you know, it’s happening, and it’s a waste of state, it’s a waste of taxpayer money, and it’s hurting a perfectly good plant that was doing nothing negative on the side of the road, so yes, training and knowledge is key. I would like to see us jump light years ahead in terms of how we train people that are paid by the state. And I would like their job to be, you know, protecting and serving, to be peace officers again as opposed to making a profit for different agencies and lobbyists and that sort of thing.
Moderator: Ok, good answer. Jake?
Jake Porter: Well I actually have an interest in this. So I have clients wanting to sell, um, CBD hemp oil, and I actually have my own brand of CBD hemp oil to help people out. Nothing illegal about it as you pointed out. Nothing to get you high. So I certainly don’t want the state to take my product from me, so I have an interest in this. Um, additionally, I think you asked the question about the federal rules, right? What would my response be? I don’t care what the federal government says. And I find it funny that Kim Reynolds and others were saying when it came to Obamacare states rights states rights states rights, and whenever it comes to something that they don’t want to do they don’t mention that word at all. It’s only used whenever the federal government is doing something that they don’t want. So when it comes to something like hemp oil for example, or marijuana, the federal government, oh we gotta give all of our power to the FDA. They don’t care about this any other time, but we finally get to something they don’t want or no one is in on, they go right back to giving more power to the federal government. The Constitution is really clear on this, the 9th and 10th amendments are pretty clear on this. The federal government has no power, Congress has no power under Article I Section 8 to regulate any of this. This is all matters for the states. The State of Iowa should be able to do this and if we need a government with a backbone that says, we’re working on helping somebody who is sick and suffering, and we don’t want to have an issue. We’re not going to put them in a prison for it, we’re not going to be like they did to Benton Mackenzie and take their medicine away while they’re dying so they don’t get it, or we’re not going to make them move out of state. We’re actually going to help people that need the help. So, as far as training? We just make it clear. We don’t do this. We go on TV. We don’t hurt people and we don’t take their things. Basically a libertarian philosophy. That’s all the government has to do to make these problems go away.
Moderator: Alright. Before we go back to you first, I just want to elaborate real short. But, our program in Iowa is in compliance with federal law. So, is there anything else that you were willing to add to that, um, keeping that in mind?
Marco: I think, um, yeah. It’s not only, we need to make sure that our representatives and the state legislature is aware of state and federal law, our state and federal constitutions. I mean, how are they supposed to do anything positive if they’re actually wasting time and taxpayer money talking about issues that are already addressed? Let alone using that to go in and disrupt local businesses? I mean it’s absurd to even ponder. And a really big problem I saw is, I think we should look at everyone running at every level, just to see if they do this sort of uh, feigning of ignorance about a specific law or topic. When you don’t, I mean in the case of, that Jake brought up, of Benton Mackenzie. He was making his own oil and uh, and I know the Governor and Lieutenant Governor were aware, because I personally called their office, you know, twenty and thirty times, to see, you know, are you going to step in and help this citizen that is clearly making his own medicine as opposed to anything he’s being charged with remotely, and they uh, you know they ignored it. They ignore the topic if they won’t to talk about it. Same with this idea of appealing to states rights, or appealing to federalism when it’s convenient to them. I mean recently our governor appealed to the federal government in terms of the second amendment and gun issues which is absurd. I’m sure, hopefully upset a lot of people in that regard. So, so I think uh, I think not only does it not matter, we have the Constitutional authority to lead the way on this and to not be interfered with by the federal government. We are also in compliance with the federal government. So it’s wrong on both of those levels.
Moderator: Anything else?
Jake Porter: Well, there was some way to feel about it, being ignorant of the law. But they’re not only ignorant but they are proud of being ignorant and they will tell you how proud of being ignorant that they are. They don’t care. That’s what – you know, in multiple ways they don’t care. They don’t want to educate themselves. I had a lady that contacted me a few years ago with something to educate these guys. I said well, I’m not going to waste my time educating. Be aware, they’ve been educated “enough.” Last year she calls me, she says I’m done trying to educate these guys. They’re not listening to a word that I’m saying. And that’s, that’s – they don’t care, and something that I’ve spoken about, they’ve been told time and time again but they don’t want to learn.
Moderator: That’s actually a really critical insight. Moderator privilege real quick, is, it seems to be a point of pride for our legislators to not look at science outside of Iowa, they do not wanna look at the science on the federal or international level on this, it makes no sense. They’re putting children in harms way. We, I do not understand this as a citizen.
Marco Battaglia: I’ve been to events in the Capitol where groups bring in peer reviewed studies and have them laid out and they’re open for legislators to come in, and they provide food for them, and any number of things. They bring in doctors, and medical professionals, and scientists and so, we’re past the point that you can say they’re ignorant. You’re either intentionally not looking to learn, or not listening, or you’re just looking out for your own, you know essentially your own paycheck, even if it’s a lobbyist money that’s coming to you or whatever it may be. There is, there’s no reason that anyone that takes on any of these positions can’t just go into these types of meetings and, you know, learn. It’s – there’s no excuse for it.
Jake Porter: No, You can probably admit there’s a solid (unintelligible).
Moderator: Ok, so this next question – I mean, this was number 8 for Jake anyways. This was also an audience question from Toya Johnson on our Facebook feed. She is the Vice President of uh, Family Action United Network? Um, she, they deal with criminal justice reform and family law reform. So dealing with child issues. Her question is, I’m going to go ahead and phrase it the way she did, she said um, well actually she said two questions and both of her questions were pretty good. Do we have time? Ok so the first one is going to be about the racial disparity in our justice system. It says how do you intend as Governor of the State of Iowa to address racial disparities in our legal system here? And this one starts off with Jake.
Jake Porter: So it was a couple years ago we lead the nation, but I think we’re still top 3, I don’t know exactly, but we’re still one of the worst in the country in leading in racial disparities. Despite some of the rates of usage, it was something like black males were 8 times more likely to be imprisoned or to be fined for uh, for any of this. That’s something, first thing we’re going to have to do is actually talk about it. You hear very many members of the legislature or very many candidates for governor talking about these issues? It’s very rare. And if you keep asking about it they’ll probably give some kind of an answer, but they talk about it. I’m actually the only candidate who wrote a position paper on their website about this issue. So the first thing’s actually talk about it. And once we discuss these things, then that’s where you start to see some change happen. No one wants to admit that the State is uh, leading in something on that. It’s obviously not something that we don’t – when we show up as number one ranked by US News and World Report, you know no one wants to put that out there, it’s a negative story about Iowa and they don’t want to mention that. But we need to mention that. That’s how they get back to our state motto. Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain. What can we do? Well first of all, if there’s no grunt work and fine then that does away with most of those issues right there. So if we start, decriminalizing and not prosecuting people for possession of marijuana for example, that’s going to address most of the issues right there from the very beginning. The other thing is you can also take a look at um, and this goes to many different, um, factors as well, not just in uh, racial disparities but look at what’s being prosecuted at the county level. You’ll find that certain states don’t prosecute things like domestic violence. Very infrequently they actually prosecute. You’ll find also that certain attorneys that they prosecute certain offenses more than others. Certain people more than others. That’s something that you should, you need to compile a list of families (unintelligible). A lot of it is going to come down to information, and your part is to bring a list to reform for changing the laws.
Moderator: Um, Marco?
Marco Battaglia: (42 minute mark) I think a big part is electing people that admit that these problems exist, um, so we can start working on them. It’s not up for debate. The racial disparities, and the systematic racism is there. It’s been built into the way we do things for, you know, over a century. And when we have someone who is supposed to be representing us at any level, or even a judge that thinks that’s a matter of debate, or thinks that you should just not break a law if you don’t want to risk having your life ruined in this way. To me that’s absurd. I mean we were based on this feeling as a country of, you disobey an unjust law if it’s your basic liberty, basic freedom that is being hurt by this law, it’s there for you to disobey. And, why should a minority of any kind be more at risk to do that? It’s really, absurd, and I think acknowledging is the first step. But if you, even, so much as ending prohibition of marijuana, simply will be positive. There will be less of a chance – we’ll move away from this kind of imbalance in whose getting punished. It might not be always for the right reasons that we get that next step going, but that’s going to be a by-product, is that there will be less disparities. I think another big thing is looking at appointments that a Governor makes, be it in terms of judges or the medical board, and actually thoroughly vetting these people, and seeing, you know do you admit this is a problem? If it is, if this is something that comes up, are you going to actually be able to judge according to this individual case as opposed to throwing a mandatory minimum, at someone um, I think that we lose a lot of freedom when someone does something and they’re charged and then you have no option to weigh in, you know, what was going on in this situation. Was this person under different types of pressure, were they defending themselves, were they treating themselves for, for an ailment? Right now, you can’t look at any of those things and be a, you know there’s no real justice in a lot of ways. And also delayed justice is a problem if it takes years for someone to get their property back or, um, their, years to get their record expunged. And, yeah, I, admitting that it is something that impacts certain minorities in say greater than the rest of us is big, and hopefully we can get more and more people to admit that.
Moderator: Um, so asking Jake to elaborate on this. You said getting people to talk about it. Do you guys have any suggestions? The reason I ask is we’ve found when talking with the public, they immediately shut down and think that the public is being called racist themselves. And all we’re saying is, the policies unintentionally result in racial consequences. Is there any kind of suggestions to help people with that?
Jake Porter: Listen, it’s a tough one. I think when people personalize it. So if they see somebody that’s been a victim, they are more likely to pay attention. Of course, if we’re telling them, not so much. But if they see somebody say hey I have been a victim of this, and now they’re talking in public, who have been arrested like Benton Mackenzie for example. Here is a cancer patient that is treating his cancer. That is very emotional. It gets to people’s emotional response. If we’re just throwing facts and figures, that’s boring, people shut down. But if they have a specific example they can see, this is a person who has been discriminated against, this is a person whose suffering, this is a person who has had their life ruined by a government policy, they’re more likely to say you know, maybe we shouldn’t have this policy that’s causing this type of problem.
Marco Battaglia: I think in general, the more non-violent crimes that we are able to remove from the books, the less that systematic racism, or mandatory minimums will be able to play a role in our society. The more laws that we have, the more that that’s going to be a problem. So I think that’s one angle. That, that moving away from non-violent crimes in general removes that as a problem. And there’s less opportunity for it to creep in for our society. And smarter sentencing, um, a more balanced um, judiciary, what that will do is, not only is that morally right to address things like systematic racism, but at the end of the day it will be fiscally sound, morally right, and save more money. So I see no reason why you couldn’t get people from any walk to agree to these things.
Moderator: Next question. Alright, next we have more two questions here, one more from the audience. This is Tory Johnson, again Family United Network. She says what type of legislation would you enact as governor of the state of Iowa to assist families to become more stable while using programs such as SNAP or FIP? Any policies that you would enact that you would see as – and that might not necessarily relate to criminal justice, she’s coming at this from a poverty issue, so this is kind of extraneous to the issue for the topic of the forum, um, I think she’s talking basically about a goal being reducing a prison pipeline that is welfare driven. So, addressing poverty as an issue of criminal justice reform, are there any specific legs besides what we’ve talked about to this point? Um, Marco.
Marco Battaglia: I think that sound economic policy, competing currency, and balancing the books, and even reducing taxation that effects the poorest among us…the impact will be profound. In so many ways. When you allow the economy to bring people out of poverty you see less of that prison pipeline. You see people, less people needing help, putting food on the table. They have savings, that they can choose to save or use on education, whether that be home school, public or private. Bringing people out of poverty is going to be huge for running into those kind of issues. When we bring people out of poverty there’s less abortions. I mean all across the board, you see improvements, and I see no reason to believe that that won’t be one of them.
Jake Porter: Yeah, great question, because it goes after the root of the problem. In many cases. Now, there’s a few different ways we can address this. As far as any actual government programs, not so much. But it’s more about, if we’re not putting people in jail, if we’re not putting people in prison, ruining their future economic opportunities. Obviously if you give someone a felony for something – non-victim, you know, victimless crime – you give them a felony you’re going to make it very difficult for them to find work. That’s going to continue the cycle of poverty, that’s not going to lift them out of it, that’s not going to lift their family out of it and it’s going to cause generational problems. (50 minute mark) That’s one issue. Uh, the other issue, too is is taxes. I had somebody tell me, well poor people don’t pay taxes. Well, if you look at it as a percentage of income, poor people pay more taxes than the wealthy do. And, how is this you ask? Well, you have to get to work. Right? You gotta find a job. So you’re going to buy a used vehicle, you’re going to pay self-tax on that used vehicle, you’re going to have to pay to get your vehicle registration tags, you’re going to have to pay for all of that. Sales tax? Sales tax also hurts the poor. But what does the state do? The state is always, instead of cutting taxes on poor people they’re all the time giving corporate welfare. Whether it be Apple, it be whoever else that wants corporate – John Deere – they’re all the time giving corporate welfare handouts telling us oh, you should be ok with this, you should be happy. They’re making it impossible for people to start small businesses, they’re putting taxpayers (unintelligible), and they’re regulating them to death. That’s what the state is doing, the state needs to get out of doing those things and a lot of the problems will begin to solve themselves. It does take awhile, but you will start to see benefits as long as we stop imprisoning people for, wrong reasons, making it impossible for them to find work, taking their family away, destroying the family structure, and then also taxing them to death. That’s, that’s the way things ought to run.
Moderator: Anything else, elaborate Marco?
Marco Battaglia: In terms of what you brought up of, of nutrition, I think looking at what we do subsidize is going to be big. Um, right now, and what we do, uh, kind of help people, get interns and people who need assistance, subsidizing things that are unhealthy or lead to obesity, or that are — there’s no reason that they’re actually standing on their own merits and we’re still subsidizing them. I think that’s absurd. And I think that will help in terms of the nutrition that anyone in Iowa has access to.
Moderator: Alright. Ok, this is going to be Ames, for the last question. Ames has the fourth largest crime rate nationally. That’s very good. Or, I’m sorry – fourth smallest crime rate. That’s terrible. Sorry Ames PD. Ok. So, they do a very good job here. Are there any other examples around the country of successful policing, that could reduce the racial disparity in arrests? Seattle is something that came to mind, from the mental health forum, from Doctor, um, McGuire. So, anything, and I believe we’re on to Marco on this one, I kind of got out of order with the audience question?
Marco Battaglia: Yeah. I think um, well, we don’t have to look too far. I mean, something about our neighbors. In terms of that, I think that Minnesota has come a long way, and I think that’s largely been um, training, training for law enforcement in terms of these kinds of interactions. And, I also think, unfortunately, we have to go out of the country to look at, um, Uruguay, like I said, places where we actually have an example of a different environment, where we have fewer non-violent crimes on the books. And look at what happens. Look at, non-violent, look at uh, issues of violence, whether it be gun violence or otherwise, gone down. And arrests, whether it be an arrest that fits into systematic racism, or racial disparity, or an arrest in general. I mean when you bring down the number of chances for this to happen you’re helping to solve the problem. Um, but yeah, Minnesota? We don’t have to look very far. Look at how they’re training. Look at how their law enforcement – and I think they’re light years ahead of where Iowa’s at right now.
Moderator: Minnesota, you said?
Marco Battaglia: Mmm-hmm.
Jake Porter: I feel pretty safe here in Ames. I feel pretty safe in most parts of, most parts of Iowa. Now, politicians and the news media, if you turned on the news media you’d never know this, but crime has been decreasing since the 60’s. It’s gone down drastically. It continues to go down. Most people here are Iowa Nice, right? We don’t hurt people, we don’t take things, the libertarian philosophy? Now, what can we do to make things better? I’m not going to sit up here and tell you it’s doom and gloom and if you go outside you might get mugged. You know, chances are pretty, you know, most of this stuff. We still have crime. A lot of the crime that we have is related to government policies, whether it be, you know, prohibition, creating things, creating black markets for it. And you are always going to have a certain level of crime. Now, one thing that we need to do is, you asked at the beginning of it, when should the state use force? To go after violent crime. Crime where there is a victim. You can’t hurt people. You know if you rob a bank we need the police for that. We need to actually make sure that we’re going after crimes that have a victim for police to prosecute, or we can put people, lock people away, rehabilitate them if possible, but get them to where they’re not out there in society causing more problems. We don’t need to spend all of our police resources and taxpayer money that we give them going after people for non-violent crimes, people that have mental issues, people that we can help.
Moderator: Very good. Anything else?
Marco Battaglia: I think that moving in the direction that our party has been advocating for for half a century now will allow Iowa to be even safer. I mean, much less, many, less problems in terms of, instead of policing vices, the sort of landscape we have now creating more and more black markets, um, what we will be able to focus on, rape and gangs that move into a neighborhood and theft, as opposed to um, kind of loading up people with a long list of things they can look at that don’t actually involve anything that you would get upset about, you know, anything where someone, where somebody is not hurting you. And I think another important aspect is that we look from the perspective from the punishment, and whether it is violent crimes committed, the punishments for sexual misconduct, really any crimes committed by employees of the state, I think we should ensure that their punishments are consistent with an average citizen. I think we see, you know, how often does someone get let off the hook when they are paid by the state, and they have access to lawyers that most of our citizens don’t have? And I think that’s, you know, that kind of change would be profound. If you start treating the crime and punishment the same whether you are on the state’s payroll, or a private citizen.
Moderator: Anything else?
Jake Porter: I will add, you know, and touch upon an important subject. When there is a victim, and a lot of times we see child molestation, um, victims raped, you know, they don’t get the justice they deserve. And we are focusing those resources on victimless crimes. Prosecuting those people. And, our criminal justice system, you know right now with the state’s budget, the court’s don’t have enough resources right now to go after all of this. And what they’re doing is things are taking a while. People are, and it’s going to become a real problem if the budget continues to get cut, or we don’t reform the laws. Because it’s going to take a while, and you’re going to be sitting there waiting for, waiting for your court date, and you’re going to keep waiting because we don’t have the money right now to pay for the backlog that the state has. That’s one of the problems that have came from the state’s budget. The state’s not budgeting properly, so it’s also impacting the criminal justice system as well.
Moderator: Wow. Good forum guys. That wraps up our questions, if there’s any final questions from the audience you might be interested in talking with these guys afterwards. They’re going to be available for private chats. Thank you for coming, thank you for the opportunity, and, thank you so much.
s
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment