cannabisnews.com: Harrowing Weed Turmoil Exposed 





Harrowing Weed Turmoil Exposed 
Posted by FoM on September 15, 2000 at 07:26:59 PT
By Jon Carroll
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
So here we have a full-page newspaper advertisement. Photograph of a middle-aged man, rimless glasses, heavy coat, staring mournfully into the camera. Behind him, a old brick building looms. Headline: ``How a Marijuana Habit Forced Bob Payne Onto the Street.'' Now, you are an experienced consumer of media. What story would you expect to read under the headline? Here was my guess: Poor Bob smoked too much pot for too long, lost his job, went bankrupt, became a homeless person now struggling to rebuild his life. Yes? Something like that? 
Well, no. Bob Payne has never smoked marijuana. His daughter Lindsay did, in the 10th grade. She smoked a lot. She began skipping school. She lost interest in sports. Her ``spark was gone.'' (I confess that this same thing happened to me when I was in the ninth grade. I was using no drugs except suggestive poetry and natural hormones. I was rude and indolent.Unfortunately, since I had no bad habits to break, I was like a sinking ship with no cargo to throw overboard. Then I discovered I could cash in on my alienation by entering the exciting field of journalism. But enough about me.) Lindsay's habit was discovered, and she started going to a self-help group. But one day, her father noticed that she seemed ``too eager'' to go to the group. He drove by the building where it was held. (This is the ``onto the street'' part -- he was forced to drive on the streets of his own town.) He discovered that her car was not there. A few minutes later, he discovered her car parked in front of a friend's house. Oh, he read her the riot act. She was grounded for 30 days, and she was enrolled in two self-help groups. And sure enough, she cleaned up her act and is now trying out for the softball team. AND THAT'S IT. This is the harrowing tale. I have heard worse stuff in line at the supermarket. Heck, I did worse stuff than that, entirely drug free, and I was a pretty good adolescent. What is the point here? Perhaps to run the sensationalistic headline. White man threatened with poverty! Read now! Did I say that the ad is sponsored by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America? This ``partnership'' is funded by liquor, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies (as well as our tax dollars), and is designed to get children off the drugs sold by street entrepreneurs and back on good old American drinks and ciggies and pills pushed by large corporations. You won't be seeing tales of people abusing their wives after a drinking bout. You won't be seeing examinations of akathisia, a condition caused by the overuse of SSRIs like Prozac. You won't be seeing folks dying of lung cancer, lured to their death by addictive nicotine. Instead: An adolescent's grades fall off. She gets clean, and she tries out for softball. Hello? YOU MIGHT SAY: So what? Another dopey campaign. This is your brain on advertising. Here's the problem: We are continuing to talk ourselves into something. We are pretending the War on Some Drugs is a useful and necessary civic campaign. Indeed, it is so important that we are slowly slipping into a ground war in South America to support this dreadful idea. We are propping up a corrupt and murderous dictatorship. We are making the same mistakes we have made before, all based on bad data and institutionalized hypocrisy. These ads represent the establishment talking to itself. The cognitive disconnect grows ever larger -- look at the real content of the advertisement versus the scare headline. What's the bottom line? The War on Some Drugs is for the children. We will do anything for the children. Even distasteful campaigns in far-off countries are justified if they are for the children. Not that either presidential candidate has the guts to discuss the issue. Nope. It wouldn't be fair to the children. Image of report card: C in geometry, C in biology. Degradation! Sitting downtown in a railway station, one: jcarroll sfchronicle.comPublished: September 15, 2000Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Copyright: 2000 San Francisco ChronicleContact: chronletters sfgate.com Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/CannabisNews Articles - Legalization:http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=legalization
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on September 15, 2000 at 17:27:32 PT:
Couldn't have put it any better, Observer. 
The antis are expert at hiding. Hiding their real agendas (a slow fabianistic drift into a police state) behind words of ostensible sweet reason such as 'serving the public good'. Hiding behind children, using them as ideological shields to deflect criticism of their perfidy; who would dare question their motives? They are (Super-hero echo-chamber voice) Proooohtecting the Chil-drunnnnn!. Any one who questions their real motivations must be some kinda perv, huh? Never mind how many of their involuntary charges get, as the street parlance goes, 'whacked' courtesy of trying to run from police. Can't have a war without a little collateral damage, right? (Just so long as the ones who *do* catch some lead have minimal amounts of melannin in their epidermas; that's just fine with the antis. After all, the anti-dope laws were MEANT to keep people of color down; all the other Jim Crowe laws have been rescinded but these.)More and more, we ought to keep a tally. Of how many have died since 1914 because of the drug laws. I think it would be safe to say that several thousands have been 'protected' to death by Officer Jack Boot and his minions.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by observer on September 15, 2000 at 08:48:29 PT
''The Children'' Mantra: Don't Think, Just Obey
They are starting to catch on. What's the bottom line? The War on Some Drugs is for the children. We will do anything for the children. Even distasteful campaigns in far-off countries are justified if they are for the children.Over the past few years, the stated justification in the United States for many social programs and laws that decrease individual liberty has been "for the good of the children" — a phrase that probably resonates more powerfully among women, but is designed to stifle any argument. After all, who could not want something if it's for the good of the children?Sunni Maravillosa, Laissez Faire City Times, Sept 11, 2000http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.37/hands_off_kids.htm
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: