The War on Drugs: The Anti-Truth
by Joseph C. Hinson
February, 2002
The country is at war. Billions of dollars are going into this war to fight what remains an elusive enemy. Some say this war cannot be won. Others say it is a war for the soul of the country, that it must be waged. In this war, there are no Taliban members, no Cold Warriors proclaiming "We shall bury you." There isn't even a man with a beard who once wanted to play baseball in the states.
I'm not talking about the War on Terrorism. I mean the War on Drugs. More money is being poured into anti-drug campaigns. Where does this money come from? Why, it comes from you and me, of course. Our tax money is being spent on a bad PR campaign. Ecstasy is the latest on the hit list. The thing that worries me about these anti-drug messages is simple. Is it really advertising drugs as something horrible? Or is it just advertising drugs? The old saying may ring true, "I don't care what you print about me. Just get my name right." The target audience of these ads, the young people of America, might think that the drug of their choice can't possibly harm them. Not them. They're too smart for that. They'll just do a little of it, then they'll stop. These people who have had horrible experiences with drugs are obviously weaklings who can't handle the good stuff. Right? But the thing that popped this little nugget of thought into their head was an anti-drug commercial!
But basically it's all drugs except alcohol and tobacco. Why are these things not on the hit list? Part of me would like to think that we remember what Prohibition did to this country. The mafia was born because of Prohibition. Because of Prohibition, we got the FBI... and J. Edgar Hoover. Who really looked good in a black wig and evening gown. At the time Prohibition was started, there was an agenda under way to also rid the country of the evil tobacco. Once the alcohol prohibition proved itself to be a complete and utter failure, wisdom won out.
However, my cynical nature tells me that alcohol and tobacco are not included in the Drug War for two reasons. One, companies like Anheuser-Busch, R.J. Reynolds and, yes, even Coca-Cola are lining the pockets of every politician with money and Cuban cigars. These corporations do not want the target audience to be able to get a high or a rush anywhere else. If Coke is the real thing, then what is cocaine?
(And while we're at it, is Coke the real thing? Or is it better than the real thing? I could never remember. But I do recall seeing these stupid t-shirts where there is a mock-Coke logo, but instead of Coke, it's Jesus. And the shirt actually said... I mean, read, "Jesus: The Real Thing." As if someone was going to see this shirt and think to themselves, "You know, Jesus IS the real thing. Let's go convert us some heathens!" So if Jesus is the real thing, is Coke better than the real thing? At this point, all I know is that U2's "Even Better Than The Real Thing" is a cool song.)
As one who has at least tried a drug such as cocaine, as one who had admitted to having a drinking problem, and as someone whose daughter and niece seems to be going down the same path, I find it repugnant and reprehensible that President Bush is strengthening this fiasco known as the Drug War. He's a hypocrite and a liar. But if he can smile and look earnest and try not to smirk, then his followers will climb a little higher on the mountain known as Bush's God Complex. Further, he's using the horrific events of September 11th to further his agenda.
Consider this from Truth: The Anti-Drug: "If you're using drugs in America, whether you're shooting heroin, snorting cocaine, taking Ecstasy or sharing a joint in your friend's back yard, evidence is mounting that what you're doing may be connected to events far beyond your own existence. An American is kidnapped overseas. A Latin American political candidate is assassinated. What does this have to do with you? If you're using drugs, the answer could be: plenty."
Think about how they're wording this. "Evidence is mounting..." "may be connected..." "the answer could be..." It's almost like they don't believe their own bullshit. Pat Robertson talks this way in his propaganda, I mean, books.
The site then takes you into the "Quiz" part of the fun.
The first question: "Of the 28 world groups classified as "terrorist organizations" by the U.S. State Department, about ____ are involved in drug trafficking."
Now that I have that out of the way...
They tell you that the correct answer is almost half. Which, if you think about it, is not a lot. The way they're selling this, I thought every damn terrorist in the history of mankind was a drug dealer. Apparently I was wrong. They then give us this: "During their brief rule in Afghanistan, the Taliban, a supporter of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, pulled in $40 to $50 million from the production and shipment of heroin. At the height of production, around the year 2000, Afghanistan was the source of more than 70% of the world's heroin."
Now you'll have to notice the wording again. It's not the same thing as trying to define the word "is," but it's close. (By the way, as a matter of convenience and a public service to boot, I include the dictionary definition of the word "is" here.) They didn't actually say that the supporter of bin Laden actually gave the money from his drug empire to the cause. The inference is certainly there and I think we can stipulate for the record that he, in fact, did. But it's a long stretch to say that if you smoked weed in the backyard with your friend, then you supported the Al Qaeda.
The next question was pretty good to. "You don't do hard drugs, you say? The only thing you're guilty of is an occasional hit of pot? Try this one: 2) If I buy a joint from somebody at a party, the chances are _______ that some of my money will go to somebody outside the country. "
God damn it, I'm smart! Some fuck from Magical South Carolina Land figured this shit out but the "best and brightest" leaders of this country still don't have a clue.
OK, OK. Let me come back down. I'm cussing a little too much. It's just this makes me so damn mad that I want to scream. Why doesn't more people see this? Why are more people not angry that our government is using our hard earned tax dollars for this idiotic War on Drugs?
"If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror
in America."
-- President George W. Bush
Frankly, someone needs to bitch slap the bastard!
So, in other words, Mr. President, anyone who does drugs is a terrorist? Is that what you're saying? Anyone who does drugs knocked those buildings down? Are you really trying to connect those dots, sir? What about how the US backed Osama bin Laden in the 70s and 80s? What about how we propped Saddam Hussein up in the first place? Were we not doing more for terror then than someone who does drugs now? In fact, if drugs were legal, would we not black out the illegitimate source of drugs in the first place? Drug companies would pop up with labs in this country. The best and brightest could be working on safer drugs instead of the poor and the victimized in some South American country. You want to get rid of the Colombian drug lords, Mr. President? Then make drugs legal and put the SOBs out of business!
The interesting thing about The Anti-Drug is they claim alcohol and tobacco are "gateway drugs." What this means, they say, is that people who smoke and drink are more likely to start using illicit drugs. I'm not sure. In a way, this makes sense. On the other hand, the number of people who actually does drugs is rather low from the people who smoke and drink. To say that 90& of the people who snort coke also drink may not be saying much. Put it this way. Most people drink, albeit in varying amounts. If you ask the question, "Have you taken a drink in the last 30 days?" a large number may say yes.
Consider these purely hypothetical numbers. One hundred people are interviewed. Seventy of these people have had one or more drinks in the last four weeks. Of these seventy, ten people have consumed an illicit drug. Of the other thirty respondents who have not drank any in the last thirty days, one person has consumed drugs. Therefore, ten of eleven drug users have also used alcohol in that time. That number could be higher. But what gets lost is that in this hypothetical situation, only 11% of the respondents have used drugs. But what will no doubt get reported by the government and picked up by the media is that 10 out of 11 drug users ":start" with alcohol.
Did you know?
"Scare tactics and propaganda rarely yield positive results. Decisions that are made based on truth are much more concrete." That is from The Anti-Drug.org. Scare tactics is what the anti-drug campaign is. Kids as young as ten years old can see past that in many cases. This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. No it's not, bitch! It's an egg. Now it's an egg plopped in an over-heated frying pan. What kind of message is that?
Tell us the truth about drugs. Tell us both sides of the story. Don't tell us that alcohol and cigarettes are "gateway drugs" and not back that falsehood up with statistics. Furthermore, if they are "gateway drugs," then why in the hell aren't we waging a war against them? If you follow the logic of the anti-drug warriors, they should be illegal too.
Now don't get any bright ideas, Mr. President.
In doing my Man on the Street interviews at Winthrop Coll... excuse me, that's Winthrop University, recently, I was appalled at how college students were misinformed on the War on Drugs. Some people actually thought the the crime rate would go up if drugs were legalized. In all of the reading I have done on this subject, I have never heard someone against drug legalization who has said that the crime rate would go up. I never actually got anyone to back up their statement. They just seemed to think it would; therefore, it would.
In fact, most people think it would go down. First of all, if drugs were legal, no one would go to jail for using drugs. No one would have their homes, cars and life savings evaporated because they smoke weed or snort coke. Secondly, the price of drugs would be greatly reduced if legal. You'd take them off the street and out of the back rooms and put them in, for example, an ABC store. They would be regulated like alcohol. Therefore, you would know what was in the drug whereas now you do not know if the cocaine you're snorting is pure or not. Such lack of knowledge can and does kill. In fact, it's more often that not knowing what's in a supply of drugs is what kills rather than the drugs themselves. In that way, the War on Drugs likely kills as many people if not more than the drugs themselves do. Just ask Peter McWilliams.
If you lower the price of drugs, less money is spent on a high. The less money that is needed, the less need for someone to knock over a convenience store or rob an elderly couple at gun point. Furthermore, if the police spend less time going undercover to buy marijuana from Bubba at the trailer park, they can spend more time finding murderers and rapists. Therefore, crime will not increase but you'll have cops with more time to fight real, actual crime.
One thing that I'm not sure has really been addressed is the resentment of the police by everyday, ordinary citizens. Cops are not the respected member of the community as they once were. In many cases, they are looked upon as the muthafucker who took names on the board when the teacher was in the faculty lounge smoking a cigarette and drinking a Coke. I think a lot of the reason for this is because the powers that be have put it upon the boys in blue to check up on us. The police are more and more in charge with making sure we are moral, upright citizens instead of catching men (and women) who rape and murder.
I was having a hard time finishing this here rant. I wasn't sure I had done my best. I made a couple of references to alcohol and tobacco being as bad if not worse than the illegal drugs, but I wasn't sure I brought the point home. But I've been holding this rant for too long. I basically started it on the nigt of the Super Bowl when those ads began popping up everywhere. That was almost three weeks ago. You'd think with that kind of time, this rant would be much better than it was.
So I began looking for a photograph to put over the title. I wanted to use a recent one of Bush. But with a bad connection and several failed searches, I couldn't find any. It was odd. It was like the man suddenly didn't exist.
And then I happened across News @ Yahoo. This was the first paragraph of a story by Ron Fournier, AP White House Correspondent : 'President Bush sought to dispel rampant doubts and distrust of America, urging China on Friday to embrace liberty, tolerance and religious freedom. "A free society trusts its citizens," Bush said as skeptical university students pressed him about U.S. policy toward their country.'
President Bush: "A free society trusts its citizens."
"A free society trusts its citizens."
"A free society trusts its citizens."
I thought that was an interesting choice of words as it relates to the War on Drugs. An element on that war which I did not broach was the men and women and their families who are torn apart because one of them is arrested for a first time drug offense. Cars will be confiscated, houses will be ransacked, bank accounts will be frozen: all because someone was arrested with a little bit of weed or cocaine on them.
But yet a free society will trust its citizens.
Fuck off, Mr. President. Your're a liar and a hyprocrite.
"A free society trusts its citizens."
But I haven't even talked about the moral question of drugs. Are drugs wrong? If you smoke a little weed, are you going to hell? If drugs are against your morals, then why do I have to live by those standards? I haven't spelled out why I think the Drug War is evil and immoral. But it's late. The hour is getting long. The train is about to leave the station. The horses are out of the barn, The... uhm, well, anyway.....
to
my next rant (if posted)
My
Rants and Raves
The
Joseph C. Hinson Home Page
"There is a shameful public health problem of massive
proportions (AIDS, teen-age pregnancies, rising infant mortality and the
abandonment of any serious effort to help those with debilitating mental
illnesses). There are children who have no families, no food, no education,
and no hope. There is near anarchy in the streets of our big cities, matched
by a loss of community integrity in the rural areas. All of this is blamed
on the "drug problem," although the use of drugs has nothing to do with
it. Drug use is not the cause of any of these terrible problems. It may
certainly be one of the results, but it is not the cause. Nonetheless,
a major national effort is being made to convince the American people that
winning the "War on Drugs" will indeed cure us of all ailments, if we would
but relinquish a few more individual rights in the pursuit of victory."
--Alexander Shulgin, from Lecture
at the University by A. Shulgin
"The Right to liberty is being refused to over 300,000
NON-violent prisoners that have broken our unjust and unevenly-enforced
drug laws. This mass of humanity is currently clogging our prison and court
systems to the detriment of our entire judicial system and our society."
--Mark Greer , from It
Is Time To Declare Our Independence... Again
President Bush addresses students at Tsinghua University
in Beijing, Friday, Feb. 22, 2002. (AP Photo/Greg Baker)