Jill Stein in 2011 OnTheIssues interview with Jill Stein

On Civil Rights: Economy that is not fully inclusive is inherently unstable

A: When you have a football game you have referees--that is the role of the government--to ensure that we have an inclusive economy and that all members of society have access to full participation. An economy that is not fully inclusive is an inherently unstable economy. That's why the CIA keeps track of inequality around the word--when inequality reaches a certain level, instability results.

On Crime: Death penalty is ineffective, and also barbaric

A: It's barbaric. It's outlawed internationally in all but a few extremely repressive countries like Iran, China, and not many others. It's shameful that it continues to be performed. It's well established that mistakes are made--yet half of our states practice pre-meditated state-sponsored murder. It's also known that it's not effective. So why is it done? Revenge & retribution? That's not what our justice system is supposed to be about. It's not an effective deterrent.

On Crime: Mandatory sentencing: ineffective & racially discriminatory

A: This has caused an explosion of our prison population, most of which are there for non-violent drug offenses. Mandatory sentencing has not been effective as a deterrent to crime. We can't afford it. The prison-industrial complex is making out like bandits, while very discriminatory injustice prevails. Vast number of African-American and Latinos are being locked up for minimal crimes. Lives and communities are being destroyed.

On Drugs: Marijuana is dangerous because it's illegal, not vice-versa

A: We wouldn't remove all laws against all drug use. Marijuana is a drug that is dangerous because it's illegal. It isn't illegal because it's dangerous. There are drugs in use that are far more harmful than marijuana--such as alcohol. Legalize marijuana and the dangers go away. Regulate it so that children can't buy it on the street corner.

Q: What about other drugs?

A: Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal or moral issue. It should not be dealt with in the criminal justice system, but primarily as a public health issue.

On Education: Opposes teacher-led prayer in public schools

A: I oppose it.

Q: Is that a federal issue or should it be left to the states?

A: The separation of church and state is inherently a federal issue. It's hard to duck that. That is part of our Constitution. To favor one religion is to inherently favor the others. Government needs to be neutral in order to respect everyone's religion.

On Energy & Oil: Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive

A: Yes, but those alternatives should be renewable clean energy, not nuclear. Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts. The Fukushima [nuclear disaster] is the ongoing example. There is no safe nuclear energy. You can put in in someone else's backyard or even on the other side of the world--but we're all endangered by it. And we don't need it: Renewables are less expensive. Nuclear power would never survive on a free open market. It can only survive with tens of billions $of taxpayer loan guarantees.

On Families & Children: Family planning is 1st principle of reproductive healthcare

A: Reproductive healthcare needs to be an essential part of healthcare in general. Women's access to family planning--that should be the first principle of reproductive healthcare. When women can plan their health future, we can make abortion obsolete. Those who object to abortion on moral grounds ought to be promoting family planning and contraception as the means to avoid abortion.

On Government Reform: PACs connect campaigns with rich donors, & disconnect public

A: We now have influence-peddling on steroids with Citizens United and the Super PACs. And Obama raising $1 billion for his campaign alone. We have a political system which is completely disconnected with the public, and connected instead with those with deep pockets who can find these campaigns with such extreme amounts.

On Gun Control: Gun at home more likely to cause injury than to defend home

A: It is more dangerous to the occupants of a home to have a gun than not. It's more likely that you'll be injured by your own gun than that you'll be defended against some intruder with that gun. It's an enormous public health problem in our cities--there are tragedies every day where young people are being shot, as victims of gun crimes. It's tragic. We're not arguing that nobody should have a gun--but public safety should factor into constraints.

On Homeland Security: PATRIOT Act is a flagrant violation of 4th Amendment

A: Yes, but it doesn't stop at the PATRIOT Act--the National Defense Authorization Act is easily the equivalent of the PATRIOT Act.

Q: That's the NDAA which passed the House and Senate last week, which allows indefinite detention of terrorism suspects?

A: Yes; the PATRIOT Act is a flagrant violation of Fourth Amendment--and the NDAA does away with our right to trial by jury and a presumption of innocence. Put the two together--in addition to enormous sums into local security and militarizing the police--it's a very dangerous combination. In many ways it's far worse than the violations in prior wars--when civil liberties were restricted but only during the duration of the war. We now have a war without end--so this is a permanent strike against the Constitution. This is the makings of a disaster. It's outrageous to think that this charge is being led by a Constitutional lawyer who occupies the Presidential office.

On Homeland Security: Repeal National Defense Authorization; keep right to trial

A: The National Defense Authorization Act does away with our right to trial by jury. Militarized police means personal liberties are no longer respected.

Q: What's the solution?

A: Repeal the PATRIOT Act and likewise repeal the provision of the National Defense Authorization that codifies the ability of the president to basically declare anybody he wants as an enemy of the state without ever accusing them of a crime nor letting them go to trial.

On Homeland Security: Cut military 50%; spend that $500B on economy

A: Downsize the military 50%; that would include the security apparatus. That would free up $500 billion per year to spend on things that would improve our economy and truly increase national security. A hyper-armed military distributed around the world makes us less secure, not more secure. We need to use diplomacy, international law, and human rights as the principles of international relations--not military might. That is a dead end.

On Social Security: Social Security is not in crisis; and it's not a handout

A: Social Security needs to be protected. People have put into Social Security--it is not an entitlement program in that sense. It is not a free lunch, not a government handout--it's a return on what people have put into it. It's critical to elders--their resources are being drained. Debt among elders is skyrocketing--we can hardly afford to trim back Social Security as would happen in a privatized system. We would challenge the very notion that Social Security is in crisis mode warranting messing with its foundations. It's not in crisis at all.

Q: Do you support raising the cap on Social Security deductions, above the current limit of $106,000?

A: The cap could be lifted to ensure that Social Security should be solvent m without question forever.

On Tax Reform: Incomes rise for wealthiest 1% but their taxes have fallen

A: It's outrageous that the wealth of the top 1/10 of 1% has risen in the past decade while their taxes are cut via capital gains. No one is even talking, Democrat or Republican, about restoring the capital gains tax. The solutions even by progressive Democrats barely begin to scrape the surface of the problem.

On War & Peace: We never should have been in Iraq; we're still not out

A: We are not out of Iraq--we should be out of Iraq and we are not. We never should have been in Iraq. We have spent perhaps $1 trillion, lost nearly 5,000 American lives, and probably 100,000 or perhaps one million Iraqi lives. It's an unspeakable shame that this war occurred at all. A war caused by lies and military opportunism A war that has conveniently secured some oil supplies for the US and the West but what a horrible price that has been paid for that illegitimate bounty.

On War & Peace: We should not be in Afghanistan; no military solution

A: As in Iraq, in Afghanistan likewise we should not be there. If we hadn't been training militaries in Afghanistan to start with 30 or 40 years ago, there never would have been an Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan is a symbol: military solutions are not solutions. They don't end.

On War & Peace: Humanitarian aims in Libya ok; but not regime change

A: We're going to see it's not over in Libya . You don't solve problems, you don't promote international stability and democracy by bringing in the army and the bombs. That does not create national stability. The humanitarian concerns were legitimate but those humanitarian aims were really cast aside very early. After NATO entered the fray it quickly morphed from protecting civilians to regime change. There was no legitimate international justification for that.

On Welfare & Poverty: Don't prevent church-based welfare, but not as substitute

A: We don't believe in substituting church programs for service that should be provided by government but we never oppose having a church do one particular thing. Should the government pull back and allow churches to provide services? That quickly becomes inherently discriminatory toward anyone not affiliated with that church.