|
| The Money Behind Question 8 |
|
Posted by FoM on November 02, 2000 at 10:55:30 PT By Alex Beam, Globe Staff Source: Boston Globe 
Who is George Soros and what is he doing here in Massachusetts?Soros is the world-renowned currency speculator - I think currency ''trader'' is the term he would prefer - who has bet and won stacks of cash in the international money markets. Starting in the late 1980s, the Hungarian-born businessman channeled tens of millions of dollars into post-Cold War Eastern Europe. His aims were generally laudable. His nonprofit organizations, the Soros Foundation and the Open Society Institute, funded ''democracy-strengthening'' initiatives aimed at creating civil societies where only totalitarian dictatorships had existed before. Soros garnered well-deserved praise for trying to fix Eastern Europe's broken societies. (His sallies into big-think journalism, including his since-retracted prediction of the ''disintegration of the global capitalist system'' are another matter.) But when he uses his wealth to fix our broken society ... the reaction is quite different indeed. About three years ago, Soros started financing various reform efforts in the United States. He funded one of the first lawsuits against a handgun manufacturer, and he has invested in welfare and immigration reform schemes. But his most controversial cause has been his war against the war on drugs: he has underwritten needle exhange programs for addicts, and has helped pay for ballot initiatives for the decriminalization of marijuana for medical use in over a dozen states. Each year he devotes about $1 million of his personal funds to these electoral efforts, and he has already spent almost $300,000 here backing Question 8 on next week's Massachusetts ballot. Question 8 calls for the creation of a Drug Treatment Trust Fund, with the money to be directed to chronically underfunded drug rehabilitation programs. Likewise, assets seized from drug dealers would flow into the trust fund, rather than into the district attorneys' coffers. Not surprisingly, all 11 Massachusetts district attorneys oppose it. In Massachusetts, as elsewhere, Soros works in concert with two other large donors: businessmen Peter Lewis and John Sperling, each of whom has used marijuana medically. Sperling had prostate cancer, and Lewis has used marijuana for circulatory problems. Soros' own motives are more opaque. His drug-policy adviser, Ethan Nadelmann, told me that Soros equates the American government's abuse of power in the drug war with the Fascist regimes in Hungary and Nazi Germany. That's a stretch. Soros may be on the side of the angels, and I intend to vote ''yes'' on Question 8. (As do 69 per cent of the state's voters recently polled by KRC Communications Research, the Globe's polling firm.) However, this isn't Eastern Europe, and his charity has been received much more coolly here. His claim to ''have tried marijuana and enjoyed it'' has exposed him to the charge that his ultimate aim is to decriminalize pot and other drugs. Indeed, former Health, Education and Welfare secretary Joseph Califano has branded him ''the Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization.'' The Massachusetts District Attorneys Association couldn't agree more. ''If you put a microphone up to George Soros and asked him if he supports drug decriminalization, he would say no,'' says Geline Williams, executive director of the MDDA. ''But if you look at the fine text of what he's putting forward, that's exactly what he accomplishes.'' Her point is that, under Soros' proposed law, drug dealers can pass themselves off as addicts, enter treatment programs, and avoid criminal prosecution. ''My hat's off to the guy,'' Williams says. ''The public doesn't know that he and two of his billionaire philosophical allies are purchasing a law here in Massachusetts.'' The Final Word: A sharp-eyed Globe reader spotted the following death notice in Monday's newspaper: ''HALLOWELL - Mary Francis (McKey) on October 28, 2000 ... A Memorial Service at the Agawam Hunt Club, 15 Roger Williams Ave., Rumford RI at 4:00 PM on Sunday, November 5, 2000. In lieu of flowers, please vote for Al Gore.'' Alex Beam's e-mail is: beam@globe.com Source: Boston Globe (MA) Related Articles & Web Site: The Soros Foundations Network Don't Let This Deal Go Down . . . Question 8 Addresses Root Causes of Drug Abuse Chief Urges No on Eight Endorsement: Question 8 Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #7 posted by sudaca on November 02, 2000 at 16:07:32 PT |
| Comment #6 posted by observer on November 02, 2000 at 14:31:58 PT |
No, it not a great stretch at all (despite the fact that prohibitionists have a vested interest in dismissing the comparisons).
For a detailed, point-by-point comparison of the destruction of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany and the persecution of drug users in contemporary America, historian Richard Miller's book is highly recommended.
The law identifies drug users through their blood. Also through their excreta... All that matters is a person's blood and excreta. All that matters is the makeup of a person's physical body. Drug law does not care if an illicit user is a beloved schoolteacher who improves a community or a vicious psychopath who tortures victims to death. Criminality is determined solely by the offender's physical body. Drug law mimics Hitler. "Unlike other anti-Semites, Hitler made no distinction between German and foreign, rich and poor, liberal, conservative, socialist, or Zionist, religious or non-religious, baptised or unbaptised Jews. In his eyes there was only 'the Jew.' . . . 'The Jew' represented evil incarnate, performing for Hitler much the same function as the Devil does for many Christians."47The law does not care if tests used to detect illicit drug users fail to demonstrate that users are impaired. The law does not care if users behave in ordinary ways. A statute creating a status crime targets ordinary people. That is its purpose. If illicit drug users acted in ways that distinguished them from nonusers, a status crime statute would be unnecessary.
(Richard L Miller, Drug Warriors and their Prey, 1996, pg.9)
. . .Degradation of victims goes beyond physical abuse of property and persons. "At two o’clock Tuesday morning, March 7, I was awakened and faced by two men with pistols, who had come into the house.... These two men were accompanied by two others in civilian clothes.... My wife asked them to turn about while she dressed, but they refused. She was compelled to remove her night gown at the point of a revolver and stand naked before the intruders. When she protested they said, ‘Don’t be theatrical’."82 In another nighttime raid, police rousted a couple from their residence. The woman was clad only in a tee shirt. She obviously had no weapon and could have been placed in a police vehicle if authorities were concerned about an escape attempt. Instead they kept her outdoors and repeatedly ordered her to raise her arms over her head, thereby exposing her buttocks and pubic area to onlookers.83 One of these raids occurred in the 1930s during the war on Jews. The other occurred in the 1980s during the war on drug users. Similarities in technique were due to similarities in purpose: not merely enforcing the law, but attacking the psyches of targeted victims.
(Drug Warriors and their Prey, pg.49)
|
Comment #5 posted by Dave on November 02, 2000 at 14:11:10 PT:
|
| Comment #4 posted by RAS JAMES on November 02, 2000 at 13:31:09 PT |
|
Comment #3 posted by gene on November 02, 2000 at 13:10:47 PT:
|
| Comment #2 posted by dddd on November 02, 2000 at 12:11:29 PT |
For one thing,what about ballot issues that are funded by insurance,and health care..etc,interests?Their pockets are far deeper than Soros,and his friends.
And furthermore,,on the subject of buying laws,Mr. Soros efforts are dwarfed by the federal governments big league swap meet of law peddling.If you compare the two,Capitol hill is like a mall,and Soros is a lemonade stand.
I doubt Soros would have much luck trying to lobby lawmakers to stop the drug war machine.
These guys who put their funds,and effort behind reforming drug laws,are true patriots.They dont stand to gain much from their investment,(although I have wondered if perhaps they had interests in treatment program companies).
I thank these guys for standing up for sanity,and supplying the massive amounts of money to do it.
If someone is seriously convinced that this is simply "purchasing laws",,then they are admitting that most votes are basically purchased,and that the voters are gullible simpletons,or victims of brainwashing.
What about the grandaddy of money influenced fiascos?,,Gush and Bore.We're talking about some real world class money there...What's the difference between buying your way into the oval office for millions,or funding a reform measure.
.....dddd
|
Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on November 02, 2000 at 11:49:52 PT:
|
I am afraid that it is not a stretch when civil liberties are denied and erode daily in pursuit of a goal that is unattainable: elimination of illegal drug use. It is only when this issue is rendered medical once again, and not a punitive legal affair (exception: crime with secondary victims)that progress will occur.
| Post Comment |  |
|  |