The Reality Behind the Movie Traffic: Part Five

  The Reality Behind the Movie Traffic: Part Five

Posted by FoM on March 23, 2001 at 12:05:59 PT
Coming Up On Nightline By Leroy Sievers  
Source: ABCNews 

Tonight we have the final part of our "Traffic" series. Would there be a drug war, with all of the corruption and violence and pain, if there wasn't any demand? If there weren't customers here in the U.S. who wanted to buy drugs?  The Chapare Valley, Bolivia, 1990. We were screaming down a jungle river in two choppers, just a few feet above the water. This was the front line of the drug war as it was then being fought. 
DEA agents and their Bolivian counterparts on a mission to find and destroy cocaine labs and jungle airstrips. And it looked like a war. Everyone was in camouflage and carrying arms. The door guns on the choppers were manned. One thing I remember is that the Bolivian pilots weren't told exactly where we were going until we were airborne, for fear that they might be working for the cartels. And DEA agents monitored the radios to make sure no warnings were transmitted.And this drug war failed. Whether you agreed with it or not, you cannot question the courage of the men and women involved. They put their lives on the line. But in spite of all the coke seized, the airstrips destroyed, the labs seized, the cocaine and other drugs kept flowing. Back then, the Colombian cartels were king. Things have changed, and we've been focusing this week on the Mexican cartels. The names may have changed, but that's about it. So why is there still a drug war? What we heard from everyone we spoke to in Mexico was "American demand." If there weren't customers, they say, none of this would be happening.Tonight, we'll hear from those customers. The bulk of the show will be devoted to the three kids that you have met earlier this week. They will talk about their drug use and the price they have paid, and perhaps most importantly, they will talk about their parents and what they could, and could not have done to change their behavior. We think that what these kids have to say is pretty powerful. This will be the final broadcast in our series. We hope that you've enjoyed all of them. Leroy Sievers is executive producer of Nightline. Source: ABC NewsAuthor: Leroy Sievers, Executive Producer NightlinePublished: Monday, March 23, 2001 Copyright: 2001 ABC News Internet VenturesWebsite: Official Web Site Reality Behind the Movie Traffic: Part Four Reality Behind the Movie Traffic: Part Three Reality Behind the Movie Traffic: Part Two Reality Behind The Movie Traffic: Part One 

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #26 posted by Proud Canadian on March 28, 2001 at 14:42:15 PT:
I'm just glad to say that I live in Canada, where these types of archaic laws concerning marijuana use are being questioned and changed.It is estimated that decriminalisation laws will be passed within the next 24 months. Canada has caught up with the times, but I feel that America never will.My friends and myself have been caught on several occasions with small ammounts of marijuana, and have never been arrested or fined. Our police agencies have even spoken out against the prohibition laws. As well, our judicial system has changed, allowing for shorter jail sentences and alternative punishment measures. (including house arrest, and probation)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Lehder on March 24, 2001 at 13:26:03 PT
tv land
>>I don't understand...I thought America was the Land of Freedom & Equality. It was designed that way jAHn but the founders did not anticipate television and it's power for those who control it to effectively disenfranchise people by coaxing them into ignorance. Can you imagine William "cut their heads off" Bennett participating with Jefferson, Madison, Adams in founding the country?Similarly, the drug warriors who have enslaved the population and the economy with their incessant military-jesus-antidrug crap did not anticipate the internet.A lot of people have been making much of "Traffic", and maybe they're right to think the movie is a great help to our cause. If so, i'm a little miffed this movie wasn't produced years ago, especially considering how popular drugs have been in hollywood. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by jAHn on March 24, 2001 at 12:25:50 PT
I want to understand:
 How a country, with leaders who embirthed offspring that have decided to use some of the "Illicit Substances" on the "Controlled, Dangerous Substance List" of the U.S.A., can wage a war with countries whose economic dependancy relies on the ritualistic uses of some of these VERY substances that The Presidents' kids use??? I don't understand...I thought America was the Land of Freedom & Equality. Shouldn't it be time to Practice what they Preach???This has been going on for years!!! Just HOW can this be justified???
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on March 24, 2001 at 11:52:58 PT
  I just saw Don Vereen on C-Span, one of the head honchos of the ONDCP, the kind of person of whom Richard Cowen says there's no lie he won't tell. Well, the good news was, being on C-Span, it was a call-in show, and 90% of the callers sounded a lot like us here on the net. They were well informed, made concise points, and asked very pointed questions about the hypocrisy of the drug war. Of course, Mr. Vereen was able to answer all the questions easily through the use of the Party Line... but I think most people could see through it. They played one of these new (amazingly offensive) anti-Ecstacy radio ads, and the ad admitted that you'd never know whether you're getting X or some other substance on the black market. The only thing that didn't get asked of him was the obvious issue brought up by that claim. When's the last time someone went blind drinking a bad bottle of gin?  This show will be repeated throughout the day, check C-Span's schedule. Also, I've heard C-Span will be airing part or all of the National NORML conference on the 4/20 weekend...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by dddd on March 24, 2001 at 07:55:12 PT
I like the hopeful outlook that you put forth Professor Nemo.We need all thehope we can get. I must somewhat reluctantly attempt to suggest an alteration in your outlook,concerningthe following item; " But the very fact that despite all it's flaws, the Koppel program was aired at all is testimony that the word is finally getting out. And proof, that despite anti foot-dragging and laying down smoke-screens in the media, we are winning." It's not my intention to pick apart your excellent commentary,but I want to make sure thatyou are aware that the Koppel program being aired,was not anything like you seem to suggest.What I mean,is that this Nightline series,and a number of all the other such "reports",go waybeyond the "smoke-screen"category.They are carefully designed and crafted counterstrikesto cultivate support for the anti agenda. The fact that they aired the program at all does seem encouraging upon the surface,but it ismy belief that these things have an extremely sophisticated subliminal design that seeks toencourage those of us who are anti-anti,but at the same time,make Ma and Pa Public convincedthat the drug war is necessary to fight the assumed "evil",of"drugs".Please dont let my mild critique dampen your excellent spirit.I think you are the best!Respectfully submitted...............dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by kaptinemo on March 24, 2001 at 07:08:09 PT:
Friends, don't sweat it.
Ever heard of 'bracketting'? You fire a round, and it's too high. You drop the elevation and fire another; it's too short. But you have an idea of the range now; adjust your fire to hit between the previous marks, and you'll almost certainly hit the target.Especially if it is literally a 'sitting duck' are the antis.That's what we're seeing with the media, right now. They are missing the target, but they will adjust their 'fire' and eventually hit it. Which is the anti camp, itself. You might have noticed that my opinions haven't been seen here regarding these programs. Simply because I haven't seen them.Not having seen them, I'm not qualified to be critical of them. But judging from your reactions, it's just as well that I didn't bother. Gauging from the comments I've read here, after watching the programs some of you must have needed the vasodilating properties of Lady Cannabia to get your blood pressure down to acceptable levels.So, I'll leave you with this to think about: the media has almost always been the lapdogs of those in power. Partly because of the associations that the top media executives have; the Council on Foreign Relations, for example. With the top CEO's of the Big 4 as members of the CFR, do you honestly expect any truly hard-hitting reporting to happen?But as recent polls show, people are showing less and less tolerance for the DrugWar. So we are bound to see half-assed attempts by those in power to assuage the public's growing resentment against policies which waste hundreds of billions of dollars - and kill little children like Alberto Sepulveda - without anything to show for it.(If Koppel and company had really wanted to stir the sh*tpot, they could have interviewed the widow of Ismael Mena, the friends of Pedro Oregon, Donald Scott and Patrick Dorismond, the mothers and fathers of Esequiel Hernandez and Alberto Sepulveda, and ask them if the DrugWar which was supposed to preserve their lives against drugs was worth taking their lives.) Half-assed attempts...and many of the public sees them for what they are. We aren't the only ones grumbling. And more of that grumbling will become evident as time goes by. PBS and the History Channel cater largely to the (let's face it) highbrow end of the spectrum; Koppel and Company represent the Joe Sixpack end. But the very fact that despite all it's flaws, the Koppel program was aired at all is testimony that the word is finally getting out. And proof, that despite anti foot-dragging and laying down smoke-screens in the media, we are winning.So, the media will be forced through rising public pressure, to get closer to hitting the target. They'll shoot too high or too low, sometimes deliberately. But sooner or later, the telling round will hit. And when that happens on Prime Time national TV, like when Walter Cronkite said flat out that we had lost VietNam, then the game will finally be over.Hang in there, freinds; we're closer now that we've been in 20 years.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by dddd on March 24, 2001 at 05:31:17 PT
nationwide protest
J.R. brings up the great idea of a nationwide,sort of "civil disobedience" protest.People nationwide publicly lighting up at a predetermined time,,,,kida like a weirdform of Boston Tea Party.The hardest part would be organizing the maneuver,and getting the message out toeverybody nationwide,so even the closet smokers would show up....Everyone would have to hope that everyone else would show up though.If I was the only one there,itwould detract from the impact...It's a great idea though,,,"THE GREAT AMERICAN SMOKE-IN".dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on March 24, 2001 at 05:00:52 PT
Bad Drug Laws Kill People
  Those three kids really got to me. I agree with other posters, they're hardly a good cross-section of the American drug-using public. Why didn't they mention Peter McWilliams? Or Todd McCormick, who's still stuck on Terminal Island?   And that argument that we must reduce demand for the drug war to be over... is extremely silly and unrealistic. Did we end alcohol prohibition because the nation stopped demanding alcohol?   And that question at the end... "What could your parents have done to stop you?" I'll give an answer. They could have worked with other parents around the country and gotten some regulations on these substances so their kids wouldn't be the black market. Was Natalie out at the mall selling pints of gin? Was the kid who sold joints in school also dealing in cigarettes? NO - because these substances are regulated, and the profit margin isn't allowed to go wild. Kids can mark up illegal products by 200 and 300%, but if you tried to sell a $5 bottle of booze for $15, even the most desperate teenage alcoholic would see that he's getting ripped off, and would probably look elsewhere.  Speaking of coming out of the grow room... I've often wondered, if every casual cannabis user in the USA were to agree on a pre-set time and date, we should all simultaneously walk into our local police office, pull out a bowl and spark up. What could they do?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by rambler on March 24, 2001 at 04:56:24 PT
Nightline Weekend ABC Special
Dont miss it..Rush Koppel and Ted Limbaugh interview Strom Thurmond on the subject of "Youths,Drugs,and Guns".
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by dddd on March 24, 2001 at 03:45:48 PT
Dont worry about rambling DanB,I could ramble you under the table.Compared tome,you look tacit and succint,and well organized.Nifty,I assume you were referring to a 'coming out of the closet' with the grow room thing.Does this mean you will now use your real name? ......dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Dan B on March 24, 2001 at 03:09:31 PT:
Roger Ebert Kicks Boo-tay!
I too applaud Roger Ebert's strong stand against the drug war. He has become increasingly vocal on this issue in the past several years, perhaps most frequently bringing it up in his reviews of movies that deal with the subject (Grass, Traffic), and I think it's great. Here's a guy who is the exact opposite of every stereotype planted on those who want to end the drug war (he is, after all, a prominent, articulate, relatively wealthy, kind of nerdy, bookish, overweight, middle-aged white man), and it must throw prohibitionists completely off guard to hear him pronounce his disgust with the war on drug users with such fervor. I'm proud to have him on our side.I only saw two episodes of Politically Incorrect this week, but in both shows discussions about ending the war on drugs figured prominently. In both shows, as well, three of the four panelists and almost all of the audience agreed with Bill Maher that we need to stop jailing drug users. And in both shows, the people who disagreed looked like fools. Every poll I have seen in the past several weeks shows that the American public is fed up with the war on drug users. Lately, the numbers for those who agree have increased dramatically. The tide has already turned in the public sector; now, all we have to do is force the pols to follow suit. We've won many battles, and the word is definitely out. But we need to keep pressing forward, telling our family members, co-workers, and friends about the war on drugs. I find that just carrying around a book like Drug Warriors and Their Prey or Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts can often be enough to get a conversation going, and people are generally receptive to hearing the truth on this issue. Letters to editors and politicians are great, but you don't have to be a great letter writer to make a difference in this war. For those who can write, by all means keep it up. For those whose talents lay elsewhere, you can send pre-written letters from the Marijuana Policy Project web site-- --or the NORML web site-- http://www.norml.orgI know, I know . . . when I die, my epitaph will read "Didn't he ramble . . ."Dan B 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by NiftySplifty on March 24, 2001 at 00:25:33 PT
I have responded to the ABC News crap...
...if anyone wants to read it. I derives to an extent from my other posts, with an added pinch of contempt.N...P.S. Roger Ebert kicked some ass tonight on Politically Incorrect.Also, I am thinking about losing the "NiftySplifty" name, and "coming out of the grow-room". 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by MegaStoner on March 24, 2001 at 00:23:33 PT
Politically Incorrect
I say,Roger Ebert for drug czar.He was remarkably outspoken on the topic tonite.Thiswas a pleasant contrast to the distorted,disgusting infomercial that Nightline was.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by dddd on March 23, 2001 at 23:17:54 PT
FoM brings up the kids they have shown on these broadcasts.These"interviews" with these kids are very deceptive,yet extremely effectivein faking out the viewers,and causing viewers to form a sympathetic opinionof the antis agenda.....but the reality of the situation,is that all we have seen,areseveral,preselected,edited soundbites,from .0001 percent of all kids,,yet whenma and pa see the dreadful horror stories told by these kids,they think that thisis what's happening with all kids,and form their opinions accordingly.This News Opera has done a very good job in furthering the antis/law enforcementagenda,and very few people realize that it is all scripted and designed....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by dddd on March 23, 2001 at 23:02:14 PT
I'll be watching
It'll be another half hour before EPISODE 5 hits my time zone.I enjoywatching these type of disgustingly spun "News Operas".That's prettymuch all they are,,is soap operas pesented as investigative reporting.When one starts taking a look at what is known as "news",,,after realizinghow spun,scripted,and devisive it actually is,,,it can become a whole newfun sort of hobby.......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on March 23, 2001 at 22:56:14 PT

My Opinion
I'm sorry but what does adults wanting to smoke cannabis have to do with anything? We must separate marijuana from other drugs. We really must. It's not being fair to this fine medicinal herb. Pot is not the stepping stone drug but alcohol is. Even cigarettes are in my opinion. I respect Ted Koppel because he has treaded in areas that no one else would touch so he helped open the door but we are thru that door and we need to talk about legalizing of at least marijuana because then it will be harder for kids to get. Just like alcohol people don't go out of their way to help kids get alcohol and with stiff penalities, which I'm sure they will have, who would risk doing it, so the kids would slowly not have access. That would be a better way.PS: Not to disrespect the kids on the show but they were from wealthy backgrounds I believe and that isn't accurate, because they aren't in jail like so many others. How many kids get rehab compared to how many serve time?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Imprint on March 23, 2001 at 22:24:29 PT:

Hey NiftySpify yes, last night I wrote Nightline a “your program is full of crap” email and I hope the rest of ya do the same. The media will only react to numbers; so, lets give them some thing to think about. I now lay down a challenge to all the Cannabisnews patrons. Please use the contact link in the article above and tell Nightline what you think. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Dankhank on March 23, 2001 at 22:23:30 PT:

This is the text of my email to ABC:hAs usual you have only part of the story when you only talk to kids ... Here's why ...The kid that said that he did weed or LSD every night won't tell you that after a few nights the LSD won't do anything to him no matter how much he takes ...Neither the weed nor the LSD is addictive ... see Institute of Medicine report about marijuana.They all said that weed was the first stop on the road to addiction ... WRONG ... and here's why ...To ANY child under 18 years of age ALCOHOL and NICOTINE are ILLEGAL drugs. I'm sure each of those kids did one or both of these DRUGS first.If you want to know some truth about drug use I volunteer to talk to you. You should be ashamed that you only talked to children.And yes, the mainstream media is shamefully at fault for not beating a drum about this crazy drug war for the last 80 years ...Please let me know when you would like to interview me and get some truth.Thank You ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by craven on March 23, 2001 at 21:53:55 PT

So we go from 4 shows about the 'drug lords'.. the big guys in other countries.. straight to 1 show with these 3 kids (that of course the producers went to a treatment center to find). In my opinion, these kids (or at least the one on the left [Leon i think.. smaller kid with middle parted hair] and the girl) are full of it.. I hardly think they represent the majority of kids that 'use'.. the other guy was quiet, and didnt have all those stories like 'oh, my best friend was shot in the face' and 'I've been stabbed twice' blah blah blah... but who gets the most tv time? The ones with the sensational stories. If I had to guess I'd say those two, who knew eachother before the rehab, played themselves into a role in order to get noticed. Even if they did all they say happened, they didnt make it very convincing. Their off the cuff sounding stories about the violence in their life sounded just too vague and unconvincing. Sound bytes, instead of a story is maybe what I'm getting at. Almost like they were recanting what they know could happen rather than something that actually happened to them. I'd dare say better than 98% of teens that 'use' aren't going out at 14 years old, stealing from their folks, hanging out in front of malls dealing and getting shot at.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on March 23, 2001 at 21:17:52 PT

I don't even want to start on Nighline so I'll tell you something good. Roger Ebert on PI just said we need to LEGALIZE DRUGS! He said it is the only conclusion. Cool!Drugs: The War To End No Wars Ebert Says Legalize It
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by taster on March 23, 2001 at 20:40:04 PT

little taste
[a little taste of tonight's show]Teen: I had to keep up and go to class everyday.But also, I had to use [drugs]. Otherwise I'd go crazy . . .Another teen:That's how I destroyed lives ... selling drugs. When I first starting smoking weed, when I was twelve years old ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by jAHn on March 23, 2001 at 20:24:26 PT

Hey, Cannaheads!
 Someone said once, that, "Ted Koppel is the most dangerous man in journalism." I've never witnessed him dishing out any disinformation of CIA Dictatorship of America. All that I ever hear this guy do is tout Prohibition. It'd be kewl if we could get the voting records for anyone, ANYONE, who opposes Hemp/Cannabis. We have to organize into a Giant, Unstoppable machine like they've done. I'd love to bear witness to a Program called something like: or something, (Someone should make a site that makes it easy to send facsimiles and e-messages straight from one site, directly to all of the Big Media...kind-of-inspired-in-the-vain-of-Norml's Sites' features!) This kind of tactic is what we, nationally, are going to have to embrace if we're going to continue to bicker with the Prohibitionists...Discreet Smokers have always handled matters in their own serious way, the time is now to organize it...digitally, it's not hard! The Indiscreet will also do what they do to lend a helping hand, just as they've always done.! This entire series has been a complete disappointment, from beginning to end. I said I'd reserve a final judgement until the end, and here it is: Ted Koppel created this piece to garner public support for the destruction of all drug users."Would there be a drug war, with all of the corruptionand violence and pain, if there wasn't any demand?"This statement is like saying, "Don't you think that the cause of all our problems is the drug user?" It is a carefully-designed strategy to lead Americans to believe that, yes--treatment is the first option, but if it doesn't "take," we should either incarcerate all drug users until they do cooperate or eliminate them altogether. This is hate speech, pure and simple. I feel that Dan B has much summed up and touched upon the most important issue to be noted, worth noting. When is it seen as criminal, though?Such crimes have been perpetuated by this Drug Warring. And to think that these Screw-ups just want to pursue Fighting with the same broken down,twisted up, ashened System that's a helluva lot harsher to hit than any Grass that I've ever smoked!!! Prohibition Inhibits ViolencePlease Don't Forget: {People cause crimes for the strangest of reasons. I tend to feel that the blame should be thrown at those who rub their Materialism in the faces of those less fortunate. Sometimes products are sold, and they're Dangerous As ALL hell. Same goes for some drugs...Remember how we, Americans, came to the conclusion that Alcohol is OK to use?}  Well Where is Everybody?Surely, the Drug War Casualties (the DWC's), are greatly overlooked in support of Bad Journalism... We need a Strong-Foundation of Good, Humane journalists. Not a mess of Ted Koppel's who refuse to Condemn John Ashcroft's family. Or report on the Bush documented Cocaine History. Or maybe the amount of racial injustice that's allowed to perpetuate itself state to state!  Instead, we get coverage of Prison-Funded Rodeoes that use Non-Violent criminals for cheap entertainment!! Some wind up with forever debilitating disorders.(real TV) Where is the Humanity??? just WHO are DOctors in support of? How come everyone turns their snotty noses the other way??? Is Coca-Cola Really that good??? That you'll continue to support the War on Some Drugs (why not Alcohol, who's got control here?)even though their cola supports it??? WHat Booby traps!! What Booby Traps!! Boob Traps, (Boob Toob: Coincidence??? I think NOT!!! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by NiftySplifty on March 23, 2001 at 19:00:06 PT

Has anyone here contacted them... let them know they're full of BS?I was just wondering...'cause I know Dan B could dish out an ass-whoopin' if observer hadn't already.I'm not going to bother watching tonight.N...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by observer on March 23, 2001 at 15:23:55 PT

Koppel: Journalists work for US Intel
... Ted Koppel created this piece to garner public support for the destruction of all drug users. "Would there be a drug war, with all of the corruption and violence and pain, if there wasn't any demand?"Yes, Dan, ol' Koppel dosed us with big bumps of "fear! fear!!" propaganda all the way. Now they are playing upon the "Our Children Corrupted" propaganda theme. (theme #5 ; last night's "Fear the Narcos!" was theme#2 ; the "started-on-pot" chant we'll hear more of tonight is theme#4. That the Dutch started cannabis coffee-shop pot decrim. policy for this very reason will not be spoken of!)``The pre-determined conclusion will be: "It is a demand 'problem.' 'We' need both treatment and 'threat' of jail." Cannabis will be lumped in with other "drugs." Though they won't say it, the idea will be to quietly build "consensus" that "drug abusers" (meaning marijuana smokers) need to be "treated." (The law enforcement seizure money and treatment money rests largely on keeping marijuana illegal.) No mention of responsible, adult cannabis use will be allowed; no mention of the fact that Americans were free to grow and use cannabis medicines before 1937 will be made.'' -- March 19 ... me :-)Now, some folks say Koppel's just an overgrown Howdy-Doody puppet. For years since 1988, leading the ABC News parade of "spooks" with CIA disinformation and CIA operatives falsely described in talk show segments as "think tank" consultants, has been Ted Koppel and his "Nightline" Program. Koppel. . . has a heavy intelligence agency background. Cohen: An individual who has, for his whole career, been virtually a mouthpiece for the U.S. State Department [i.e. US intel.] is Ted Koppel. . . . Koppel "Alfred E. Neuman" or a "Howdy Doody" puppet might be unfair comparisons. Still, who's to say in the smoke-and-mirrors world of prohibition propaganda?Ted Koppel: I am opposed to the CIA having the legal option of using journalistic cover. The CIA has broken laws. It will again. Many governments assume that journalists are working for the CIA, because they use journalists. . . Thanks for the tip, Ted. We'll keep that one in mind.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dan B on March 23, 2001 at 14:38:58 PT:

Good points, Tom.
This entire series has been a complete disappointment, from beginning to end. I said I'd reserve a final judgement until the end, and here it is: Ted Koppel created this piece to garner public support for the destruction of all drug users."Would there be a drug war, with all of the corruptionand violence and pain, if there wasn't any demand?"This statement is like saying, "Don't you think that the cause of all our problems is the drug user?" It is a carefully-designed strategy to lead Americans to believe that, yes--treatment is the first option, but if it doesn't "take," we should either incarcerate all drug users until they do cooperate or eliminate them altogether. This is hate speech, pure and simple.As Tom pointed out, Koppel see no need to question the drug war itself. Even though everyone now knows that it has been and will continue to be a dismal failure, the war itself is not the problem. Koppel lays blame on two groups of people: drug users and their parents. It seems, then, that Koppel wants to expand the war on drug users by going after not only the users themselves, but the parents of those users. By deeming them responsible for their children's decisions, Koppel implies that they should be punished, too.Perhaps the next suggestion will be mandatory drug indoctrination seminars for all parents with non-compliance punishable by hefty fines and prison time. After all, the ultimate blame is parents, right? Then, they'll probably suggest that we incarcerate any parents or guardians that do not successfully keep their kids off drugs. That way, instead of incarcerating just one African-American kid (we all know that the drug war is primarily directed toward non-whites), they will imprison his or her entire family.Odd, isn't it? The government has usurped the parenting role from parents, then blames parents for not fulfilling the parenting role. Quite a catch-22.By the way, the "someone" who said "the best explanation for Prohibition is BAD JOURNALISM" is actually a couple of someones: Richard Cowan of Marijuana News and the 4:20 Marijuana News on POT-TV, and Dan Gardner, the Canadian journalist who brought us what I believe is the most comprehensive and truthful series on the drug war ever to have been printed in North America. I hope Koppel doesn't spoil anyone's weekend. I think it's clear by now that he's working hard to be America's Goebbels.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Tom on March 23, 2001 at 14:14:28 PT

Let's Discuss the Prohibition Problem!
As usual, the media asks the wrong questions..."Would there be a drug war, with all of the corruptionand violence and pain, if there wasn't any demand?"That is a totally unrealistic question and expectation!It's like asking... "Would there be so many trafficinjuries and deaths if it weren't cars and highways?"As someone said, the best explanation for Prohibitionis BAD JOURNALISM--that means you Ted Koppel, and ABCNews.Instead, the media should be asking this question..."Would there be all of the corruption and violenceand pain, if there wasn't Prohibition?"Don't look for the mainstream media to ask suchquestions--that would rock the boat, and mightupset some viewers/advertisers.Don't ask tough questions. Let's just keep wringingour hands about the so-called "drug problem," eventhough we now realize that Prohibition has donenothing to stop it.Let's never discuss the PROHIBITION PROBLEM!
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment

Name:       Optional Password: 
Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL: 
Link Title: