Here is an interesting article about how Bush tried to "make the conversion" at the 2002 superbowl, trying to link the war on drugs to the war on terror so we can have lots of scary bad guys to quixotically chase.
It reminds me of how important developing compassion in our lives is, because it seems the NWO is trying to play on our failure to see our fellow earthlings as ourselves. If we fear our neighbors, we will be easily led. If we develop love for humanity, WE will lead the way.
I Column Like I See Em
Super Bowl drug control misguided
www.yaleherald.com/article-p.php
BY KUSHAL DAVE
GETTY IMAGES AND STEVE YBARRA/YH
Offensive, manipulative, and mis- guided. There is no other way to view the recent attempt by the Bush Administration to equate drug use with financial support of terrorism. Just when it seemed the Sept.-11th-ization of advertising had come to an end, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in cooperation with Ogilvy & Mather, pushed the exploitation to a new level. The White House, at a cost of over $3 million, aired two new ads during the Super Bowl—ads that had the gall to play on renewed patriotism to push an anti-drug campaign. Nothing could be a greater waste of taxpayer dollars, and I daresay the Fear Factor Playmates special looked wholesome by comparison.
If any good comes out of this travesty, it is that it will highlight, more than ever, the hypocrisy of our government's approach to the war on drugs. In fact, the only thing that drugs and terrorism have in common is that both inspire rights-trampling knee-jerk reactions from conservatives.
The broad claim that "drug" use contributed to terrorism is clearly overreaching— the "truth is my anti-drug" campaign conflates every drug from tobacco to cocaine (but not alcohol) into one über-intoxicant with countless negative consequences and no benefits. In reality, out of those drugs they are campaigning against, only heroin and cocaine have significant links to terrorist groups, and even these are matched by our own government's ties to terrorist groups.
Furthermore, America's effort to control drug production in other countries exemplifies the very hegemony that bred the international resentment leading up to Sept. 11.Despite being the largest consumer of cocaine and amphetamines per capita in the world, America pushes a supply-side solution. As The Economist wrote this summer, "Other rich countries that try to change their policies meet fierce American resistance; poor countries that ship drugs come (as Latin American experience shows) under huge pressure to prevent the trade, whatever the cost to civil liberties or the environment" ["Stumbling in the Dark," 7/26/01].
The possibility of imports financing terrorists could be averted if the government allowed drugs to be produced legally in the U.S. Legalization would also bring with it a variety of other benefits, such as controlling quality and access, and eliminating drug-trade-related crime.
The resources directed toward fighting the drug war both at home and abroad could then be spent on more pressing concerns, such as actually fighting the war on terrorism. The ONDCP tossed $18.1 billion last year into the black hole of the drug war. Compare this to the $37.7 billion in the new budget for domestic security, and you get some idea of the scale.
The momentum in favor of drug legalization has been growing. This month, Maxim magazine takes on the question of marijuana legalization. But even The Economist suggested, "A legal market is the best guarantee that drug-taking will be no more dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. And, just as countries rightly tolerate those two vices, so they should tolerate those who sell and take drugs." States and nations, from Britain to New Mexico, are already reexamining their drug policies.
As the war on drugs reaches new levels of desperation, it makes itself look more pathetic. Studies have found DARE to be highly ineffective, but it is continued anyway. Television is now filled with hip but transparent advertising campaigns and with pedantic anti-drug messages on shows targeted at teens. And the denial of financial aid to those accused of drug offenses has been so deleterious that a repeal has already been introduced.
For the government to resort to cheap tricks such as the Super Bowl ads—just as it is having a hard time proving that the war on drugs deserves the resources it currently receives—is disgusting and disgraceful. This government is doing a disservice to itself, its cause, and the memory of those who died on Sept. 11. When something like these terrorist attacks have united America, it is a terrible thing to undermine the sort of personal choice that is at the heart of our freedoms.
© 2004 The Yale Herald | The Herald is an undergraduate publication at Yale University. | Please see the Contact page to reach us.
It reminds me of how important developing compassion in our lives is, because it seems the NWO is trying to play on our failure to see our fellow earthlings as ourselves. If we fear our neighbors, we will be easily led. If we develop love for humanity, WE will lead the way.
I Column Like I See Em
Super Bowl drug control misguided
www.yaleherald.com/article-p.php
BY KUSHAL DAVE
GETTY IMAGES AND STEVE YBARRA/YH
Offensive, manipulative, and mis- guided. There is no other way to view the recent attempt by the Bush Administration to equate drug use with financial support of terrorism. Just when it seemed the Sept.-11th-ization of advertising had come to an end, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in cooperation with Ogilvy & Mather, pushed the exploitation to a new level. The White House, at a cost of over $3 million, aired two new ads during the Super Bowl—ads that had the gall to play on renewed patriotism to push an anti-drug campaign. Nothing could be a greater waste of taxpayer dollars, and I daresay the Fear Factor Playmates special looked wholesome by comparison.
If any good comes out of this travesty, it is that it will highlight, more than ever, the hypocrisy of our government's approach to the war on drugs. In fact, the only thing that drugs and terrorism have in common is that both inspire rights-trampling knee-jerk reactions from conservatives.
The broad claim that "drug" use contributed to terrorism is clearly overreaching— the "truth is my anti-drug" campaign conflates every drug from tobacco to cocaine (but not alcohol) into one über-intoxicant with countless negative consequences and no benefits. In reality, out of those drugs they are campaigning against, only heroin and cocaine have significant links to terrorist groups, and even these are matched by our own government's ties to terrorist groups.
Furthermore, America's effort to control drug production in other countries exemplifies the very hegemony that bred the international resentment leading up to Sept. 11.Despite being the largest consumer of cocaine and amphetamines per capita in the world, America pushes a supply-side solution. As The Economist wrote this summer, "Other rich countries that try to change their policies meet fierce American resistance; poor countries that ship drugs come (as Latin American experience shows) under huge pressure to prevent the trade, whatever the cost to civil liberties or the environment" ["Stumbling in the Dark," 7/26/01].
The possibility of imports financing terrorists could be averted if the government allowed drugs to be produced legally in the U.S. Legalization would also bring with it a variety of other benefits, such as controlling quality and access, and eliminating drug-trade-related crime.
The resources directed toward fighting the drug war both at home and abroad could then be spent on more pressing concerns, such as actually fighting the war on terrorism. The ONDCP tossed $18.1 billion last year into the black hole of the drug war. Compare this to the $37.7 billion in the new budget for domestic security, and you get some idea of the scale.
The momentum in favor of drug legalization has been growing. This month, Maxim magazine takes on the question of marijuana legalization. But even The Economist suggested, "A legal market is the best guarantee that drug-taking will be no more dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. And, just as countries rightly tolerate those two vices, so they should tolerate those who sell and take drugs." States and nations, from Britain to New Mexico, are already reexamining their drug policies.
As the war on drugs reaches new levels of desperation, it makes itself look more pathetic. Studies have found DARE to be highly ineffective, but it is continued anyway. Television is now filled with hip but transparent advertising campaigns and with pedantic anti-drug messages on shows targeted at teens. And the denial of financial aid to those accused of drug offenses has been so deleterious that a repeal has already been introduced.
For the government to resort to cheap tricks such as the Super Bowl ads—just as it is having a hard time proving that the war on drugs deserves the resources it currently receives—is disgusting and disgraceful. This government is doing a disservice to itself, its cause, and the memory of those who died on Sept. 11. When something like these terrorist attacks have united America, it is a terrible thing to undermine the sort of personal choice that is at the heart of our freedoms.
© 2004 The Yale Herald | The Herald is an undergraduate publication at Yale University. | Please see the Contact page to reach us.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
