Congress Recommends $145 Million For Drug Office

Congress Recommends $145 Million For Drug Office
Posted by CN Staff on November 13, 2003 at 13:32:22 PT
By Ira Teinowitz 
Washington -- The White House youth anti-drug ad campaign apparently won't have have to be scaled back as much as first feared. A House-Senate conference committee last night recommended a $145 million appropriation for the campaign, a figure far closer to the House's $150 million figure than the Senate's $100 million. President Bush had requested $170 million for the campaign, after receiving $150 million last year.
Higher budgets in past In past years, the campaign's budget has been between $175 million and $180 million. Not all the money appropriated has been spent on advertising, as the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy used some of it to fund studies of the advertising's effectiveness and public relations activities to support the ad campaign. In turn, spending on non-media activities has drawn congressional scrutiny. The conference committee required 78% of the new money go toward actual media buying. WPP Group's Ogilvy & Mather, New York, handles the campaign, while the Partnership for a Drug-Free America produces most of the advertising.  Pending legislation Ogilvy's future on the account, meanwhile, has yet to be determined. A draft of legislation reauthorizing the ad campaign being drawn by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would require the contract be re-bid, with Ogilvy -- which settled charges for $1.8 million that it overbilled the government -- excluded. That legislation, however, had yet to be introduced as of this morning and action on it won't take place until next year. While the idea of the ad campaign has some strong congressional backing, some legislators have questioned the campaign's effectiveness, as have some groups backing legalized marijuana use. "We continue to believe that the appropriate funding level is zero, as this program is a proven failure according to the surveys designated by Congress as measures of ONDCP's success," Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, said today.  Final vote uncertain Despite the conference committee's approval of the drug office spending as part of a transportation and postal appropriations bill, there was some confusion today on whether the overall measure would proceed to a final vote next week. Congress is going in two directions to fund the government, moving ahead on individual appropriations bills for the fiscal year that started Oct. 1 -- like the one containing the drug office money -- while also preparing a catchall bill to temporarily authorize continued spending at last year's levels if agreement can't be reached on individual bills. Note: Budget Cut Less Than Expected; Ogilvy's Fate Uncertain.Source: Author: Ira Teinowitz Published: November 13, 2003Copyright: 2003 Crain Communications Inc. Contact: editor adage.comWebsite: Articles:Senators Join Critics Of ONDCP Program Faces Anti-Drug Challenge in Senate Gets Sarcastic In Latest Anti-Pot Spot 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #27 posted by Jose Melendez on November 15, 2003 at 10:46:58 PT
It's fraud, stop funding it!
from: "At best, the program is not effective.  At worst, it promotes drug use," he said.  "If we finance the program, we're doing a disservice to our kids." Kane County (Illinois) board member John Noverini on Wednesday, declining Sheriff Ken Ramsey's request for $15,000 for the DARE program. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by ekim on November 14, 2003 at 11:38:12 PT
good work Jose
ok Col. so how many arrests did your officers make last year for cannabis.
(The war on drugs, in any event, is not as high a priority for the police these days, McCartney added. Increasing attention is focused, he said, on such issues as guarding against terrorism and improving race relations.)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by FoM on November 14, 2003 at 09:44:25 PT
Here's Our Copy If Anyone Wants To Comment
Jose, peace to you too!Chrétien Leaves at Ease Even if Bush Is Displeased:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Jose Melendez on November 14, 2003 at 09:38:07 PT
We have worse enemies than ourselves.
Peace to all.from: "I don't think a kid of 17 years old who has a joint should have a criminal record,"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by TecHnoCult on November 14, 2003 at 09:19:19 PT
FOM and Jose
My impression from Jose is that he is pointing out the hypocresy in the system, not attacking tobacco. It seems that only tobacco companies are being attacked. These companies are the ones that support the hypocritical policy. I have no sypmathy for them.To set the record straight, if the shoe were on the other foot, and Big Cannibis were the crooks that Big Tobacco is, and tobacco were illegal, I would still be against prohibition and against crooked corporations. I would still think every American has the right to choose to smoke whatever they like, regardless of what I think about the companies that sell the product.In fact, I love a lot of products that some crooked companies make.THC
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by FoM on November 14, 2003 at 08:48:16 PT
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Jose Melendez on November 14, 2003 at 08:46:02 PT
Got it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by FoM on November 14, 2003 at 08:37:52 PT
By talking about tobacco instead of directing arguments about prohibition to John Walters it seems like you are attacking tobacco.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Jose Melendez on November 14, 2003 at 08:36:53 PT
Cop: Legalize! drug war is lost, says ex-trooper, so he backs legalization and taxation Jack A. Cole, who heads a speakers bureau of police, prosecutors and judges who favor decriminalizing drugs, talks to the Warwick Rotary Club. 01:00 AM EST on Friday, November 14, 2003 WARWICK -- After devoting much of his adult life to fighting the war on drugs, retired detective Jack A. Cole says the one thing he knows for sure is that the war has made America's drug problem worse.In the last three decades, the police have spent half a trillion dollars to arrest and jail mainly nonviolent drug users, he said. Despite that, drugs have never been cheaper, more potent or more available, and are financing a host of criminal and terrorist organizations."Not only is [the war on drugs] a failed policy, it's a destructive policy," he said yesterday, after urging members of the Warwick Rotary Club to support efforts to legalize drugs, then regulate and tax them in the same manner as cigarettes and alcohol.Cole, a former New Jersey state trooper who worked undercover narcotics investigations for 12 years, heads a speakers bureau of police, prosecutors and judges who favor decriminalizing drugs."Eighty-seven million people in the United States above the age of 12 have used illegal drugs. That's why I say this is not a war on drugs, it's a war on people," Cole said.One Rotarian in the audience, Col. Stephen McCartney, chief of police in Warwick, said later, "I agree that the policy is still not working, no question, but I'm not convinced that legalizing drugs is the answer."(The war on drugs, in any event, is not as high a priority for the police these days, McCartney added. Increasing attention is focused, he said, on such issues as guarding against terrorism and improving race relations.)In the early days of the war on drugs, which began under the Nixon administration, seizing a few pounds of heroin or cocaine was a major haul for police, Cole said. Now it's not uncommon for police to seize tons at a time.Heroin sold on the street today is about 38 percent pure, up from about 1.5 percent when the war on drugs began, Cole said."We're being totally inundated with high-grade, hard drugs in this country," he said, and minors can buy them more readily than beer or cigarettes.The conventional answer: hire more police, make more arrests, impose mandatory sentences, build more prisons. "I was one of the people saying exactly that," Cole said, "but we've been doing it for 33 years and it hasn't solved the problem."A Massachusetts resident, Cole is executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (, a nonprofit agency that arranges speeches by 36 current and former police officers, prosecutors and judges who seek to build public support for decriminalizing(snipped)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by goneposthole on November 14, 2003 at 08:32:07 PT
Here's how the money could be spent
180 million divided by 4 thousand equals 45 thousand. The ONDCP would be able to purchase 45 thousand pounds of cannabis.A distribution point could be set up at the Washington Monument for a free for all. People might as well get there money's worth. Trade in a couple of packs of cigarettes for a few joints, even (with a Snagglepuss tonal inflection).I don't think there would be many complaints. I will remind you all that in Washington, DC on the Mall in 1972 on the Fourth of July, marijuana was being freely distributed by a legalization advocacy group. "Free marijuana, free marijuana. Anybody who wants to try some, come on over here to our tent." Those are the words I recollect that were stated at that time. C'mon American government, wake up to reality. This prohibition stuff is getting old and in the way. Have a good weekend. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on November 14, 2003 at 08:30:31 PT
exhaled . . .
I get you FoM, I'm not trying to prohibit anything but marijuana prohibition.Smokers vote. Writers read here. Cops join LEAP from here. I noticed that the very arguments used to maintain the status quo on cannabis are ignored when it comes to the products whose manufacturers fund our lawmakers.I do not see how that is condescending when John Walters goes on C-SPAN and claims:No civilized society is going to for any period of time remain that, if it allows the poisoning of it's children, and the selling of slavery, to it's, to, to young adults. Um, that's what the drug business depends on uh it's not the only but i u the problem of public health in society caused by substances, we know alcohol and cigarettes do as well, but there a hu- over a hundred and ten million drinkers once a month or more frequently.There are 40 to 50 million smokers. There are only 19 million drug users who use drugs once month or more frequently and 7 million of those we need to treat. Um, again, for people who think well, kind of, the what doesn't pro, isn't prohibition a failure, I would say those numbers show that we've contained some of the most dangerous addictive substances they're still too big, for our, my office is eh charged to help, uh make that problem smaller by the 'Merican people by the President, but um, what kind of country would it be if you had 50 million or 100 million drug users?OK, now, do the math, and answer these questions: What percentage of cigarette smokers currently favors legalizing cannabis use?If we change that, by pointing out to drinkers and smokers alike that they might be next targeted for fleecing of their rights, sunreasonable searches and seizures of their effects and papers, loss of privacy, dignity and freedom, if Walter's has his way as he has publicly, uh, uh, uh , s- stated, but refuses to debate! The man goes on tours, speaking with righteous and religious teetotaling fervor to thousands of incarceration professionals, whose very paychecks, pensions and perks depend on blindly following this dangerous fidgety liar into pointing our resources and their guns at US.How many would support prohibition?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by FoM on November 14, 2003 at 08:07:34 PT
I could write why I think alcohol is bad but I won't because I believe some people here on CNews drink alcohol and that would be condescending of me. Does that make sense?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on November 14, 2003 at 08:05:00 PT
Thanks Jose and Treeanna
I know that cigarrettes are harmful. Everyone is well aware of that these days but it is legal not illegal and we are trying to change laws that are making substances illegal that shouldn't be. That's why talking about tobacco bothers me. It doesn't make sense. We are fighting prohibition here on CNews.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Jose Melendez on November 14, 2003 at 08:03:48 PT
The comma following the word toluene incorrectly gives the impression that I believe that those harmful substances are 'needed' to self titrate nicotine.Regardless, filtered cigarettes DO increase the proportions of carbon monoxide, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and toluene needed to self titrate levels of the drug nicotine. murders who fund our lawmakers also played games with vents, in order to fool the machines designed to test levels of tars, etc.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by Jose Melendez on November 14, 2003 at 07:52:34 PT
Top ten: why cigarettes?
1. Hikes in cigarette prices have been shown to fund terrorist groups, including Hamas.2. The drug czar opposes legalizing marijuana on the grounds it is dangerous and addictive, yet no one needed to be arrested to reduce smoking rates.3. Prohibitionists are heavily funded by cigarette manufacturers, their subsidiaries, or companies they formerly owned and controlled.4. In Florida, anti-smoking ads were cut in half after youth smoking rates dropped so far that they endangered state revenues.Outraged? Tell Jim McDonough what you think of that here: Cigarette filters are a fraud, sold to give the impression they are healthier to use than straight tobacco.In fact, filtered cigarettes increase the proportions of carbon monoxide, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene and toluene, needed to self titrate levels of the drug nicotine. These are the very substances prohibitionists claim are four to five times stronger in pot. For this reason alone, cigarette sales and related deaths increase, since more smoking is required to consume the active ingredient.6. Of course, those against pot refuse to acknowledge that (especially 'today's stronger') ganja reduces the proportions of those chemicals per puff, that means less smoking needed to achieve desired levels, that hashish has always been stronger than the strongest bud, and that the average cigarette smoker consumes 20 to 30 cigarettes daily, or at least 4 times more than almost every joint smoker in the world. 7. Our opponents consistently complain that they don't want to legalize poison and slavery to our kids, yet refuse to acknowledge that nicotine is such an addictive poison that millions die while still using, every year. Also, you almost never hear from prohibitionists the fact that the active ingredient, THC, is technically a food, is non-toxic and has antimicrobial, neuroprotective, anti-carcinogen, and pain relieving properties. They admit laughter is the best medicine, unless the laughter is precipitated by cannabis use.8. They consistently point to far more dangerous (yet FDA approved!) chemicals that cause liver damage as more acceptable than marijuana, which most people eventually quit using without any permanent damage.9. In 1996, cigarette manufacturing executives perjured themselves before Congress about the addictive nature of their drugs and delivery devices.Their attorney's name is Ken Starr, who famously spent dozens of millions of tax dollars trying to impeach a sitting president for perjury, who had threatened to take on Big Tobacco.10. Smokers vote.If cigarettes are getting too expensive, try rolling your own, get a one-hitter or a vaporizer.Better yet, every time you crave a cigarette, roll and smoke a joint. I guarantee if you ALWAYS follow that pattern you will forget about cigarettes.Internal documents from cigarette companie can be read on:http://www.ash.orgThere you will find written proof that cigarette manufacturers perjured themselves, knew that filters were more harmful but increased sales, spiked the tobacco with ammonia to adjust the Ph levels, allowing less nicotine to be absorbed more rapidly, increasing profits by encouraging a reward system that exceeds the addictive nature of crack, or heroin. There are examples of fiberglass filters marketed as safer when they knew the opposite to be true, of plans to market specifically to children and minorities, and much, much more.Got Polonium 210? opiniion: crooked politicians write laws funded by murderers, exempting themselves and their benefactors in the process, at the expense of the citizenry, then dare to wage war on us. That's why I call it treason:"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."Reagan is said to have written a promise to protect cigarette firms, C. Everett Koop's efforts against Big Tobacco were rebuffed, David Kessler's FDA was forced to avoid and ultimately the well lobbied agency evaded challenging the cigarette manufacturing industry, which controls or controlled foods that contain partially hydrogenated oils, sugar, and fat, contributing to more addictive behaviors and leading to ill health, nationwide. A side benefit to the profit margins of these huge conglomerates is the increased requirement for supplemental foods, vitamins and pharmaceuticals, fewer of which would be needed if whole foods like cannabis were not suppressed by murderers in suits, who fund politicians pretending to be tough on drugs.So, because poison is legal, pot is not.Since smokers will not let their lawmakers criminalize tobacco, it stands to reason that encouraging them to stand up for our rights will help.Now, the cigarette companies have almost successfully and publicly lobbied the FDA for approval.So what does everyone here think?QUESTION:Should Newports Marlboros etc, that are PROVEN TO KILL MILLIONS EVERY YEAR be allowed as medical products PRIOR to generic and home-grown legal cannabis?Pleaser understand, I'm not asking if smokers should be arrested, or tobacco criminalized. In fact, I think that the delivery devices and contaminants that permitted as additives for "flavor" to help you "relax" and "enjoy" do far more harm than the strong tobacco used in shamanic or intoxication rituals.But will we allow the public to be lobbied into accepting cigarettes under FDA rules while remaining silent about the oppressed class of marijuana people who are unconstitutionally forced to seek their happiness under threat of arrest and imprisonment ?Just say no.See also:'The oppressed marijuana people.'
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Treeanna on November 14, 2003 at 07:16:57 PT
Tobacco is a drug is why
It makes total sense to link cannabis prohibition to the hipocritic legality of tobacco products. One of the main arguments of the antis is that mj is "dangerous" after all.While I do not think tobacco products should be prohibited (in spite of the fact that they have killed MILLIONS at tremendous cost to taxpayers/society), the growing and sale of tobacco should certainly not be subsidized by any civilized government.Seeds are readily available over the web, as is the information on proper curing, etc, FoM. There is no reason for you to be trapped with high prices if you are a consumer of these products :)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 14, 2003 at 05:52:46 PT:
Saw Frontline Last Night
As I watched Frontline last night I was appalled at the hundreds of deaths caused by drugs that the FDA had approved. And to think the government tells us that drugs bought from Canada and Mexico are dangerous. All of congress is complicit in the FDA policies and each member of congress shoudl be voted out of office in every election.Next week's Frontline report will be about Senior Citizen's who are forced to travel to Canada to buy their life saving drugs at a cheaper price. I'll be watching.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Virgil on November 13, 2003 at 19:52:03 PT
Dangerous Prescription on PBS slamming FDA
The description I copied from in comment5 is not what is on Frontline tonight. This episode called "Dangerous Prescriptions" and is absolutely slamming the FDA as the agent of the pill companies we already know they are.The preview can be seen by finding this on the right side of this page-  
Dangerous Prescription 
60 mins.  “Dangerous Prescription” explores side effects from what producer Andy Liebman calls “major inadequacies” in the FDA's oversight of drugs before and after they appear on the market. The hour uses diet drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs and a medication for rheumatoid arthritis as case studies. It follows the FDA's approval process and finds, says Liebman, that “many fewer people than most of would imagine” are tested before approval is granted. And drugs that are approved are monitored in “a voluntary system that's very haphazard.” Overall, Liebman concludes: “Our watchdog agency isn't doing much watching,” and what watching it does “is going to waste.”Category: News, DocumentaryRelease Year: 2003 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Virgil on November 13, 2003 at 16:48:33 PT
Patriot Act used to bust Strip Club 
This article says the Patriot Act was not about terrorism but to fight any crime-,0,3038992.story
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 13, 2003 at 16:39:18 PT
Can you tell me why you are interested in tobacco issues? I really don't understand. I hope the prices don't go any higher because it has become a terrible financial burden to smokers. It's really hard for many people to afford cigarettes and I am worried that the prices will keep going up. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on November 13, 2003 at 16:23:49 PT
link to drug article
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on November 13, 2003 at 16:22:15 PT
poison is legal, just not pot
from: . . . Philip Morris called the buyout a "bailout," and said it should be approved only if coupled with giving the FDA authority over cigarettes _ a measure it says would shore up public confidence in the industry and provide guidance on marketing new tobacco products.(snip)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Virgil on November 13, 2003 at 16:05:05 PT
PBS Frontline- The Other Drug War
10:00 PM  Channel 30 WNSC  Thursday, 13  
Frontline - The Other Drug War - 60 mins.  A report on prescription-drug pricing focuses on complaints from consumers about high prices and state-government efforts in Maine and Oregon to control drug costs. The hour also includes comments from Eli Lilly and Merck executives, who describe what they say is the necessity to recoup the costs involved in drug research, and from drug-industry critics, who decry what one calls the industry's “staggering” profits. Summing up the dilemma: indpendent analyst Richard Evans. “As a soceity we've got two important questions here,” Evans says. “One is how do we make sure that everyone has access to existing technology, and how do we make sure that we do that in such a way that we don't wreck our access to better technology tomorrow.”Category: News, DocumentaryRelease Year: 2003 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 13, 2003 at 15:23:03 PT
Related Article from
Congress Prepares to Trim ONDCP Media Budget November 13, 2003 By Wendy Melillo 
Ogilvy's ONDCP ads have made an emotional appeal. 
 WASHINGTON, D.C. Congress is expected to give the White House's anti-drug media campaign $145 million in funding next year, a figure that would mark the lowest budget level since the program launched in 1998, sources said.The House of Representatives had proposed maintaining the current budget level of $150 million, while the Senate wanted to approve $100 million. While many campaign insiders predicted next year's budget would remain at $150 million, sources said the Senate pushed for the lower figure in order to show its displeasure with some aspects of the campaign. (President Bush had requested $170 million in funding.)"The Senate insisted on the lower figure as a symbolic gesture," according to one source.The $145 million figure was worked out in a conference committee meeting, and the final report will be filed Friday, sources said.Senate unhappiness with the effort is reflected in the draft of a reauthorization bill that would bar Ogilvy & Mather from the campaign, give the Partnership for a Drug-Free America equal control over strategy, and require that 85 percent of the campaign's budget be spent on media buys [Adweek Online, Nov. 5]."We are happy to see that the final mark came out at the higher end of the spectrum," said Stephen Dnistrian, a Partnership representative.ONDCP rep Tom Riley echoed the Partnership's sentiment. "That is much closer to the high figure than the low figure," Riley said. "They didn't split down the middle. They went with the higher number and we think that reflects the Congressional enthusiasm for the direction that Director [John] Walters has been taking with the campaign."Riley also noted that some of the latest surveys about the campaign's effectiveness show that the messages have been reaching teens.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on November 13, 2003 at 15:22:23 PT:
Syncopated to the sound of flushing toilets
There's goes money that could have fed hungry kids...but will instead feed corpulent ad execs. Disgusting.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Virgil on November 13, 2003 at 14:55:57 PT
There's the proof. The country is not broke.
If the country were broke would our representatives invest $145 million this next year in this advertising? 20 times $50,000 is a million. That would only be 2900 teachers to learn the new party line for indroctrination into the New World Odor. Well, it is nice to know the country is not broke and some would be glad to know the conservative doctrines are not running the country despite what the Nazi media says.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by mayan on November 13, 2003 at 14:46:48 PT
Proven Failure
"We continue to believe that the appropriate funding level is zero, as this program is a proven failure according to the surveys designated by Congress as measures of ONDCP's success," Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, said today.Well put. And why don't the dolts in congress spend their own money on this counter-productive crap? I'm sick and tired of them spending mine!!! They give themselves pay raises every chance they get so I'm sure they can afford it!The way out is the way in...9/11 Victims' Relatives Criticize Deal: Scrambling - A Clear Case of 9/11 Double Standards:, lies, and the legend of 9/11(Part. 3) Transcripts and Police Reports: CitizensWatch: Prior Knowledge/Government Involvement Archive:
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment