Support for Arkansas Week provided by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The Arkansas Times and KUAR FM 89.

Hello again, everyone, and thanks for joining us.

Ours is tonight a special one hour edition.

And with early voting underway and the big November, Tuesday, just around the corner, we will assess the Arkansas political landscape with our pals, Cook and Vicary.

That's later.

First, despite all the news coverage, all the warnings, all the efforts to curtail it, drug abuse, especially opioid abuse, opioids, it's synthetics.

It continues to ravage the nation.

Arkansas included the death toll mounts.

Coming to a close is this year's red ribbon week, seven days during which educators, social workers, police, prosecutors, pastors, others, they all emphasize the peril that is represented by substance abuse and the promise that a drug free life represents.

So in this half hour, the view from law enforcement, we are joined by Kirk Lane, director of the Arkansas Opioid Recovery Partnership.

Jared Harper is assistant special agent in charge of the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration in Arkansas.

And James Dawson is agent in charge of the FBI in Arkansas.

Gentlemen, as always, thanks to you for coming aboard.

The three of the four of us were together a year ago.

It's another red ribbon week.

And yet Kirk Lane, the numbers don't aren't especially encouraging.

No, they're not.

They're they're steadily going up since 2019.

We did have a lull in 2019, but with COVID and illicit fentanyl on our streets, the non focus of the opioid epidemic clouded by COVID, those numbers are just climbing.

Gerald Harper What are we?

The culture?

The society?

What are we doing wrong?

What are we missing?

I'll tell you, you know, this in my 28 years of local and federal law enforcement, I've never seen anything so traumatic on the forefront that law enforcement and in fact, the world is dealing with with this with this fentanyl, this opioid epidemic.

But, you know, it's here.

And I can tell you my time here in Arkansas, I've never seen a community that's starting to come together.

And I mean, when I say come together, law enforcement, medical professionals, I was just with the chief medical examiner's yesterday.

I was, you know, sitting with the the U.S. attorney, his office members yesterday.

We're coming together where, you know, this is a full court press.

This is all agencies coming together with this opioid epidemic.

We have to share resources, personnel, education, prevention.

We're starting to to form teams to to fight this opioid animal that I like to call it and put our arms around this thing.

But we lost 100 over 107,000 people to what I what I'm calling now and said overdoses poisonings because these these are these are Americans that are being poisoned intentionally by cartels that the DEA and law enforcement all these partners working together to try to dismantle, disrupt and ultimately defeat here in the state of Arkansas.

And we're not going to stop.

It's going to be a relentless pursuit.

And I'm excited that this community is banding together to do that.

Well, James Dawson of the FBI, this coming together, the team approach, as your colleague puts it.

Will that be enough?

And is that something new?

I don't think it's anything new.

We are fortunate that we do have very close relationships with state and local and federal partners in the state of Arkansas, probably more so in in Arkansas than I've seen in other places where I've worked.

The the issue with the opioid crisis in America is it's ready availability throughout the United States is difficult to detect, often shipped to the mail.

It's trafficked by cartels and individuals that look to profit off of it.

And in the past, I'm not going to say that that experimentation or use of drugs is necessarily forgiving.

But in the instances of use of marijuana or cocaine or even methamphetamine, they can be somewhat forgiving to the individual.

But the use of synthetic opioids, fentanyl, can be absolutely lethal, and its lethality is furthered because law enforcement officers come into contact with it just through their skin and without any sort of tolerance built up for that drug can be fatal for them as well.

So this is a significant problem for us just because of the lethality of the drug.

Well, that's only on the enforcement side, too.

And the but the consumption side is so powerful.

There is an enormous market for this.

There is there is a tremendous market for it.

It is cheap.

It is readily available, and it's often used to boost the efficacy of other illicit drugs.

So a small amount of it combined with marijuana or cocaine or methamphetamine or other narcotics, can boost the efficiency or the efficacy of the high that the person experiences.

At the same time, it's lethal.

Yeah.

And Mr. Harper, the buyer buyer beware doesn't work.

The buyer has no clue often what he or she is purchasing.

And that's true.

And that's why we're calling these poisonings and these distributors on the street.

They know they know what they're doing.

And these cartels, I say I'm going to call them out.

The Jenji and the Sinaloa we those are the cartel members in Mexico that are pressing these pills out by the thousands, hundreds of thousands.

And they're coming in to the U.S. and these distributors and pockets of cell heads here in the state of Arkansas distributing these things, these pills.

And they're the they're the m30 oxycodone, blue sapphire looking circular pill to replicate an oxycodone.

And a lot of these folks that take this pill don't know it's laced with fentanyl and it's a two milligram dose that's lethal.

Then there is also the China factor, is there not, in a lot of the precursors are coming in through ports of entry or in other or through other venues from China?

That's correct.

China primarily the downside of international trade.

Yes.

The precursors for fentanyl, for methamphetamine straight from China to Mexico and the clandestine labs there in Mexico.

They're making these pills and the super labs are making this crystal methamphetamine.

And speaking of that, 98, we're seeing a 98, 99%, 100% pure meth.

It's not like the old days anymore where they're making it in the bathroom, kitchen sinks.

This is pure methamphetamine.

And the demand for it is is off the charts.

And that's that's what we're seeing here in the state of Arkansas.

Can we quantify bring some statistics to bear on this?

One has happened in the years since the four of us were here.

So like I said, we started in in 2019 at about 347 people died of a drug overdose in Arkansas.

Right here in our state, looking at those numbers.

In 2020, we rose to 540.

And then in 2021, we were at 618.

When if you analyze that 618, 80% of that 618 people that died of a drug overdose were between the ages of 20 and 60 years of age, are below 20 age and are over 60 age.

Compete for second and third each year on that on that scale.

So what we are realizing is a lot of those 20 to 60 years of age people are parents, are mentors, guides for our young people on whose path they're going to follow when they have to solve problems on their own.

And we spend a lot of money the state does and the country does on emphasizing drug education for our children.

But I think we need to refocus that and focus on drug education for that affected population between 20 and 60 years of age and where that will set the milestone for those young people as they grow up.

Two, to any of you gentlemen, it what what what strikes the observer, though, is that this crosses every demographic line.

It does.

How many times have we all heard the line?

Good families and the young man or the daughter was from a, quote, good family, an upscale, well-to-do, affluent neighborhood.

I think we have to accept that this is something that is having impact on our entire American family.

We are one nation.

We are one people.

This affects all of us.

It perhaps does have a disparate effect upon individuals that are experimenting with it.

I think that there's a confluence of several issues related to the opioid epidemic that that exacerbate the issue.

The ready availability of narcotics on our streets is I mean, it's that's not in dispute at all.

The fact that it has an impact on some of our more metropolitan areas.

I don't think there's any discussion in that at all.

I think that it's going to continue to take a multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach to be able to work with families, work with communities, to be able to educate them on the dangers of the use of drugs, and also to lower the availability of it by introducing accountability that those that traffic these drugs on America's streets.

Well, Mr. Harper, be remiss if I didn't bring up the notion of the concept.

We are talking in some circles, in a way, public policy circles about decriminalizing to some extent are controlled substances laws.

Your thoughts?

I'll tell you, when it comes to the stream of narcotics and decriminalization and working in this field for 28 years, they're they're all they all have a just a horrible effect.

And that's on not just the user, but the community is then has to deal with other crimes that are committed, crimes of violence that surround some of these narcotics that are being distributed on the street and with with narcotics comes guns.

With narcotics comes illicit money.

With with narcotics comes greed.

And then, of course, comes lethality.

Through robberies are crimes of violence.

Are we overemphasizing law enforcement at the expense of other avenues like Kirkland Treatment or regarding the whole matter of addiction as a disease rather than a primarily a criminal justice?

So, Steve, you know, in my ten year as law enforcement and as the former state drug director, I worked with recovery programs all, all the time.

And what I found in those programs is most of the people that were going in to find treatment and recovery were led there by some type of law enforcement intervention, whether it be law enforcement or the judicial system intervened in their lives.

And that was the catalyst that got them to go to hell.

So if you decriminalize or you take the law enforcement aspect out of the problem, you're actually make the problem worse.

And if you look at states that have ventured into decriminalization, you're seeing just that increases in overdose, increases the overdose deaths, increase increases in violence, homelessness.

It's not a good experiment.

And what we need to embrace is not leave it all to law enforcement, but it needs to be an all in approach to solving this problem.

Yeah.

James Dawson, the bureau.

You get the last word.

No, I absolutely concur with.

With Mr. Lane's comments.

He's 100% right.

This has to be a multiagency, multidisciplinary approach.

Again, just to revisit the confluence of issues, there are a lot of self diagnosed and self treating mental health consumers.

There are a lot of America's youth that are impacted by this as well.

Law enforcement and putting everyone in jail should never be the answer.

I don't want that.

I don't think American people want that.

But steering people to a place where they can get the treatment that they need to overcome their addiction, that's probably our best bet in the long run of being able to deal with the opiate crisis in the United States.

Gentlemen, thank you, our guests.

Thank you.

Each and every one, we'll be back in another year and see at that a minimum in a year and see where we are.

We will be back in a moment with more on the story.

First, a segment from Seven Days, Arkansas PBS Emmy nominated documentary on opioids and Arkansas.

And so with heroin, it felt like a warm blanket coming out of the dryer and somebody wrapping you super tight in it.

I don't know.

It was just a calming feeling, I guess.

But also it was killing me.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

Mikayla.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh.

No one with any experience in the addiction field believes that law enforcement alone can solve the problem.

Certainly not the three gentlemen who preceded us on this panel.

Nor our next guest, Dr. Michael Mancino of the U.S. Army's Center for Addiction Services and Treatment.

And Andrea Fortner, the State Education Department's coordinator of guidance and school counseling.

Dr. Fortner, let me begin with you simply because you're at the absolute ground level where so much of the abuse takes root.

What can the state do?

What is it doing?

And can it work?

So our schools are where our students grow and learn.

And so prevention is the key.

And we know that.

We know all of the statistics show starting earlier and earlier.

So the sooner that we can get information, awareness, prevention to our students, the better.

And we lead a lot of work and through a Red Ribbon Week campaign.

But not only that, our school counselors, our social workers, our school administrators, our teachers are leading work K-12.

There is no to early age.

Even some of our preschool are participating in Red Ribbon Week when we have a moment to focus all of our attention on drug awareness and prevention.

And so we have that campaign.

We send that out, and we have schools sign up, too, to participate in showing the videos that we talked about in the last segment Seven Days and Chasing the Dragon.

They are also all kinds of activities that not only focus on just drug awareness, but also on how to make good decisions and how to be responsible.

So those things are carried throughout the year, but a special focus on Red Ribbon Week so that we can make sure that all of our students have the information they need and the skills that they need to make these decisions.

When it comes that time, when they have to make that decision whether they're going to use the drug or not, they have the skills and information they need to make that decision.

Any way of measuring its effectiveness.

So, you know, we look at our statistics that we have and we are where we see that we still have a problem and we have a growing problem.

And so as far as measuring the amount of participation, we do measure, the amount of participation and showing the video and those sort of things.

But I don't think even as a nation, that we're seeing a drop in our rates of drug use and drug deaths.

So there are measures that are taking place, but, you know, I don't think that we're going in the right direction right now.

Dr. Mancino, you agree?

Yes, unfortunately, I think we're we're up against it.

You know, we we have a lot of effective treatments for opioid use disorder, for substance use disorder.

I think Dr. Faulkner's point about educating people early is very important.

I think providing young people with facts actually allows them to make better decisions than coming at it from an emotional perspective.

You know, this is bad.

While the first time they try a drug, they realize they're lying to me.

This is awesome.

This is the best I've felt in my whole life.

And so if we don't adequately prepare them for the idea that it's going to feel good but it's going to turn on you.

So let us give you all the facts and then you can make a better decision.

And so I think educating at the earliest level, but also throughout the lifespan, because that's that's the people that are dying.

From the state education department, your teachers on the ground there.

Some of them have students in the earliest grades who are coming from homes in which abuse, substance abuse is the norm.

How do you how do you deal with that?

You're right.

And because of the inflation or the numbers that we're seeing, we do have students that that come into our building.

And sometimes you can tell, sometimes you can smell sometimes and you see a student not being served well at home.

And so there's, you know, different things that we do to help nourish that that student help provide what they need at school.

But also, you know, if we feel like that that that child or that student is at harm, then we obviously would make that the hotline call to keep that child safe.

And because some of those situations that they're in are are unsafe and mandatory reporting.

Yes.

Right.

Go ahead.

Mm hmm.

But there isn't anyone and I probably could ask anyone watching today.

There's no one that's not affected by drugs in some way.

They either are dealing with it themselves.

They know someone in their family or someone in their families affected by it.

And our students are no different.

You are right.

They are coming in and they are being affected by drug use.

Either it's themselves, a family member, it's someone outside of their family that they're close to.

Everyone is affected by this and by this problem.

And so it we have to discuss it and we have to help students realize that all of the factors that are involved in and have all of the information, a lot of them are seeing the effects of it firsthand and contribute to that conversation.

And when we're having drug awareness activities at our school, and they can also tell you the traps that are set that that happen because of that drug use.

So it is something that we do face in our schools, having those students that come in and being affected already by drug abuse documents, seniors who we were discussing prior to the broadcast.

The key here is whether the patient, the user is ready to accept assistance, wants, wants help and is ready to commit to a recovery program.

Right.

And that's a huge stumbling block, is it's seems like it is.

Like I said before, we have lots of effective treatments.

Right.

But our biggest struggle is we cannot keep people in treatment.

And sometimes it's their family that says, how long are you going to be on that medication that's helping you to stay sober?

Can't you get off of that medication?

We don't ask patients with diabetes, how long are you going to be on that insulin before you can get off that insulin?

Well, this is just as life saving a medication that we have for opioid use disorder that people that care about these people are trying to force them out of treatment.

We have some discrepancy in the recovery community about whether or not a person on medications is truly sober.

I think that that's a that's a problem that creates a conflict within that patient that may be ambivalent to begin with.

And so we we really need to be supportive as a community, as a state of effective treatments that we have available to us.

And that includes medications for opioid use as well.

That doctor, that resistance to treatment protocols, those treatment pharmaceuticals even, does that suggest does that not suggest then a a reluctance or a resistance to accepting addiction as a as a medical disorder, as opposed to a purely a criminal justice violation?

Well, you know, I think that most people would say, yes, we understand it's illegal.

Right.

But they don't see it as a medical condition.

Right.

I view addiction as a brain disease with a behavioral component.

In other words, a person with diabetes has a blood sugar problem with a behavioral component.

And so if they eat a dozen donuts in the morning, their blood sugar is going to be 400 and that's going to be a problem.

Well, if you have a brain disease that makes you crave opioids, you have a decision to make.

And so that becomes very challenging.

But it also becomes challenging when our society views it as a moral failing or a personality problem, rather than what it really is, which is a brain disease with a behavioral component.

Yeah.

Ms.. Fortner, you teach I believe you're teaching your instructors, instructing your instructors that there are red flags among students that they should be on a watch out for.

Right.

And there are a lot of red flags in the classroom.

So needs swings and anything that is abnormal behavior and attendance issues.

I suppose this is true in the home as well.

It would be it would be in the home as well.

And so you can start seeing some of those behaviors and students not able to focus in class or sleeping in class.

There's all kinds of things just if you're seeing an abnormal behavior that's not typical and then it's worth looking into, it's worth asking those questions.

We have to be courageous enough to ask those questions.

Have those conversations at home and at school with or with our students.

Because the earlier you can intercept those behaviors and get a student on the right path, then the better off that they'll be not.

Do you get the last word?

Because in a lot of these these horrifying trend lines, is there some basis for hope?

You're a clinician with long practice in addiction disorders.

So one of the things I would say is there's a big movement around harm reduction.

And the idea that people struggle with with harm reduction is if I do harm reduction activities, I'm encouraging drug use.

The bottom line is people are going to use drugs whether we protect them from that or not.

And the idea is if we can reduce harm, which means reducing mortality, not having people die, they have the potential to recover.

If they're dead, they cannot recover.

So harm reduction is the idea.

People are going to use drugs.

Can we keep them from killing themselves so that maybe when the key turns and they're ready to get the help they need, they can lead a productive life.

This is not necessarily decriminalization, though, correct?

Not necessarily decriminalization, no.

This is, you know, syringe service programs, Narcan, those sorts of things are really harm reduction approaches.

All right.

To our guests, Ms.. Faulkner, Doctor, thank you very much for being with us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Come back soon.

In a moment, updated take on Arkansas politics.

But first, we close this half of our special one hour edition with another segment from the Arkansas PBS documentary on Addiction.

Seven days when we started, all the people I did drugs with, there was 20 of us.

There's four of us left.

Can you make it somewhere to get some help?

Drug use overdose.

It does not matter who you are, where you come from.

It doesn't matter how old you are, what color your skin is, how nice your house is, how much money you make.

I think we're just in a crisis situation in our country.

Well, as mentioned, some of you have voted already, others perhaps still uncertain of for whom to cast that ballot and are awaiting that second Tuesday of November.

And with that, we're joined by Michael Cook from the left.

Bill, victory from the right dead center.

Andrew Mellow, state capital bureau chief of the Associated Press.

Gents, thanks for coming in and sit down.

We're going to run the races here in a sort of casual way as you know, there were some great debates last week, some exchanges.

And we'll start with the governor's race.

The question was at one point put to the two of all three candidates their credentials.

What qualifies them for the job of chief executive of State of Arkansas?

Here's an excerpt from their replies.

I think one of the biggest things and one of the most important qualifications of a leader is being prepared for things that you have no idea or coming your way.

Anybody can talk about specific policies and the things that they want to do.

But the real test of a leader is when they're challenged with things that they never see coming.

The governor's position is certainly multiple role.

It has multiple roles.

One of those key roles is an executive.

I am the only candidate on the stage who's run multiple multimillion dollar organizations.

One has to know how to set budgets, how to manage individuals, how to set a vision, and then how to set a plan to realize that vision in leadership.

It takes a milieu of different skills.

Not only do you have to be strong, but you have to have compassion.

Be firm, fair and consistent.

Well, guys, I don't think there were any surprises.

Bill.

Victory.

No, no, it was not.

And that was not in that exchange.

Exactly.

Listen, I appreciate it.

With Sarah Huckabee Sanders said about being prepared for things that you don't think about and having a crisis foisted upon you.

I think that's that's been pretty obvious over the last few years with what we've gone through as a nation and as a state.

And I appreciated what the Democrats said, too, almost sounding very Trumpian there, like as a business person, I ran these things and I've set budgets and I've done those kinds of things, too.

But but I think pretty much all spot on.

All right.

It's one of those elections where nobody gets to run on experience in the context of I've been a state representative, I was a state senator.

This is the first time I can I can't think of the last time.

Whoever is going to win will never have been elected to office.

No elective office.

And that's Frank White was maybe the last time that has happened in Arkansas politics way back in 1980.

That's a that's a new thing.

We usually have to kind of pay your dues and run, you know, serve in some kind of elected position.

But this is the first time.

So it was a good debate.

I enjoyed hearing both from Sarah Sanders and Chris Jones.

Wasn't a lot of fireworks, but, you know, always have to be that way in these debates.

Was good to hear their policy positions.

Andrew de Mello, was it a good debate?

Any thoughts?

Well, I don't think it was a debate where we really saw, you know, as as we said, not really any surprises there.

I'm not really sure if there was anything from that debate that really moved the needle that much.

You know, Sarah Sanders clearly went in wanting to talk a lot about her education plan because that was something that she brought up in a lot of her answers.

Chris Jones really, you know, did not try to engage too much with with her, you know, went after her some she I don't think she really even acknowledged him in it.

We heard, Senator, familiar talking points.

You know, talking about, you know, fighting against Washington, fighting against radical left, things like that.

But there really wasn't anything that really would would have been kind of a gotcha moment or kind of a stumble for either one of the candidates.

And, you know, there were some interesting parts of it.

You know, the one of the things that stuck out was a question about media access that, you know, seemed to be kind of directed toward Sanders not doing much in terms of local press, local interviews, and really kind of defended, defended that practice and kind of indicated that that's going to be an approach that she's going to stick with.

One of the questions that is buzzing around in the in the political circles of Arkansas is what will her percentage be?

It is widely perceived that she wants to obviously she is the front runner for the right.

What's her percentage going to be?

And that she is likely to underperform based on Republican results over the last couple of four years?

Phil Yeah, I think generally, you know, folks throw around 65% is kind of a bellwether, mark.

You kind of you get beyond that and it's almost cartoonish and it's not I mean, it's not going to happen.

You wouldn't think it wouldn't happen.

But that's a that's a big number.

I mean, 65%.

It's a big number in a general election campaign.

And I realize, look, I think it's just a it's not a matter of if.

It's a matter of how much.

That's the reality that for all these Republican races, that's really what it boils down to.

But you know, that 65% number I mean, if this were a college football game and we were setting the line in Vegas, I think that's probably where people see kind of the the top end.

Yeah.

Michael, in the grand scheme of things, you're right, she is the front runner.

I think we kind of know which way it's going to happen on election night.

But I think the problem she has.

Talk Business just released a poll that had her at 51%, Chris Jones at 41 and this is after her spending $13 million.

I don't think she's really connecting with the voters of Arkansas.

Look, it's a Republican state.

It's a red state, so on and so forth.

But I think the problem is she's gone too far to the right, too much red meat to the base, leaving independent voters kind of out in the cold.

And finally, I think people get a sense of that.

She doesn't really she's not connecting.

I mean, look, last weekend she was campaigning in Iowa for another candidate.

And that kind of shows how much she really, truly cares about, you know, Arkansas with her national ambitions.

I mean, two weeks for election and you're just happened to be in a presidential caucus state instead of your own state running for governor.

So I think, look, she she wins more than likely, you know, put some big money on it.

But I think she hasn't really kind of connected with the voters and it shows in the polling.

I would also like to point out quickly, she beat cancer during the campaign, too.

So one day in Iowa, does it mean that you're not connecting with voters in Arkansas?

I mean, this is somebody who's had a campaign that has been second to none in the history of Arkansas politics in terms of race and in terms of aggressiveness around the state.

So I don't put too much stock in that.

I mean, again, like I said, this is a woman who overcame cancer during the campaign.

So.

Well, in terms of a fund, too, we can't leave out the fact that almost she got close to 60% of our total take in terms of out of state money.

Andrew Mello, let me go to you.

Do you sense at all what has showed up in surveys in some other states and that is in very red states, a sense of Trump fatigue out there?

Well, certainly in other states, yo, yo, our neighboring states, Oklahoma and Texas, we're seeing governors races that look a lot more competitive.

And that's the thing that kind of stands out with Arkansas is all the public polling in this race, even the race showing it, you know, favorable to Jones.

It's still a double digit race for her.

And so that's the interesting thing of it is, you know, how, you know, considering how polarizing a figure she she is, it's still it's going to give us indication or could give an indication of just how much that may not really matter with a very red state right now, especially when you look at, you know, states like Oklahoma and Texas that are also very conservative states.

Yeah.

And there's this also I mean, with all of the what matters anymore, I mean, what really matters to voter who what are they looking at?

What what what does move the needle bill?

Yeah.

I mean, I think, look, you have a significant percentage of the public that's been disaffected that they've seen.

They've been let down by the public institutions that they believed in for a long period of time.

And that's they've seen their you know, their schools decay, the roads crumble, they've seen crime spike.

All the things that they place their faith in have let them down.

And and in in the last four or five years, they've been reacting at the polls.

And, you know, that's benefited, you know, the so-called Trump wave.

And when he was elected in 2016, I tend to think that those voters are out there and they're still engaged and they still want to see some results.

And that's why I think it'll be a big night for Republicans.

I think it'll be a bigger number than we anticipate because I think those folks want to see something.

They're voting the hopes that something's going to change and these institutions will work as opposed to just generally being upset at the incumbents.

Okay.

Move on to another race.

And that's lieutenant governor, an office that has no millionaire power but very competitive.

Michael?

Yeah.

I'm the former chief of staff for the last Democratic lieutenant governor, so I know a little bit about that office.

It's you have two candidates.

You have Attorney General Leslie Rutledge versus Kelly Kraut, a social worker from southwest Arkansas.

The latest public polling shows that Rutledge is far ahead.

I think that race is pretty much a foregone conclusion, you know, for frankly, I think we should, you know, combine the lieutenant governor's office with something else because lieutenant governor has no real job.

It's time to kind of take a serious look at that office no matter who wins.

Who wins it.

Yeah.

And DiBella, we had certainly one nominee, party's nominee had an exceedingly high profile earned over the last eight years.

Yeah, definitely.

And I think the big question is if if Rutledge does does win this, you know, what happens?

What happens with that office?

How how is she approach?

Because she's going to be going from a mass, you know, massive office, huge number of staff and a lot of areas for her to play a role to what is essentially a symbolic symbolic office that's one of the smallest offices in the state capital.

What does she do?

What does she do with that?

And kind of how does she keep that that same profile that she's had over the eight years in a much more limited capacity?

Okay.

On to the office that she is departing, and that's attorney general.

And here's a clip to there was a little spice in the debate.

My vision for the attorney general's office is to return that office to being one of the top law firms in the state, to remove the politics, to not be a partizan political shop, but the best law firm in the entire state of Arkansas, representing the interests of Arkansans in courtrooms around the state like I've been doing for 23 years.

Another thing I'd like to change is that the advertisements that our current attorney general and past attorneys general have run in this state, ostensibly for public service announcements that they've often been partizan and political.

Anybody that knows me knows that I'm going to do things the way I do them and not copy.

In the Army, we have a saying After you analyze the way something is conducted, we ask, Do we improve it or do we sustain it?

I think there will be things that I sustain, but there are also things I would do differently.

I believe that the ad campaign, particularly the public service announcement campaign that cost millions of dollars was a waste of spending, should not have happened, shall not speak ill of another Republican.

It was interesting that they're both criticizing attorney current incumbent Leslie Rutledge.

She spent literally millions of dollars on television, radio advertising, digital advertising with her face, giving these public service announcement.

And clearly it was just the design, just up her profile.

But it's interesting, nobody no Republican criticized her when it was happening.

It's just now whether they're running for office is when they all now they have certain problems with it.

Yeah.

And Mr. Griffin put a bit of distance between himself and his fellow Republican, Ms.. Rutledge, on the on the matter of all the lawsuits that she's filed against the administration.

Yeah, look, Tim Griffin is going to do things, as he pointed out.

He's going to do things as attorney general his way.

And I think he's coming to the office with a very specific vision.

He spent a lot of time in Washington as a congressman, serving as lieutenant governor in a small office where he's had to bootstrap his own.

He drives himself.

I mean, he's not a guy that puts on a lot of airs.

What you see is what you get.

I tell people all the time, you get 110% of Tim Griffin 100% of the time.

And so I think he has real clarity of vision of what he wants to do with the office and and how to take it.

And I think he's going to be spectacular.

Yeah.

Andrew DeMello, in a quarrel with that.

What's your take there?

You know, it was striking just watching that you would think that both of them were running against General Rutledge the way they were talking about the ads and going after them.

But also, you know, that's one of the big political tools, you know, the other the others are the lawsuits that that report Rutledge just signed on to.

These are two big tools of the attorney general or the attorney general's office that saying they would not it would not engage as much.

So it would be interesting to see what what happens with that office as well, too, in the future.

If you take those away.

Now, have we seen, do you think, gentlemen, the last the absolute last?

Well, it's been years since we had a lieutenant governor who presided over the Senate and went home at the end of the day or the session.

Well, I do think you got to look back.

I mean, there's Governor Jim Guy Tucker who became governor from Lieutenant Governor Mike Huckabee became governor from the lieutenant governor's office.

We've had a propensity to see these guys elevate themselves fairly quickly over the last two and a half to be elevator bell.

Yeah.

And so I do I take a little bit of pause when I see people want to do away with the office and talk about the uselessness.

They all think because those things happened and they were very real.

Those people had been voted on and voted into office.

And I just would say this.

I think that's important that the public had a voice in who succeeds whomever the governor may be if, if and when something like that should happen.

I do think that's important.

And I would just say one less thing about the outgoing attorney general.

She's going to win and she's going to win with a big number.

And so her lieutenant governor's campaign is a is a is reinforced by her tenure as attorney general.

All right, Michael.

It's a you know, it's an important office.

I agree with Bill that, you know, the voters should have a right to vote on it.

Well, they do.

They do.

But it should be combined to give them something to do, because once you you're there, you get to preside ceremonially over the over the state Senate.

But you have nothing to do but call the governor.

Ask how they're feeling every day.

I mean, that's just it's a little makeup.

And on occasion, the governor has declined to take the exact.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Okay.

Moving on to the United States Senate, the other big statewide race.

Mm hmm.

How much of a race isn't Michael?

It's not much of a race.

I mean.

Natalie.

Natalie.

James is a great person doing all that she can.

But it's, you know, sadly, it's a foregone conclusion.

Boseman has all the power of the money and the incumbency.

And in a red state.

So I think we know what's going to happen election night.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Again, it's just a matter of how much it's not a matter of if.

It's a big win for John Boozman.

And I also think it is he stands to if if Republicans do take the Senate back, he stands to become chairman of a pretty powerful committee in Washington.

So I think it's a a moment in time for him to reflect on his career, but also look forward and the opportunity to do some real big things, both for the country and for the state.

Yeah.

Andrew DeMello in watching this James on the stump or at least in the debate, the, the, the other day, a lot of people were saying she was she was very articulate and seemed to be very well schooled on the issues.

There was, at the end of the debate, a something of a real dispute between she and Mr. Bozeman.

But nonetheless, she seemed the most articulate a a candidate.

Yeah.

And I think that's the big question with a lot of the Democratic candidates right now is, you know, how much how much of a bench is the party building for future elections?

Are these candidates who are going to try again two or three more times and see if they can go build up that support, which is what we saw with our current governor on there, on the Republican side.

So that's kind of the thing to watch after this election, is to see what do they do in terms of building a future for other office if they do not win these races?

Yeah, and this would be one of them.

Yeah.

And let's pause for a second here before we go to ISSUES.

You guys have any thoughts on what kind of turnout, volume of turnout we're likely to see, Bill?

Well, you know, we always it is a age old sort of thing where we always talk about turnout and lines and all of that.

How many people early vote?

What what percentage of that do people who used to stand in line, show up and vote early?

And what is it and what does it really mean?

And then there's an intensity.

Listen, we don't know.

Let's be blunt here.

We don't know.

So I always just wait until after it's all said and done, and then you get a chance to see it, because all the speculation is just it's just pulled out of a hat.

It is it's speculation.

It's, you know, how many early votes in this county how many early votes out of this?

Out of this, probably.

I think, though, generally speaking, just talking to folks around the state, I think we'll have a good turnout.

What that means in terms of number, I don't know.

Well, if you're going to agree on everything, it's just hard to, you know.

All right.

Well, let's try the driving issues, then.

Oh, now here's a good one.

Should the General Assembly issue or.

Yeah, should the General Assembly be able to call itself enter into special session?

A lot of legislators say, oh, yeah.

And other people say horror.

Well, a lot of these Republican legislators, they make their money off the per diem, so they sort of empty the cash for four salaries.

But issue one, which basically allows politicians to come back to Little Rock to make more laws.

That just sounds like a recipe for disaster with this current legislature.

I think this is some muscle flexing by the state legislature.

Look, you got a lot of let's let's be blunt here.

You've got a lot of really good people who serve in the Arkansas legislature and work very hard.

I think given the way that we conduct legislative business every other year, having a substantial session and the fiscal session is really boiled down to a couple of weeks and it's a rubber stamp of the budget.

You know, it's not maybe not a bad idea to to lift these folks when they see issues.

I think you see more unanimity with the governor and the legislature working together on the big things.

Well, of late you have.

Well, but I think that that's also indicative of the fact that this is a legislature that is sort of muscle flexing and wants to wants to sort of spread its wings a little bit.

Yeah.

Andrew DeMello, Institutionally speaking, the governorship in Arkansas is not especially muscular.

Yeah, definitely.

This would, you know, take away one of the few advantages that the governor has in a state where it takes a simple majority to override a governor's veto.

So this would really change the dynamic a lot.

The I'm kind of curious to see if voters are really plugged in on this.

I think there may be a lot of voters who didn't know that the legislature can't call itself in a special session.

Yeah, it's pretty insider baseball.

You're right.

This is one of these things that small number of people really know what's going on.

But but I'd say this legislative leadership has the responsibility.

If you don't have the support for a particular issue, they're not going to call themselves back in.

So.

But, boy, this is, as Andrew points out, this is a technical thing that only political nerds like all of us probably dig into.

Okay.

Our speaking of percentages, there's another issue about in this number, too, and that is, Michael, the percentage that is required at a referendum for approval of a constitutional amendment.

Personally, I cannot understand a referendum.

Yes, I think this is one of the most un-American issues ever put on the ballot by the legislature, basically.

Now, if this were to pass, any constitutional amendment or referendum that's put on the ballot by petition has to get 60% of the vote, which is absolutely ridiculous.

I mean, this is an American system of, you know, the person or the issue with the most votes wins.

But now they're wanting to the legislature wants to take power away from the people and create this just ridiculous 60% level.

If it was such a big deal, they should have the legislatures have to get 60% of the vote to win reelection, but they don't.

So it's another issue.

One, an issue, too, to me are just power grabs by this extreme legislature.

It listen, the state legislature currently has to operate under a supermajority to change the constitution.

So this is just, in essence, sort of elevating the public's role in changing our state constitution or passing the law.

I do think you see a lot of these issues that have that have bombarded the states.

That's sort of what the the the real impetus behind this is.

This is not that out of the ordinary Illinois, a number of other states raised the bar in terms of changing the state constitution.

And frankly, this is still less than what the legislature has to operate under if they should choose.

So I don't know that I see a big deal out of this, but again, it's an insider baseball issue.

Well, let's go to Andrew de Mello here.

Across the ideological spectrum here, Andrew, in a lot of states, observers have, including some lawmakers, have bemoaned what they call legislating or government by referendum, that it causes enormous headaches for for serious governance.

Yeah, and I think that's what the campaign is counting along California.

You hear a lot.

Yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

I think they're counting on, you know, voter fatigue over these initiatives, the number of them that come up each year.

But also, Arkansas has a very populist streak.

And the big question is whether the fatigue or the populism wins out on this issue.

Well, speaking of populism, that's issue three.

And we're brings up issue three, which is a religious freedom amendment, a lot of people thought that religion where there was freedom of religion already.

Andrew.

Yeah.

And you know, I think this is another one that's kind of low information issues that, you know, given the state's conservative bent there.

You know, this has kind of flown under the radar, which I think works in favor of the supporters of it.

This is not the this is not the ballot measure people are most plugged in on right now.

Well, if the Family Council and other organizations and I think even the Southern Baptist or Arkansas Baptist Convention, I think even on Wednesday adopted or Tuesday adopted a resolution supporting it that has great cultural appeal to conserve.

Yeah, well, what I find interesting about this is so of these three amendments combined here, all referred out by the legislature, where's the momentum coming to pass them all as a bloc?

I don't think you see a pick and choose smorgasbord sort of thing here.

I think it's either an all yes or an all no.

And in many ways, the marijuana issue may be leading the charge in terms of the all yes or all no.

And over the past few years, we've seen it tends to fall one way or the other.

And it really is not a a rifle shot back and forth.

But they either all pass or all fails.

Yeah.

Let's stay with three.

Four right now, Michael.

Three.

It seems like the classic case of the solution and looking for the problem.

I don't think it's needed, but it probably passes in this in this conservative state.

So.

Well, some of the opposition said this is an invitation to litigation, that it's just it's so vague.

How do you decide what is an infringement on religion?

Oh, yeah.

No, I think well, that is a good point.

We'll be in court in some form or fashion once this thing, if it does pass.

Well, we're a nation of laws right now to marijuana.

Okay.

Yes.

Victory.

I'll.

I will withstand the the push inside me right now to talk about a grassroots campaign.

Steve, I say it again.

I see.

Nobody laugh.

So sorry.

Look, I think bottom line here, I think this is an issue that passes.

I think it doesn't pass by as much as we thought it was going to initially.

But I think is an issue that's driving people to the polls because of the campaign, because of the the controversial nature of the issue, a very high profile campaign.

But I think this is one of these things that passes.

Well, Paul's for Senate bill.

What is at work?

Here we are we've talked about what a culturally conservative, socially conservative state where, what, six years ago we legalized medicinal marijuana and now we're back with recreational marijuana.

I think it's an individual right sort of thing.

And I think those are those are Trump voters that are showing up.

I think they're motivated by individual rights.

I don't know that I believe that a lot of the political arguments work, that the advertising is put forward.

But I think you see a very independent, very sort of individual rights focused voter showing up at the polls this cycle.

And I think that benefits them.

Yeah, I'm not sure, sure it passes or not, believe it or not, it's polling have been going down in the past month.

Anecdotally speaking, talked to people that I know that are for legalization of marijuana and for decriminalizing it.

Don't like the fact that it gives a monopoly to 20.

It puts a monopoly in the state constitution to tow medical water, medical marijuana cultivators.

That's a real problem for a lot of people that it's not really all open.

It just sort of gives people with the power even more power and influence.

So I question whether it I think it eventually will pass.

I just question, will it happen this year or not?

You know, it is a problem for a lot of voters.

But by the same measure we have enshrined in the Constitution for Paramount, not parimutuel before.

Sure.

Sure.

So we had the least we were willing to do, we'd done before, you know.

But between those and, you know, the people that are supposed to be for legalization, even if they're having qualms about it, that that's what makes me give pause to whether it passes or not.

The end of day.

Right.

All right, Andrew Demelo, your take.

What are you seeing there?

There were five states with recreational marijuana, one on the ballot this November.

Four out of the five of them are Trump states, very conservative states.

The results, I think, on election night could end up showing, you know, just how much this issue cuts through on both both parties and how much openness there is even in really conservative parts of the country.

And Arkansas could be be a part of that.

Guys, thanks for the thought.

Think about this.

Religious freedom and and recreational marijuana both could pass on election night.

Intuitively, you would think, my gosh, in a way that happens.

But but I think there's a voter out there that pulls the lever for both.

Yeah.

And there's this factor also, which is is sort of the wild card in here, and justifiably so.

There has been enormous conversation over the last two years and certainly in this campaign about the hazards, the perils, the toll that illegal substances have taken on the nation and particularly Arkansas.

Andrew The middle of football is on.

Everybody's well agenda.

Yeah, definitely.

I think that kind of fits in with this.

Part of the issue that that comes up, though, is you have this unlikely alliance between social conservatives and some marijuana advocates who are opposing it for very different reasons.

And so you're getting some mixed messaging on it where some of the opponents are talking about how it could create a create addicts, where some of the marijuana advocates are saying this is too limited, it doesn't go far enough.

And so that's one of the issues that kind of comes up with the opposition on this.

Yeah.

Andrew, how it's switch gears a little bit.

How national has this election and these campaigns been so far?

This has been, you know, incredibly nationalized election here in Arkansas.

You've got a candidate for governor who was, you know, the face of the Trump administration.

And she's proudly nationalized the race.

And I think that's attract a lot more interest despite the polling numbers showing it not being an incredibly competitive race.

And I think recreational marijuana also is making it very, you know, nationalized election here just because of the role that Arkansas could play as the first southern state to approve recreational marijuana.

Yeah, Bill has Speaker O'Neill's axiom is it totally did.

I tend to believe it is.

I do.

And I and I think that's because Arkansans see how national issues affect them everyday in their life.

They see the southern border.

They know that it affects them here.

They see crime on a national level.

They see crime on a local level.

And as I mentioned earlier, they've seen their institutions fail.

The idea that somehow we can cocoon ourselves off as a state, we are baked in to the national issues.

It's a cake.

You can't separate the two.

A huge percentage of our budget is dependent upon federal dollars.

And so, as you well know, Steve, so so these issues have a direct and real impact on what goes in what goes on in Arkansas.

Yeah.

Michael Cook.

Yeah.

This is the first time I ever seen a governor's race where the national where the with the nominee for a party brings up the president with Sarah Sanders talking about Biden this and Biden that.

It's a sort of a sad commentary in terms of the state of politics now that instead of talking about the local issues and things are important to people in Newport or Alvarado, it's talking about Joe Biden and things that she really has nothing to do with, I think.

But I think it's more than just what people are focused on.

Things like the cratering of local news, how many newspapers have closed these small dailies and weeklies across the state and across the country where people used to get their local news and so now it's all become nationalized?

I think it really hurts our politics.

It's in fact, in another classic example, how nationalize this our next governor gets to be governor, because Trump said, I want her to be governor.

Everybody else had to drop out.

Tim Griffin had to drop out.

Leslie Rose had to drop out.

So that just shows how nationalized Arkansas politics has become.

I'd have given her a head start.

Bill, you got about 15 seconds.

Yeah, I would say her father was governor for ten years.

She grew up in front of everybody's face.

So I don't know that I agree with Michael on that particular issue, but she is a formidable force, no doubt about it.

Got to end it there because we're out of time.

Andrew DeMello, Michael Cook, Bill Vicary, you'll all be back.

Thanks for joining us.

See you next week.

Support for Arkansas week provided by the Arkansas Democrat, the Arkansas Times and KUAR FM 89.