Senator Rod Adair Home Page

Rod's Positions on the Issues

We will add to these so please come back.

Forest Management:

During the past year, and for the past several years, catastrophic forest fires have devastated public and private lands all over the west.

The US Forest Service is always quick to steer attention in the direction of how the fires have started. Sometimes there is human negligence or malice, but more often than not lightning is the culprit. In any case, the public and the media are quick to get bogged down in the questions surrounding the cause of a fire. But that is a mistake.

Why? Because the vital issue is not what started these fires. The main causes of the fires are relatively unchanged through the centuries, perhaps millennia.

Much more important today is the question: Why are these fires, once started, increasingly unstoppable?

Regardless of the cause, none of these fires should even come close to the almost limitless destruction which is now routine.

When lightning strikes, or when human beings do something stupid, of course we should be on the lookout for a fire. But these fires should end up burning no more than a few acres. Perhaps a really big disaster might result in at most 100, or 150 acres of loss. The catastrophic 500,000-acre fires we have seen all over the west should never be happening under any circumstances.

Why are they? Answer: Poor or non-existent forest management.

With a poorly-managed forest, the undergrowth, the brush, the tightly overgrown timber, the fallen deadwood all serve as highly flammable---almost explosive---fuel.

With competent forest management such fuel is reduced to a minimum, and a naturally occurring event such as lightning would normally lead to nothing more than a localized fire of a few minutes' duration. However, after decades of mismanagement even the most minor events lead to relentless, fuel-consuming infernos.

Radicals in the name of "environmentalism" have long since stopped the gathering of leña (firewood) in northern New Mexico, even though such an enterprise benefits both the residents who pick it up as well as the forests which are cleaned up. These same activists have prevented common sense measures such as limited logging for the purpose of reducing the level of undergrowth. Radical activists have also prevented the prudent construction of fire breaks which could keep a fire from spreading even under the harshest conditions of drought and wind.

Remember, a 500,000-acre fire is one which has consumed almost 800 square miles! This means a fire has carried itself throughout an area equal to 20 by 40 miles. A fire cannot possibly do that without an almost unimaginable amount of explosive fuel to feed it. 800 square miles of blackened ground is the price we pay for indifferent stewardship.

Meanwhile, in the wake of neglect and inactivity the federal government takes the false (and immoral) position that the loss of life and property due to catastrophic fire is an "Act of God," and that no means of redress or compensation for the victims exists. The victims in these cases are both private property holders as well as the individual sovereign states whose citizens are deprived of the use and enjoyment of their forest lands.

The "Act of God" reaction is a ludicrous position to maintain. The small fires that have occurred for millennia and which have pruned the forest long before the arrival of human beings in our area, are indeed acts of God. But the burning of a half million acres of precious natural resources, and the destruction of the hopes and dreams of generations of Americans, are the acts of human beings.

These catastrophic fires represent the very worst consequences of poor stewardship, wrought by the arrogance of Washington-based centralized bureaucracies, and the institutional indifference spawned by such organizations.

It doesn't have to be this way. Federal law (7 U.S.C. §2268) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to relinquish jurisdiction over national forests to the states when deemed necessary. The high risk ofcatastrophic fire is clearly a condition which warrants such a step. Title 7 of U.S.C. §2268 provides as follows:

"...the Secretary of Agriculture may, whenever he considers it desirable, relinquish to a State all or part of the legislative jurisdiction of the United States over lands...under his control in that State. Relinquishment...may be accomplished (1) by filing with the Governor of the State...a notice of relinquishment...or (2) as the laws of the State may otherwise provide."

Taking that existing federal law into account, last year the New Mexico State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1, drafted by Albuquerque attorney Cliff Nichols, and Governor Johnson signed it into law. The major points contained in the new New Mexico law are as follows:

1) a state of emergency exists in New Mexico because of the present risk to lives and property of citizens living in or next to national forests

2) all petitions to the US Forest Service to reduce or remove the risks have been ignored or discounted

3) such failure to exercise responsibilities constitutes grounds for forfeiture of jurisdictional supremacy

4) because of the recognition of the preceding points, a jurisdictional vacuum exists, requiring New Mexico to acknowledge its obligations as a sovereign power to protect lives and property from the threat of catastrophic fires

5) the legislature declares a disaster within those areas where large amounts of forest undergrowth have created the potential for damaging fires...the legislature also declares that the disaster is of such magnitude that the police power of the state should be exercised to the extent necessary to provide the resources and services that will end the disaster

The New Mexico law was passed some 21 months ago. And appeals to the federal government for competent forest management have been submitted for more than a quarter of a century. It is clear the federal government is not going to act.

Government entities must either take action, or take responsibility. But it is not reasonable that the US Forest Service is continuously allowed to:

1) take no action to fix the problem and, simultaneously

2) take no responsibility for the resulting catastrophes that occur as a direct result of their inaction.

What should happen now is a formal request by Governor Johnson, or, after January 1, Governor Richardson, to Secretary of Agriculture Ann M. Veneman that the appropriate jurisdiction be transferred to the State of New Mexico to enable the state to take the actions necessary to protect life and property.

Tax reform:

I support the elimination of all capital gains tax. It is the most stifling and regressive of taxes, and does more to impede economic growth and contribute to economic stagnation than any other tax.

The gross receipts tax on food, medicine, medical treatment should be repealed immediately.

Gross receipts taxes on services should be phased out over a three-year period.

Income tax rates should be reduced across the board over a five-year period, with a maximum rate of 5% at the top bracket.

Education:

I support significant reform of New Mexico education.

This would include:

1) school choice, including vouchers, for all New Mexicans
2) tuition tax credits, in the event vouchers are not adopted
3) expanded charter schools
4) full support of parents who choose to home school their children
5) full accountability of the public school system
6) testing of every student every year
7) increased emphasis on quality vocational education
8) full support of athletic and extracurricular programs, but an increased emphasis on academic/scholarly interscholastic competition----to reward and encourage academic as well as athletic pursuits
9) merit pay for our best teachers
10) de-emphasis of School of Education-driven "credentials" and "credentialization extremism" currently pushed by the New Mexico "educatocracy"
11) recruitment of alternative certification teachers----teachers who are experts in their fields, but who don't have scores of semester hours in "education classes"

I oppose:

1) the radical teachers' union bosses' agendas and goals for New Mexico children
2) the control of local school systems by unions or collective bargaining entities
3) the idea promoted by NEA New Mexico and the Albuquerque Federation of Teachers that they are not accountable to anyone other than their own membership-----and that the 3 R's do not stand for Reading, Writing and Arithmetic, but rather "Rights, Respect and Raises."

Public education is not supposed to be about the protection of a bureaucratic structure, consisting of guaranteed jobs for union members and others who are able to become part of the "system."

Rather, the whole idea of a public educational system is to produce high school graduates who are either prepared for post-secondary education, specialized training or vocational/technical training, or who are qualified to enter the workforce at another level.

The kind of superstructure and bureaucracy we construct in New Mexico is not the key question involved in achieving the true goals and objectives of public education in our state. There is no imperative in our Constitution, nor in common sense, that we retain, at all costs, the current union-dominant education superstructure which completely stifles creativity, innovation, incentive and achievement.

What we must focus on is the end product of education. It is not a "threat" to the "system" if a significant portion of our populace becomes productive, contributing members of the workforce, or of society, through home schooling, charter schools, or through a system of school choice. Rather than look on innovation and new approaches to education as a "threat" we should do all we can to encourage all innovation and creativity we can. New ideas are not threats to our system. The only threat is the growing
irrelevance of non-functioning schools along with the non-producing, radical union-boss mentality which dominates the non-producing schools.

top of page

Private property rights:

I strongly support the right of individuals in the area of private property. Encroachment by government has become an increasing problem over the past generation. Whether on the pretext of "endangered species," or alleged "environmental impact," the confiscation or appropriation of private property by centralized governmental bureaucracies continues to be a threat to freedom and liberty. Individuals should be fairly compensated for property when ownership or usage is infringed upon by government. Failure to justly compensate constitutes "taking" and should be unlawful.

top of page

Economic Development

Economic development is absolutely vital to New Mexico. We are well behind our neighbors on all sides and we are non-competitive nationally as a business and industry development location. But this long sought-after "holy grail" of New Mexico political leaders, known as "economic development" simply will not occur without two reforms which must come first.

First of all, we will not attract industry, entrepreneurs, or business investment as long as our education system is not producing a qualified workforce and not providing encouragement for families who want to move here and bring their children.

Second, until our tax system is replaced, business and industry will go elsewhere. The tax reforms referred to in my position on taxes must take place prior to economic development becoming a reality.

top of page

Second Amendment issues:

I support and recognize those rights accorded citizens under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

I oppose "gun control" measures designed for the purposes of confiscation of personally-owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

I support the right to carry concealed firearms, as is legal in 36 other states. The "Vermont-styled" law is probably the best model in that it allows law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms as long as they are not used to commit a crime.

While I strongly support concealed carry, I believe the New Mexico statute which emerged in 2001 was seriously bungled in the legislature. There were two bills, one carried by a senator from Albuquerque and one by a representative from Rio Rancho. The famous "shouting match" which occurred with the Rio Rancho representative screaming insults at the Speaker of the House resulted in the better bill (the one with the fewest restrictions) being defeated. The weaker bill, the house version, which had been larded with numerous amendments designed to weaken it, was the one which was passed.

The Legislature needs to pass a significantly better bill in the future.

top of page

Life Issues:

I support life.

I oppose "abortion on demand," i.e. the notion that an individual may get an abortion for any reason
whatsoever-----including simply using abortion as a form of birth control, or using abortion to select the desired sex of a child, etc. The prohibition of abortion as merely another form of birth control would eliminate more than 99% of all abortions.

Regarding abortion in the case of rape, incest, severe congenital defects, et cetera, these are questions, like all matters relating to this subject, that should be left to the people. In a republic that means the state legislatures.

The New Mexico Legislature adopted a very liberal abortion statute several years before Roe v. Wade. You could get an abortion on demand in New Mexico in the 1960s.

Regarding the United States Constitution, there is no mention of abortion, or anything related to abortion anywhere in the document. That being the case, the question of abortion properly belongs to the people.

I do not support "constitutional interpretations" which purport to find either 1) a guarantee of abortion, or 2) a prohibition of abortion. The Constitution is silent on the issue.

top of page

Drugs:

Drug Legalization and Decriminalization:

The issue itself and the debate surrounding it

I oppose both legalization and decriminalization. I am on record as voting against both proposals every time a motion has been put forth to pass them. I understand the reasoning of those who support legalization and decriminalization, however I am not convinced that the outcome of either approach, which I call "legalization theory" is as predictable, nor as constructive, as the proponents believe.

What separates me from some in the Republican Party is that I do not believe that genuine disagreements on this issue, or any other issues of public policy, should require that we become sworn enemies of those who advocate differing public policy positions.

I do believe that the Republican Party, and its officers, should be consistent and accurate in reflecting the agreed-upon planks of our party platform and should in no way attempt to "speak for the party" regarding public policy positions which are inconsistent with the party platform.

However, a political party that is not able to debate ideas, reach decisions about its platform and carry that message to the people, is an ineffectual, perhaps even silly, and certainly irrelevant organization. Therefore it is ridiculous to make "enemies" during the process of that debate and the development of that platform.

The Republican Party is the party of ideas. I refuse to become an "enemy" of those who disagree with me---on these or any other issues. I believe in open, honest, above-board debate, without rancor, retribution, and without insisting that other Republicans become "enemies" of those who disagree with them. This position, for which I have become known over the past seven years, has made me a target of some of the most divisive elements within the Republican Party, and some who oppose me for Lieutenant Governor.

Medical Marijuana

(For further discussion of this issue during the recent legislative session, go to the January 27, 2002 issue of LegUp under "Rod's Publications.")

In 2001 I made it clear to my constituents that after much study and prayerful consideration I had reached a difficult decision to support a bill which allowed seriously ill patients to have access to marijuana under very restrictive, state-supervised control. I am still convinced of this correctness of this position and I have great peace with it.

All physicians I have questioned on this issue are unanimous on the following point: patients respond to medication, and even the manner of ingestion of medication quite differently. Medications effective on some individuals are ineffective on others, even in the manner of delivery. Oral ingestion, by pill, capsule, or liquid doses, may work with some people, while intravenous injection, topical application, inhalers or suppositories may be more effective or less effective depending on the patient.

For whatever reason, it has been conclusively shown that some individuals in the excruciating pain of cancer, or the pain, discomfort and near helplessness of debilitating disease, receive tremendous therapeutic benefit from marijuana. Former Reagan aide Lynn Nofziger, an ardent opponent of medical marijuana, changed his mind about the issue when he saw relief on his daughter's face for the first time. Her body was riddled with cancer and she was in severe pain. But marijuana was effective with her.

Until such time as an effective inhaler for THC becomes available, and this could be in the next three to five years, I will support the relief of pain and suffering for the 150 or so people in New Mexico who would be eligible for a tightly-controlled program.

For those familiar with the American experience, there is nothing remarkable about such a concept. No one questions the use of morphine, a far more powerful, far more addictive and far more dangerous drug. There is nothing new in this.

John Adams was perhaps the most devout Christian ever to serve as President. His biography says this about his dying daughter in his home in August 1813:

"Nabby was so emaciated as to be almost unrecognizable; her suffering was extreme. Opium provided her only relief." (John Adams, by David McCullough, p. 613)

All the ideological rigidity and extremism on this issue pales when one considers we are a people of mercy and of compassion. We want our doctors to be the same when they treat our loved ones.

The New Mexico Family Council (NMFC)

While the NMFC (a pro-family, Christian organization associated with Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family) was "officially opposed" to the so-called Medical Marijuana bill, they were so with considerably less fervor than exhibited on the other issues. Kevin Jackson of the NMFC, a remarkably intellectually honest lobbyist on the issue, told me:

"It is a tough call. If inhalers or other forms of ingestion were available and perfected, we would be in a more comfortable position. But as it stands, there is a very strong, compassion-based argument which can be made in favor of alleviating suffering."

Claims made by opponents:

Opponents of medical marijuana say that such a program for suffering patients would "open the door" to legalization; that it would allow those who want to abuse the drug to get their foot in the door, or "come in through the back door of this program."

These comments are unfounded on one count, and absurd on the other. First, the program has massive safeguards and procedures involving physician referral and state supervision. Second, no "dope smoker" is sitting around waiting for a medical marijuana bill, so they can use it as a pretext to "get to be able to smoke dope." These people are already smoking marijuana and couldn't care less if we have a program for suffering patients.

Using this "opening door" argument is like saying that the criminals and robbers of New Mexico are thrilled about having the "concealed carry law" because this allows them to get their foot in the door. Now they will be more efficient at robbery because they get to carry concealed weapons. That is ridiculous. The criminals are already carrying concealed weapons. The new law is for the law-abiding citizen who wants to carry lawfully.

The medical marijuana concept is for suffering patients who refuse to violate the law, and must endure the pain. People who smoke marijuana recreationally are not "waiting" for anything, let alone this program. They are already doing it, will continue to do so and this measure would have no effect on them in any way.

My response to those who claim that there is an absolutist position on this issue:

I support the efforts of physicians and other health care providers who have found that certain conditions, for which there are no other means of alleviating suffering, can be treated effectively with applications of THC. If a statute can be designed which allows for this application, for severe medical conditions, I would support such legislation.

I believe that reasonable efforts to alleviate needless pain and suffering should be undertaken if they can be shown to be consistent with the principles of law. To do otherwise is to be purposefully cruel, solely for the satisfaction of adhering to some artificially rigid, ideologically-cast standard, not supported by science. There is no support for such a position anywhere in the American tradition, be it in our philosophy as a people, our history, our Judeo-Christian experience, nor in our common sense and common decency.

Drug Courts, Treatment Programs

I support drug courts and treatment programs and have voted for such measures in the legislature.

top of page