Interview with Judge Gray

TFL Publisher Kevin Rollins interviewed Judge Jim Gray at the Libertarian Party of North Carolina convention in April 2003. A copy of this interview appeared in The Beltway Free-Marketeer.

So, you’re not officially running for office yet?

That’s correct, I’m exploring the possibility of running for office. To be frank with you, either seeking the nomination for president, or I’m thinking about the possibility of running against Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate.

When did you join the party?

I joined it just last February. Since then, I have read a couple of books on libertarianism, one by David Boaz [of the Cato Institute], and I see where I have been a libertarian all my life, and I’m ashamed of myself that I haven’t joined the party earlier. Libertarianism is recognizing that sometimes life is tough. What we’re talking about works. What the other parties are talking about is a lot of fluff and it doesn’t work.

You say you might run against Barbara Boxer. What are your considerations going to be, when are you going to make that decision?

I’m basically letting things sift out at the moment. I’m still talking as much as I can about the War on Drugs, trying to repeal drug prohibition and all of that is consistent with what I’m doing with the Libertarian Party.

I may not run at all. I figure that by the end of this calendar year, things will be pretty apparent as to which direction I should go in.

Barbara Boxer is opposed to some of the medical marijuana reforms you talk about and especially in California its a very sensitive issue.

Well, in CA actually, its surprising, the voters are ahead of the politicians. They passed proposition 215 in 1996 by 55 percent of the vote, that was medical marijuana. When almost literally, all of the publicly elected officials were lobbying against it. And then they had the audacity to pass Proposition 36 in the year 2000, and that passed by 60 percent of the vote, and that was mandated treatment instead of incarceration. We literally had people from the federal government using our tax money to come out and lobby against it, which is in my view, illegal. Even then, we had the voters pass these things. I think that if the politicians were wise, they would get on the right side of this issue, so far they really have not done so.

How do you think President Bush would respond to a direct question on how he stands on medical marijuana? He stated he was for states rights’ during the campaign, but now he’s obviously reversed that.

You know, each president we have had since Richard Nixon has tried to “out-tough” the other, and with a couple of exceptions, Jimmy Carter came close to actually voting in favor of regulating and controlling marijuana, but that fell by the wayside. So it isn’t just Bush, its everybody else. Bush is inconsistent, even hypocritical on this issue, but then again so is every other president.

You would make your candidacy about drug prohibition?

My campaign would make drug policy reform a centerpiece issue of the candidacy. No one would question, that if they vote for me, they are voting for the repeal of drug prohibition. Even if I don’t get put into the seat, if we get 10, 15, 20 percent of the vote, it would be a revolution in itself. We’d get so much exposure, its the nature of our system, that the Democrats and Republicans would start to embrace this issue as well, and make it their own. Take it away from us, which would be fine for me. We would win the election that way. That’s why “This Time it Matters” as a slogan, has meaning as well as effective.

In Harry Browne’s 2000 campaign, he said that on the first day in office, he would pardon every non-violent drug offender. Would you make a similar pledge?

No, but I would appoint a commission with strong guidelines for fairness and equity towards that end. It would look at case by case situation. You’ve got to understand, that even though I believe that drug prohibition has visited enormous problems upon us, people that have willingly made money in trafficking in human misery, deserve to go to jail. I’ve sent them there and I’d do it again. But...

So you wouldn’t make a blanket statement..?

No, they’re violating the law and they should be held accountable. But, that doesn’t mean that they have to face draconian sentences. A year in jail is a long time. Six months is a pretty long time. There comes a point, when its counter-productive to keep people in jail... after a certain period of time. Unless you’re simply talking about removing them from society. I have taken a tour of San Quentin prison in California, I’ve never seen so many guys with ball bearings for eyes. You know, they were really tough dudes and I was very pleased that they were where they were. We need prisons, without question. But, mostly for violent offenders.

So I would look at each case, as quickly as possible, and release those people that should be released.

How do you feel about the war in Iraq? What’s your position on libertarian foreign policy?

I don’t see there as being one voice on foreign policy. I did read several books that would be isolationist in regard to our foreign policy. I think life is too complex for that. I am not an isolationist. With regard to Iraq, I have made the comment publicly, prior to the beginning of the war, and I still believe it, that if the United States of America puts ground troops in Iraq, without the active involvement and participation of the world community, it will be the biggest mistake of my lifetime, and I still believe that.

We will spend generations wishing we had not done this and trying to repair the damage.

Where should we go for now?

Now, that’s a different question. Now we are in there... now I always support our troops. I “were” one as it is. I won a combat action ribbon in Vietnam, in a training cruise with the Navy, I’ve seen all these things. We support our troops, but we try to get them out as quickly as possible. That is consistent with not having the whole thing degenerate, which is a major problem. I don’t have a right answer for that one. I am not smart enough to know how we get out of there. But, I would not simply turn tail and run now, because we’re committed, and that’s a different issue.

How would you respond to North Korea threatening nuclear weapons. Is that a different situation than Iraq?

Well, every situation is different. I was appalled at reading in the Los Angeles Times about a week and a half ago, that they had a poll, and more than 50 percent of those polled said that they would favor going into Iran and Syria. And that’s appalling. Many people think, and there’s some justification for it, that if [North] Korea had oil like Iraq, we would have gone into Korea. That is not a healthy thing for our allies and the people of the world, to begin one war after another.

Was Saddam Hussein a bad man? You betcha. You can’t say anything bad about Saddam that I will not agree with. But that’s not really the issue here. There are lots of bad people, bad actors in this world that are evil. There are countries in Africa right this minute, that still have slavery. [They] buy and sell young girls or anything else. Maybe the world opinion should do something about that. Which I actually think it should. Should the United States [act] alone, with just England and Spain, which is what literally we are doing here? The answer is no, we shouldn’t have done that.

Your views on guns?

Well, I said earlier today that prohibitions do not work. I’m not a fan of guns. But you only exacerbate the problems by trying to prohibit them. The bad guys are winning in that regard just like with drugs.

How do you feel about questions like, “Don’t Libertarians believe that we should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in their own homes?”

There comes a limit. This is a hard decision. Should everybody be able to own a bazooka? You know, I think the answer is no. I think that it is not healthy. So we need some form of controls. Where is the line drawn? What you have to do is recognize, that prohibitions bring major problems of their own, you need to regulate them in some fashion. Bring them under the law, and regulate them.

So you would support regulation, obviously, of nuclear weapons. Of private handguns, of semi-automatic weapons, what would you say?

Prohibitions don’t work. Personally, I wish we didn’t have any guns in society, in a lot of ways. But, I’ve enjoyed firing BB guns and .22’s at targets. Its wonderful. I’m not a hunter, but I understand how that is something that people legitimately do. Machine guns cause me some problems. Maybe if you want to take a machine gun into the desert and do damage to every bottle and can around, as long as you pick them up afterwards, maybe you could take your automatic weapon out of the armory, I don’t know. But we need to bring some regulation without prohibition, because prohibitions are going the wrong direction.

Have you had any Libertarian leaders endorse you?

Well, I’m proud to say that Milton Friedman has endorsed my book. I am pleased with that.

I have had other people talk to me, in the Libertarian Party, about this. I don’t get endorsements as such, because I’m not a declared candidate.

If you were to run, what would be your campaign strategy and your campaign goals?

Well, I would admit, that we’re not going to raise nearly the money that the major parties do. The ace in hole, actually we have several aces in the hole. First of all, we’re right, and that helps. The use of cross-fertilization for local candidates, as well as state candidates, as well as federal candidates, we should all help each other, because although I’m sure we would disagree on many issues, the philosophy is the same, and that’s a good thing.

But a major ace in the hole, particularly in regard to drug policy reform movement, is e-mails. Doesn’t cost any money. You have e-mails, you have a list of people, what I want you to do is receive my e-mails and my information and have you send it to your list. Its basically a legal ponzi scheme sort-of-thing. Where it just goes out there, and you put your recommendation on what I am discussing and my candidacy and the other Libertarian candidates and send it out to your list of people, even if they’re Republicans and Democrats. The theme of my election is, if I run, “This time it matters.” Why? If you vote in favor of me if I’m running for Senate or President, or anyone else in the Libertarian Party, it will be a vote in favor the repeal of drug prohibition and that way, each vote will count.

I think the people will understand that, it makes sense. I think that we’ll be able to have positive movement by having a national referendum on that issue.

What about people who say that this Libertarian isn’t proven in executive matters?

Well, if you look more into my background, I have the strongest background of anyone who will be in the election.

Including George Bush?

Including George Bush. I have worked with people. I have worked out resolutions on very difficult issues, getting people together. I have an experience level that is probably unmatched. I’ve been on civil calendars, criminal, mental health, juvenile, probate, adoptions, all these sorts of things. To all of these problems and we worked them out pretty well.

You know I had the first Catholic priest child sexual molestation case in the nation, as far as I know. And we were not only able to solve it in regards to money, we were able to get each side working together, the church diocese on the one hand and the plaintiffs on the other, to reform the Los Angeles County church diocese. Right now, [the diocese] has 11 different planks in there for reform. We’ll never get rid of the problem, but we can reduce it, because its a horrendous thing. We are able to address it, and make something positive out an enormously large negative. So I’m able to do this and work with people that no other candidate that I know of, has been able to do.

Let’s see, quick question - Abortion?

Now some things, as a sitting judge, I’m really not allowed to talk about, because cases may come before me, and I’m not able to do that.

I can tell you, as I said before, that prohibitions don’t work. I’ve also expressed the view that people should have the liberty and be responsible to do with their own bodies what they think is appropriate, as long as it doesn’t effect others.

Whether life begins at birth, is a debate...

I wanted ask a question about the more practical aspects of campaigning Michael Badnarik has talked about getting an RV to drive around the country. Harry Browne and other candidates the LP had in the past were fond of flying in airplanes and were criticized for not really getting to the grassroots. What kind of campaign would you run, if you choose to run?

I am pretty conservative about spending my own money. I am much more conservative about spending public money and my track record shows that. As a judge I’ve been able to do that. And I do it really parsimoniously. I would spend my campaign money most effectively, but certainly not on big fancy expenditures. You’re not donating $100 to my campaign so that I can fly around in a jet. It would be nice. The RV is probably the approach that I would use.

Do you think you could win?

You know something, if I were to have run as a Libertarian for Governor of the state of California in this past election between Gray Davis as the incumbent Democrat on the one hand, and Bill Simon on the other, I think I would have had a substantial chance at winning, because nobody liked either candidate. What they needed was a viable alternative.

But the same is true for the Senator Boxer race. I think I would have a chance. I have a good background and a fair amount of credibility. And I’m a pretty conservative and responsible fellow. I think I might have a chance of really doing well there. As far as president is concerned, I was hoping that Al Gore would run again. You’d have Bush, Gore, and me. Would I win? Probably not. But, I think that people would be interested in somebody different. Who knows, life is interesting.