Anti-Drug Advertising Effort Suffers |
Posted by CN Staff on April 16, 2006 at 11:12:09 PT By Ira Teinowitz Source: AdAge.com Washington, DC -- The white house's youth anti-drug advertising campaign is in jeopardy. The question isn't whether the eight-year-old push is effectively reducing drug use, though that is in some dispute. Rather, the issue is whether the campaign's declining media weight is falling dangerously below the level where it can be effective. Declining Budget When it first launched nationally in 1999, the campaign's budget was $195 million annually, with about $150 million of the total devoted to advertising that was designed to reach 90% of teens four times of week. It's now down to $99 million annually, with the outlay actually much lower as media inflation eats up more of those dollars in print, broadcast and cable. And then there's the question of whether those traditional buys are even appropriate, given the teen target splintering with the myriad new-media choices. "It's time for Congress to wake up and support a program that is working," said the nation's drug czar, John Walters. "There is no excuse for not supporting it." Even some campaign doubters said the low funding level increasingly raises questions about accurately assessing the campaign's strategy. "I do worry about the fact that it's being slowly winnowed away," said John Carnevali, a drug office official during the Clinton administration who is now a consultant on drug policy. "If the program disappears, I'd like to see it be for a good reason, like it not working." Research and Production The budget numbers are somewhat misleading. Created amid concerns that cutbacks for public-service ads were making those efforts less effective, the drug office campaign broke new ground by "matching" every free ad with a paid ad. But initially a chunk of the money didn't go to media, instead going to research and production costs. So the $99 million budget actually fuels nearly $160 million in ads. But that's still a long way from the $300 million in media time the campaign received in 1999. Susan Nathan, senior director of Media Knowledge at Universal McCann, said that to maintain the drug office's spending level from 1999 would require at least $500 million in funding today. The drug office claims the campaign still reaches teens between three or four times a week. But it's managed that by taking draconian steps. Not only are the Super Bowl spots it once ran gone, but the campaign has ceased running ads aimed at parents and reduced the number of messages aimed at minority groups. Moreover, the drug office started hoarding its ad time rather than give part of it over to other public-service groups for messages related to drug prevention-an agreement originally made to mollify public-service groups worried that their ads would get bounced by paid anti-drug ads. Assessing The Impact But Ms. Nathan said assessing the impact of the cuts is "a tough question to answer" without examining specific objectives. Mr. Walters, initially skeptical of the campaign, ordered up more pre-testing of creative and refocused it squarely on marijuana with the argument that it is the gateway to other drugs. Today, he strongly defends the campaign as adequately hitting the target audience-though barely-and is pushing hard to get the $120 million President Bush proposed in funding this year. Getting even that is anything but a certainty. Jennifer Hing, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich., who heads a House appropriations panel that will consider the $120 million request, said money is going to be stretched thin this year. "It's going to be hard to prioritize the funding," she said. "The natural disaster [Katrina] has sucked up a lot of money and the congressman is going to take a serious look at every program on the table." Legislative Requirements Legislation that passed the House this year would require 82% of money budgeted to be spent on media if less than $125 million is appropriated, though the House also added a new requirement that 10% of the spending go to anti-methamphetamine ads. The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to act on those changes. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America, which produces the drug office spots (FCB is the drug office's agency) frets that $120 million is too little. Sean Clarkin, director-strategy, said the Partnership way back in the Clinton administration recommended $175 million a year in annual media spending to ensure the weight of anti-drug ads was roughly equivalent to the early '90s when media companies ran more PSAs. "It's working," said Mr. Clarkin. "We would like it to be funded at a higher level." He would like to see more efforts aimed at parents, a beefing up of multicultural campaigns and "being more present in lives of teens by being in more non-traditional media and trying to de-normalize drugs in the lives of kids in a way that seems like its coming from other kids." The funding concerns drown out some of the good news, which is that both government and private researchers indicate teen drug use is decreasing. 'Monitoring The Future' Study The government numbers come from the long-running "Monitoring the Future" study in which the University of Michigan surveys 8th, 10th and 12th graders' attitudes on drug use. That survey shows that the percentage of 10th graders using illicit drugs within the last 30 days has fallen off sharply, going from 23.2% in 1996 to 17.3% in 2005. The same measure for high-school seniors was at 36.2% in 1997, dropping to 23.1% last year. Marijuana was the biggest part of the drug use and its numbers were down too. The Partnership, which wasn't entirely happy about the focus on marijuana that the Bush administration brought and moved to make its own public service efforts on other drugs, now concedes it has worked. "It's no secret that we had reservations about [marijuana]. We pushed for a bigger repertoire," said Mr. Clarkin. "I have to say that the results appear to vindicate the focus on marijuana." Others question the measuring tool for success or whether the ad campaign has had much to do with any change. And some worry that kids using illegal drugs may just have moved on from marijuana to abuse of prescription or over-the-counter medications. Note: White House Campaign Might Not Carry Enough Media Weight to Work. Complete Title: White House Campaign Might Not Carry Enough Media Weight to Work Source: AdAge.com (US) CannabisNews Justice Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #45 posted by FoM on April 18, 2006 at 12:53:07 PT |
I see basically the same way as you do. I believe in legal immigration. We even have illegal immigrants working in our area now. The young people can't even get a job anywhere. They illegals are getting the jobs and the young men that were raised in this local town are unemployed. Joining the Army is their only way to make any money at all which is beneficial to our war time government. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #44 posted by runderwo on April 18, 2006 at 12:45:56 PT |
I'm not so sure about your analogy. Humans would be a "controlled substance" if they were only allowed to come here for a specific, approved reason. That is in fact NOT the case. All that is being controlled is the rate of immigration. Like the liquor tax controls the rate of alcohol consumption. People can still freely come here but they can't come faster than we allow them to. This gives us time to adjust social infrastructure to compensate for the additional load. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #43 posted by whig on April 18, 2006 at 12:36:40 PT |
Had Enough's point on this is a good one, by the way. The corporations want second-class immigrants, "guest workers" who won't have the same benefits as others, that will cost them less to hire, and drive down everyone else's wages. That's definitely not what I'm in favor of. How about this. We can end illegal immigration, and control the border, just by abolishing the immigration quotas. Everyone who comes to the border and isn't carrying weapons or some disease or whatever, they can come in as legal immigrants with full and equal rights to everyone else. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #42 posted by whig on April 18, 2006 at 12:30:57 PT |
Security issues aside, your argument is that humans are Schedule II or something rather than being Schedule I. It's still prohibition. The quotas are set such that only a small fraction of the people that want to migrate are allowed to. As to the rest, they are prohibited. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #41 posted by whig on April 18, 2006 at 12:27:15 PT |
You're right, and it's basically back to the problem of evil, which I think is pretty much the same as the problem of free will. We have to be able to choose the good freely or we aren't fully moral. That isn't to say that you can't defend yourself or your family or community from harm, but I believe it has to be proportionate to the threat and not excessive. In terms of criminals who threaten the public safety you may need to restrain their freedom, in other words, but only because they pose a real and present danger otherwise, but the object should be to limit the restraint because either you get the person to stop behaving badly or you can never safely release him. So that's how we should be focused, I believe. Other than that, though, people who aren't threatening anyone should never be prevented from having their liberty. That's really what this is about to me, I don't believe liberty ends at boundary lines. If I couldn't leave Pennsylvania without permission, if I couldn't enter California without waiting in line, I would be unhappy, but I could survive here. But it's not always the case that someone in Mexico can survive there. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #40 posted by Had Enough on April 18, 2006 at 12:19:00 PT |
Prohibition & Illegal Immigration These two are being tied together and the blurring of the lines is in progress. There are people in our society that have a hard time keeping them separate. Immigrants are “not prohibited” to enter the United States; there is a proper way to gain access to this land. Therefore “Immigrant/Human Prohibition” does not exist. Cannabis is “prohibited” by the United States Federal Government period. That is prohibition. The illegal immigrants are flowing across the border almost at will. How long will it be before one of these Illegal Immigrants brings something harmful across the border? I’m thinking disease, vegetation that could ruin farmland and livestock, or heaven forbid, a weapon capable of Mass Destruction. My feelings toward this have nothing to do with racism, war mongering hype, or anything like that. This is a very real possibility, that’s all. Another thing I look at. The president, half of Congress, and almost all of Corporate America want to give amnesty to Illegal immigrants. Illegal aliens need to be dealt with, in a proper manner, not amnesty. Guess who will get to pick the tab up for this amnesty. Illegal aliens will work for half the pay you and I work for, and will live in substandard living quarters. Before you know it, American born, and legal immigrants will have to meet similar terms, or end up not working. Is this trend staring to have an effect in your area yet? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #39 posted by FoM on April 18, 2006 at 11:31:21 PT |
I believe in freedom but I also know that some people don't value freedom. It's a delicate balance for me. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #38 posted by whig on April 18, 2006 at 11:06:52 PT |
Let me be a little more specific about what I do believe. I believe in human freedom. All governments are evil. Some are worse than others, but none are good. One world government would be especially bad, because there would be no where to escape to a better one no matter how bad it got. When a government does away with the right to migrate, when you cannot escape from a worse place to a less bad one, it is indistinguishible from the problem of the one world government. No matter how bad it gets, you can't escape. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #37 posted by whig on April 18, 2006 at 10:58:31 PT |
I believe in no "world order." [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #36 posted by FoM on April 18, 2006 at 10:48:44 PT |
I have a question for you. Do you believe in a One World Order? Thanks in advance. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #35 posted by whig on April 18, 2006 at 10:40:12 PT |
You're right that it's no fair, of course. But punishing people because their governments are bad isn't fair either. Maybe we might need to leave the US some day and try to find sanctuary in Canada or somewhere else. If they have the attitude you've expressed, they'd say it isn't fair for us to obtain sanctuary there unless the US would give them the same sanctuary. But this doesn't quite make sense because why would they try to come here where they'd have fewer rights than they already do. So it's not fair. And I have to remember that the United States wouldn't even allow people escaping Germany to come here. There was a really small quota. A lot of Jewish people couldn't find a place to escape to so they got killed. Some got to other places like Australia. The US not so much. It's not fair at all. But I still believe people shouldn't be blamed for their government, human prohibition is unjust and no matter whether you allow people to migrate or not they will do so when circumstances require them to. All this means is you have a lot of criminals involved in human trafficking and all kinds of bad things. Prohibition never works. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #34 posted by FoM on April 18, 2006 at 10:17:41 PT |
I appreciate your comment. I believe in law and order but I also am liberal as to what should or shouldn't be against the law. If we didn't have any guidance in society because there was no one or nothing to make some form of order we would have a crazy and fearful world to live in. Here's how I look at the immigration issue. Say a husband and a wife had 3 children. They want the best for them and they work hard but are still very poor. The children ask for something and the parents say we can't afford it. It hurts the parents and the child but the child understands that mom and dad are doing their best. Now lets say that the parents announce to their biological children that they want to adopt a child from another country. What would the children think? Is it fair when the parents can't even support the 3 they have. That's how I see the immigration issue. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #33 posted by Max Flowers on April 18, 2006 at 10:00:47 PT |
I am generally very liberal-thinking, but with regard to illegal immigrants, my views turn suddenly "conservative." It's one of the only areas where my perspective is at odds with the popular liberal view. (Some of you may like me a little less after this post.) My attitude is simply that if I cannot go to other countries and do exactly the same as people do when they come here illegally, then they should not be able to do it here. Period. If I cannot just saunter into Mexico, or the Philippines, or Vietnam, or Honduras, or etc etc and just plop down and start living there under the radar, expecting to be able to take advantage of all the same services and protections that the legal indigenous residents of those countries do (and trust me, I would NOT be allowed to), then people from those countries and any others should not be allowed to do the same thing here. PERIOD. It is unfair and totally imbalanced. It might sound childish, but the way I see it, if I can't do it, they can't do it either (although they already have, and are). No fair. Game over. They come because there are no jobs in their own country? You know what, I can't get a suitable job in MY country! And I think a lot of that has to do with the people who have come streaming in here for the last couple decades because they can't find jobs at home. What do I have to do to fix this? Change things in my country. What should they have to do? The very same thing---not run here!! Legal immigration is a different matter entirely. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #32 posted by whig on April 17, 2006 at 19:02:24 PT |
Runderwo was talking about immigrants from Mexico, I believe. Undocumented immigrants. They haven't been welcomed. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #31 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 18:57:24 PT |
Immigrants are welcome I believe. I know immigrants are welcome in Canada. They have to have a certain amount of money to invest to make Canada a better place and not be a burden to Canada. I think that is reasonable. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #30 posted by whig on April 17, 2006 at 18:47:42 PT |
Ethics and morality are a difficult subject that trouble philosophers no end. I may seem to be oversimplifying things but I think there are things that you and I would consider unethical or even immoral that should nonetheless be legal, such as adultery for instance. The penalty might be divorce, or at least a rather less happy marriage, but it isn't for outsiders to judge. On the issue of undocumented immigration, you raise an important point about people having to skirt other laws and obtain false identification, etc. But this point is much the same as that to be made about prohibited commerce. Anti's will always point to the criminal element without recognizing that it is the laws that cause them to be. I don't think we'd have these problems if immigrants were simply welcomed. Human prohibition has bad effects too. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #29 posted by runderwo on April 17, 2006 at 18:21:40 PT |
I am not certain at all that things that require discussion should be categorically legal. I do agree that if the discussion is about sending messages, it is probably a bogus law. But the world is not black and white, so determining whether a particular action within a particular context is moral or immoral is important. And this requires discussion because the degree of morality and the degree of immorality must be gauged and weighed against one another, and also whether it is practically possible to prohibit the activity. I disagree with the statement "anything that could cause harm to another should be illegal", but I also disagree with the statement that "a little bit of harm to another is OK". What about "a little bit of harm to another is OK as long as it prevents a greater degree of harm to a third"? Or "a little bit of harm to another is OK as long as a greater degree of harm to myself is prevented"? In the real world, we have to answer these questions. Something you may want to think about re: illegal immigration. Many of these illegal aliens are using false IDs in order to utilize services that taxpayers here have paid for, without making any tax contribution themselves. They are also using ID-less services such as police and fire protection. I may support open immigration, but I think sympathizing with those who free ride off the current system is not a good way to support a change in the system. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #28 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 16:08:48 PT |
Thank you. I'm glad you understand what I mean. For our friends in Texas they are saying you are having rolling blackouts. I didn't know it was almost 100 degrees in Dallas right now. I didn't think it was that hot anywhere in the states yet this year except maybe Arizona. Here's an article. BREAKING NEWS: Heat Forces Rolling Power Blackouts: http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4780571 [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #27 posted by global_warming on April 17, 2006 at 15:34:20 PT |
regards.."Politics control what people think", it might also be understood as "What people think is politics", this is the Table where 'we those people can bargain away our Eternal Souls, for some piece of Silver, and maybe a slice of that Everlasting Comfort. As I am a living witness, I testify, before the tribunal, and my vote, in this purist colony of pigs, if God does not come to strike the greedy and blasphemous, surely God has a better plan, and all the rhetoric and clever arguments, cannot ever convince this mortal flesh. Fomme You are the diamond in this group. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #26 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 12:59:30 PT |
One of the things I've learned that I wish I hadn't learned since doing CNews is about politics. I never cared to learn about politics because I thought it was just politics and that meant not very good values to me. Now because I've seen different political parties values I really am more angry about the whole thing then I am understanding. Politics control what people think and do I believe and that seems so wrong and wasteful to me. That's just my feelings but I see a red flag most times when any party is mentioned as an answer to the ills of the world. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #25 posted by afterburner on April 17, 2006 at 12:44:20 PT |
The divide in Parliament/Congress with a "left wing" and a "right wing" was a physical reality that lost its meaning due to the complexities of a modern society. I prefer former Governor of California Jerry Brown's analysis, "Left wing vs. right wing is an outdated dicotomy. I am an up-winger: the interests of industry and ecology come together in space." [best quote from memory] After all, we are on "spaceship earth" as Buckminster Fuller called it. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #24 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 12:16:34 PT |
Thank you for the kinds words for me and everyone. I don't know how you and others can debate with those that oppose us. I never could argue a point very well. I just keep my thoughts to myself and keep going on and reading and learning more. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #23 posted by ron on April 17, 2006 at 11:59:54 PT |
Sorry if my point seemed obtuse, but whig did a good job of sharpening it. I've been debating antis on Bourque.com, Canada's equivalent of the Drudge Report, with a lively discussion forum. I'm still a regular scanner of your sparkling cannabis site. Kaptinemo's trenchant analyses, mayan's links and the comments by charmed quark, lombar, ekim, Had Enough, Max Flowers, afterburner, global warming, Dankhank, Hope, museman, dongenero and sooooo many others are all gem quality. You, FoM, are the diamond in the middle. Happy aftereaster all. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #22 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 10:01:28 PT |
I am glad you see it the way I do. It drives me crazy. Murder is wrong but why do they keep showing us nasty murder cases? I want to know about the war in Iraq or what is happening anywhere in the Middle East. I want to know how we can avoid a world war. How about the new case of Mad Cow Disease in Canada? I want news that will help me see more clearly that's all. Murders and world war news are at the opposite end from each other. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #21 posted by Max Flowers on April 17, 2006 at 09:48:12 PT |
You said: - I turned on the news to catch up on the world situations and all I am seeing is someone killed someone. Why do they spend so much time telling us who is killed when it is not news that can help fix anything? News is to inform not to make us think we are watching a sick soap opera. - I couldn't agree more. This has been disgusting me for years now. I get extremely frustrated when there are many, many cutting-edge, very important stories happening all the time which are purposefully IGNORED by the news channels, and instead of informing us of these things, over and over they instead hide behind the murder stories. I think doing that serves two purposes: one, it serves to distract people from the other political stories that they (the news) should be running, and two, it keeps the masses intimidated and unable to think about those more important stories because their heads are filled with "news" of horrible murders all the time, which has the effect of exaggerating them and making it seem like we all have scary murder all around us all the time. Which may or may not be true depending a lot on where you live, but that's not the point---they should be reporting a multitude of other things that are far more relevant to us as a nation... but we're distracted by the latest Natalee Holloway (or similar) "breaking news." It really pisses me off, it's transparent, it's sick, and it's a huge breach of the responsibility that the news media is supposed to have, but has shirked off a long time ago. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #20 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 09:23:42 PT |
http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/eventpics.htm http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/rw.jpg http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/wilson.jpg [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #19 posted by whig on April 17, 2006 at 09:18:31 PT |
Good point, there never needs to be any propaganda in behalf of laws against murder, rape or burglary. Everyone just recognizes they are wrongful acts. I think there's a good bit of marketing lately on the whole "illegal immigration" thing, though. If you have to argue about whether a thing should be illegal at all, it should not be illegal. Period. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #18 posted by whig on April 17, 2006 at 09:15:27 PT |
FWIW, Robert Anton Wilson had probably the largest influence on my own thinking when I was younger and continuing to this day. Although I have read a lot more "serious" things, the joyful, ludic nature of Wilson's work is as much example as pedological of how to achieve a better life for ourselves and a better society for everyone. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #17 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 08:23:11 PT |
It's good to see you. I don't understand your question though. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #16 posted by ron on April 17, 2006 at 08:12:28 PT |
What other laws need to be marketed? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #15 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 08:02:16 PT |
I turned on the news to catch up on the world situations and all I am seeing is someone killed someone. Why do they spend so much time telling us who is killed when it is not news that can help fix anything? News is to inform not to make us think we are watching a sick soap opera. Thanks for reading my rant. I turned on Democracy Now on Link TV and they talk about news that matters. I hope the network news channels wake up soon. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #14 posted by FoM on April 17, 2006 at 07:45:36 PT |
I agree that words are used to divide. I am glad that no friends of mine have ever been into politics. Once a person says that are a Republican I don't feel I will have anything in common to talk to them about. It really is a shame that people by stating what political party they are involved in turns off people because you get put in a box and that becomes your personality. Politics sure will divide a nation. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on April 17, 2006 at 07:21:51 PT:
|
They shriek over and over and over again...when their own figures don't bear them out. There's a good reason why the ONDCP's propaganda budget got a chunk torn out of it last year...by *Republicans*. Their Holy Arbiter of the Budgetary Scales weighed the program in the balance and found it 'wanting' of any effectiveness...and gutted it. Just watching the kids laugh at the crude attempts to manipulate them is enough reason they should be scrapped and unceremoniously buried in an unmarked grave out of sheer embarassment. Thanks to Robert Anton Willson's SNAFU Principle, http://tinyurl.com/m33v7 the ONDCP will *never* receive the feedback it needs to in order to effectively tailor its propaganda message, partly because it's so inherently 'uncool' and partly because most kids see it for what it is and will give false answers to any wonk seeking to test its' impact. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #12 posted by Had Enough on April 17, 2006 at 06:53:11 PT |
Conquistador your stallion stands
in need of company and like some angel's haloed brow you reek of purity I see your armour-plated breast has long since lost its sheen and in your death mask face there are no signs which can be seen………… http://www.lyrics007.com/Procol%20Harum%20Lyrics/Conquistador%20Lyrics.html [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #11 posted by Had Enough on April 17, 2006 at 06:39:09 PT |
mayan: Another bulls-eye, as usual. Everywhere I go I hear, Liberal this, Republican that. The hatred between the two parties rises above the words they spew. Conservative Republicans had their chance to get big government out of our living rooms, Liberal Democrats had their chance for all to have a fair opportunity and be treated as equals. Both parties failed miserably. Now they just point fingers, call each other names, and then proceed on with their own agendas. On our dime to boot! The more the world is polarized, the more stuff they can get away with. Kind of keeps the attention away from their true agendas. Off Topic: FoxNews is on this morning in the background. Heard a report. Dick Cheney gets 1.9 million American Dollars back from the IRS, with his tax filing this year. One of the Fox People (ManCow) mentioned “what about the guy who makes $30,000 per year”. I didn’t hear the rest, I was interrupted at that point, but I think he was pointing out things about tax cuts for the well to do, and how unfair it is to the working class. I was surprised to hear him say something like that. Even their own supporters are questioning their actions. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #10 posted by mayan on April 17, 2006 at 00:06:28 PT |
It's just terminology used divide and conquer the populace. Those words have very little meaning anymore but they sure do polarize us don't they? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by mayan on April 16, 2006 at 22:42:49 PT |
Drug convictions costing students their financial aid:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-16-drugs-students_x.htm From the above linked article... The aid analysis, compiled by the student group from data released last week by the Department of Education, notes that Indiana has the highest percentage of rejections, with one in 200 students denied financial aid because of drug convictions.Indiana Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican and author of the legislation, says it makes no difference how the states rank. "The principle remains the same: the American taxpayer should not be subsidizing the educations of those students who are convicted of dealing or using illegal drugs," Souder said in a statement provided Sunday. Of course, the article fails to mention how the law mainly targets cannabis users. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by FoM on April 16, 2006 at 21:18:36 PT |
That's great news. I agree we need to think more about democracy and our liberties now more then ever. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by ekim on April 16, 2006 at 20:40:04 PT |
these guys are inventing Democracy anew.
Posted by Richard Cowan on 2006-04-16 16:20:00
Source:
When simply surviving the government’s attempt to kill you is called a victory, that says a lot about the precarious state of freedom in America and Canada today. My next project is going to be called Making Democracy Work. (MakingDemocracyWork.com will be online soon.) Democracy is actually a very difficult system of government. Our failure even to recognize these difficulties is an indication of how serious our problems really are. There are certainly some legislative changes that might help at making democracy work, but most of the changes must begin with civil society, with Us, the People. (MarijuanaNews will remain on line, indefinitely, and when something related to cannabis is posted on my new website, it will also be posted on Marijuananews.com ) [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by ekim on April 16, 2006 at 20:21:14 PT |
Happy Easter to all.
FoM i like what you feel for the earth, how many are inspired by songs and words to love one another. you ask where to hold a large event i think that Woodstock is happening as we speak. it lives just like today we think of one that was given a second chance to wake up and love oneanother. to feel that each and every one of us has the chance to change is a wonderful reason for a special day of remembrance.
i don't have the site but seems its near the first site. maybe the rainbows will know - i have heard to ignore all rumors of cancellation. anyone catch the TV show about inventers here in the US. where is the smokeless new devises. where are the Hemp Plastic guys and gals showing what the mean green can do, the fuel people too. now i see that the guy from starbucks is on a US made tv show. this is ok but i hope we partner up with some of the others on the planet that have been doing what FoM is saying about watching out for the next group to come cause it was nice to see what was here when we woke up. Happy Easter to all. FoM i like what you feel for the earth, how many are inspired by songs and words to love one another. you ask where to hold a large event i think that Woodstock is happening as we speak. it lives just like today we think of one that was given a second chance to wake up and love oneanother. to feel that each and every one of us has the chance to change is a wonderful reason for a special day of remembrance. i don't have the site but seems its near the first site. maybe the rainbows will know - i have heard to ignore all rumors of cancellation. anyone catch the TV show about inventers here in the US. where is the smokeless new devises. where are the Hemp Plastic guys and gals showing what the mean green can do, the fuel people too. now i see that the guy from starbucks is on a US made tv show. this is ok but i hope we partner up with some of the others on the planet that have been doing what FoM is saying about watching out for the next group to come cause it was nice to see what was here when we woke up. there is real natural food and medicen plus the strongest fibers for helping all the earth. if we could read the history we would see that cloths and food and oils were made from Cannabis which no one of any History Education could refute to boot:) ------------------------------------------------------- Apr 17 06 Cops Say Legalize Drugs; Find Out Why on KOFO Radio 08:10 AM Jack Cole Ottawa Kansas After a whirlwind tour of Kansas, Jack Cole is back through the radio waves of The Brad Howard Early Morning Show on KOFO Radio 1220AM , in Ottawa, Kansas, at 8:10 a.m CST Monday April 17, 2006 for ten minutes. Apr 18 06 Two Perspectives of America's War on Drugs 12:00 PM Eric Sterling Washington District of Columbia USA Speakers Eric Sterling and Matthew Fogg present "From Policy Making to Interdiction: Two Perspectives of America's War on Drugs" to students, faculty and the public. Eric will discuss the policy making side of the early years of the Drug War and Matthew will discuss the issue of enforcing the laws that the policy makers wrote. Location: Hotung Hall, Georgetown Law School http://www.law.georgetown.edu/ccp/hotung.html Apr 19 06 "Tales from the Front Line: A Police Captain's Perspective on the Failing War on 07:30 PM Peter Christ Ithica New York USA Board Member and LEAP co-founder presents "Tales from the Front Line: A Police Captain's Perspective on the Failing War on Drugs" to students and faculty of Cornell University. This informative event is sponsored by the Cornell Libertarians. Location: HEC Auditorium, Goldwin Smith Hall, Cornell University. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by FoM on April 16, 2006 at 14:40:11 PT |
I am a conservative. Since it's Easter I'll talk about it from this perspective. If we give a person a gift and the person takes the gifts and says thank you and then throws it on the floor. He picks it up again and throws it on the floor once more. The next time he picks it up and throws it on the floor is shatters into a million pieces and then the person says oops it broke. We were given the earth to use as a gift to help sustain our lives. We treat it like the person throwing the gift to the ground. I believe in conserving that which was given to us so that we can pass it on to future generations and not have to go oops I broke it sorry. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by lombar on April 16, 2006 at 14:32:10 PT |
I use 'Conservative' in the context of 'member of the Conservative Party of Canada'. I think all truly conservative people would oppose the war on drugs if they could separate the morality aspect that puritans put into the debate/argument. Puritans are afraid of their own feelings... and are quite mistaken. Matthew 15: 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[d]" 10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " I'll take his word over it rather than Mr. Walters and his army of the undead. Once I recongnised that they are using fear of 'what might happen' to distract from 'what is happening', their manipulations cease to be effective. I am drafting a response to that OPED. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by FoM on April 16, 2006 at 13:40:06 PT |
What is a Conservative? People can say what a political party says being Conservative means but what does it really mean as far as how it relates to living with conservative values from a political viewpoint? I hope this makes sense. Do conservatives in politics practice what they preach? [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by lombar on April 16, 2006 at 13:13:18 PT |
.. I have no hope that things will improve. We are under the control of autocratic cowboys who ignore facts in favor of ideology. The greatest and worst danger of drug prohibition is the wide scale disrespect for the law and the rule of law. How can it be other when it appears the greatest crooks are the ones in power. Everyone just 'follows the leaders'. Since they exist on deception and corruption, so does the whole stinking country(s). The conservatives up here keep harping 'tough on crime' because of the supposed 'rise in crime' yet the actual statistics show that violent crimes have been trending down for years. The only things going up are fraud and drugs and this OBVIOUSLY shows a shift in ENFORCEMENT and not necessarily any change in the actual numbers of crimes. They chase drugs and support the BANKS more than anything else. In short, the stats show a decrease in violent crimes and now the conservatives want a 'crackdown'... unjustified, the wool is being pulled over the eyes of the country. Why do the canadian conservatives say "yes" to gun ownership and "no" to cannabis? Yes to death, no to sucrease from suffering? Why do they favor death for the living and life for the yet unborn? The knots they twist us into is vexing until you realize they must be HYPOCRITES, cheap labor conservatives, who are the true profiteers on misery based industries. Nothing in the budget to reduce the potential for crime, nor alleviate the root causes, just coercion. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by charmed quark on April 16, 2006 at 12:14:16 PT |
Drug use down 23.2 to 17.3%. A 5 point difference may be in the margin of error of this study ( they don't say whatprobability interval this represents). How can important decisions be made in a great soicety when voodoo science is used for everything. First, correlation does not equal causation. Secondly, the ads targeted marijuana and they are giving numbers for all drug use. And this is the sort of analysis used to push budgets. As others have said, perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of the drug war has been its attack on reasoning, logic and science. I realize such analysis is now being used everywhere in government, but I think it most strongly advanced due to the drug war. The long-term consequents of this on our society may be severe. [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |