|
| 'Drug War' Opponents Blast White House Policy |
|
Posted by FoM on February 26, 2002 at 08:03:52 PT By Susan Jones, CNSNews.com Morning Editor Source: CNSNews.com 
The Libertarian Party ran full-page newspaper advertisements on Tuesday, criticizing the Bush administration's war on drugs.Over a full-age photograph of White House drug czar John Walters, the following message appears: "This week, I (John Walters) had lunch with the president, testified before Congress, and helped funnel $40 million in illegal drug money to groups like the Taliban." According to the advertisement, the war on drugs "boosts the price of drugs by as much as 17,000 percent - funneling huge profits to terrorist organizations." The Libertarians insist that anyone who supports the war on drugs - or votes for politicians who support the war on drugs -- is therefore helping to support terrorism. The Libertarian Party calls its advertisement an intentionally provocative "parody" of the ongoing advertising campaign sponsored by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The advertisements, which appeared in Tuesday's Washington Times and USA Today, follow a new push by the Bush administration to crack down on illegal drug abuse. 'Social crisis' Earlier this month, President George W. Bush said he was putting the fight against drugs "in the center of our national agenda." He announced a new national drug control strategy based on three core principles: stopping drug use before it starts; healing America's drug users; and disrupting the illegal drug market. The president also set clear goals for his strategy: he wants to reduce the use of illegal drugs by 10 percent over 2 years, and by 25 percent over 5 years. As a key element of the plan, his administration aims to reduce public tolerance for drug abuse. "We've got a problem in this country," Bush commented two weeks ago. "Too many people use drugs. This is an individual tragedy, and as a result, it is a social crisis." The president's proposed budget for fiscal 2003 includes $19.2 billion in anti-drug spending, 2 percent more than last year's budget. 'Drug prohibition' The Libertarian Party is among the groups that believe the war on drugs is misguided. "Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor," the Libertarians say. In their opinion, "drug prohibition" fuels gang violence; inflates the cost of drugs, prompting drug users to steal to support their habits; and it diverts police from concentrating on more serious crimes. According to the Libertarian Party's website, "By ending drug prohibition, Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood." Ad wars During the Superbowl, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) aired two thirty-second ads targeted at young Americans who do drugs. One of the ads asked, "Where do terrorists get their money? If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." The ads suggested that money spent on illicit drugs in the United States is funding terrorist organizations all over the world. "These Super Bowl ads were Super Bowloney," the Libertarian Party said at the time. In a recent press release condemning the Superbowl ads, Steve Dasbach, executive director of the Libertarian Party, said, "No amount of advertising spin" can change the fact that "the War on Drugs enriches terrorists, finances violence and makes America less safe." The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws also blasted the Superbowl anti-drug ads as misleading and ineffective. NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup disagreed with the notion that American drug users are funding terrorists operations with their purchases. "It is patently absurd to suggest that marijuana smokers are in any way supporting terrorism," said NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup in comments made earlier this month. "The overwhelming majority of marijuana consumed in this country is domestically grown or imported from Mexico, Jamaica or Canada. It does not come from or finance terrorist regimes in Afghanistan or other potentially hostile nations," he said. "Marijuana smokers are average Americans who work hard, pay taxes, raise families and want safe communities in which to live," Stroup said. "They are just as patriotic and supportive of the war on terrorism as other Americans. Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II Related Articles & Web Sites: Libertarian Party - Drug War Drug Czar Accused of Supporting Terror New Low in the War on Drugs - A. Huffington White House Anti-Drug Ads Super Bowloney Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on February 28, 2002 at 05:36:40 PT:
|
| "Will the quotation marks be dropped soon, so one cannot say the war on drugs without saying (or thinking) the word 'prohibition'? Has it been a strategy of the anti's all along to keep those words separated in people's minds, so as not to associate this ban of some substances to the well known, massively failed ban of alcohol (PROHIBITION) of the twenties?. The entire point of the antis' propaganda efforts can be seen to be precisely that. And for exactly the reasons he mentioned. Face it: unless you were born around the time and grew up with a first-hand knowledge of the very human costs of alcohol prohibition (blindness, insanity, destroyed larynxes from drinking hooch tainted with methanol, etc.) the words are just that...words. They don't carry any emotional impact. There is an intellectual understanding that it failed...but no sense of the gut feeling about why it failed. We've all heard about the Great Disconnect; the idea that many people in this country have that cannabis possession is mainly a misdemeanor, and not a Federal offense.... with equally Draconian Federal penalties. Even that flaming anus Klinton engaged in this sophistry when he left office, opining that (after he had presided over several million arrests in an 8-year period for it!) that cannabis possession was decrimmed in most States of the Union. The antis don't want the public to make the obvious connection between alcohol and drug prohibition because then the public will automatically make the connection that 'prohibition'=failure. Hence their continual demand for a semantic separation: drugs and alcohol. In their minds, they must make a very public distinction between alcoholism and drug addiction...even though alcoholism is drug addiction. If the public ever makes that crucial connection, their efforts are doomed, and they know their precious gravy train could come to a screeching halt, with disastrous consequences for all those riding it. Even worse, if a groundswell against this lunacy of equating little Johnnie and Suzy with the butchers of al-Qaeda gets to the point where some opportunistic pol decides to call for an investigation, the fat will really be in the fire. The Dems, bless their slimy souls, are just itching to go after the Reps. And with the ONDCP's Super Bowl ads, they have had a smogasboard dumped on their plates. Oh, yes, the antis really have done it this time. They've been manoevered into showing their hand...and their true feelings towards The Chil-drun. That the Chil-drun are...The Enemy. And in war, the purpose is to detroy the enemy. The antis have let slip that American children are in their crosshairs. And given instances such as the murders of Alberto Sepulveda and Esequiel Hernandez (and God knows how many others!) we know from bitter experience that they have no compunctions against pulling the trigger. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by Morgan on February 27, 2002 at 08:05:53 PT |
| Maybe my memory isn't what it used to be, but Dan B's comments got me thinking. I think it is only lately that the word 'prohibition' has been used and linked with the War on Drugs in the mainstream media. I seem to remember, in the past, being upset when reading articles about the drug war and it's effects on the world, and how the articles would never mention the word. Now that they do, it's in quotations. Progress? Are we (freedom advocates) dragging the politicians, the media, and the rest of the public slowly along into our particular perception of the world? Will the quotation marks be dropped soon, so one cannot say the war on drugs without saying (or thinking) the word 'prohibition'? Has it been a strategy of the anti's all along to keep those words seperated in people's minds, so as not to associate this ban of some substances to the well known, massively failed ban of alcohol (PROHIBITION) of the twenties? I'll be looking to see if reporters and editors, if only to protect what little credibility and pride they may have, start using this word more and more, as they realize (due to the internet) that they no longer shape public opinion, but only...like politicians...play catch-up to it. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by justanothersomebody on February 27, 2002 at 02:12:45 PT |
| It is really positive to see points of view like this making their way into the mainstream media. I honestly don't believe an ad like this would have been able to be run in prominent publication like this even 5 years ago. It really is nice to see a little light at the end of the tunnel! [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by Dan B on February 26, 2002 at 18:25:26 PT:
|
| Did anyone else find it odd that they put "drug prohibition" in quotation marks? As though it is some kind of catch-phrase that describes an opinion, not a fact. The author of this article was good to notice that the ad was placed, and I appreciate that she accurately describes the message portrayed in the ads--even gives some time to Keith Stroup of NORML. But the reporter should understand that "drug prohibition" is an accurate, exact description of United States policy: some drugs are prohibited. The word "drug" is added merely to differentiate it from the prohibition of the 1920s, which involved alcohol, now marketed as not a drug (though it is) but rather a tasty beverage with pleasant intoxicating side effects. Perhaps, though, it is a blessing in disguise (pardon the religious terminology) that the author points out the word "prohibition," though. At least she's calling it what it is. Dan B [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Toker00 on February 26, 2002 at 17:26:51 PT |
| My wife just shared a curious thing with me. She is reading a book titled: "Slaves in the Family." by Edward Ball. Seems the slaves in the Charleston, South Carolina area, pre-19th Century, referred to Cannabis as "Life Everlasting". They couldn't afford doctors and medicine, so they turned to the woods. "They digged herbs, and something called Snake root. They would put moonshine on it, and give the children that for fever. And, " Life Everlasting." That was good for fever and colds. Now, if they catch you with "Life Everlasting," they'll lock you up! They'll say you've got "Marijuana."" It seems, Cannabis would make you sweat, and it got the fever out. "Then people started smoking it." Just a tidbit of Cannabis history. Peace. Realize, then Legalize. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by freedom fighter on February 26, 2002 at 14:24:41 PT |
| for the Truth! Nothing but Truth! I got an appt. with a slavemaster this thurs. I think I'm gonna show him the ad and ask what he thinks of it. Hope I do'nt get penalize for it.. ff [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on February 26, 2002 at 11:35:59 PT:
|
| I've been away, myself, so I haven't seen if you've been here. But I've missed your postings, and hope to see more of them...especially now with ol' Beaten-in-an-election-by-a-dead-man Ashcroft facing the eventual backlash (that should have struck ol' Barry right between the eyes)that the WoSD is finally producing. We need your broad knowledge and acerbic, cutting wit now more than ever. Don't be a stranger... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Lehder on February 26, 2002 at 10:15:24 PT |
| If you support the War on Some Drugs, then you support terrorism. You also support crime, gang violence and cancer. Now it's been written in a low-brow newspaper with few enough words that Americans will notice it. It helps legitimze our movement while every other paid message concering the drug war seeks to marginalize us. I've already confronted three good Americans today for supporting terror, violence and cancer. I'm proud to have paid for part of this ad. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by monvor on February 26, 2002 at 10:10:55 PT |
| I am proud to support those groups that tell it like it is. I think more people would be LP if the general public knew they had a choice beside the Rebloodlicans and Democrypts. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by JSM on February 26, 2002 at 08:42:04 PT |
| This kind of response shows that this ad is working. It is great to be heard and the general public getting a chance to see and hear some opposition to what before has been, generally speaking, accepted as gospel. Change is not easy, but it is coming. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |