(The fact that A. M. Rosenthal has retired as
the managing editor of The New York Times is surely a great advance for the tattered
tradition of "objective journalism," always more honored in the breach.
Rosenthal is a "true-believer" prohibitionist. He doesn’t get paid to say
this. He is simply so filled with hatred that he cannot hear what the people he disagrees
with are actually saying.)ON MY MIND
By A. M. ROSENTHAL
April 14 1998
Lean Back or Fight
It's nice to think that in another five or ten years maybe the right over one's
consciousness, the right to possess and consume drugs, may be as powerfully and as widely
understood as the other rights of Americans are."
If that thought strikes you too as nice, you don't have to do much. Just lean back and
enjoy the successes of Dr. Ethan Nadelmann, who said it in 1993, and other executives of
well-financed "drug reform" foundations.
Maybe he is a little optimistic about his timing. But he and others who would like
now-illegal drugs to be a right certainly have made political headway since his
pronouncement at the San Francisco conference to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the
discovery of LSD.
(Ed. note: The conference was held to "observe" –
not "celebrate" the discovery of LSD. Medical marijuana was also a topic. At the
time, I was National Director of NORML and also spoke. I was speaking extemporaneously,
but a prohibitionist had a video camera there and this looks about right. On the same page
(43) with the above quote from Nadelmann, I am quoted as saying,
" The key to it (full legalization [of marijuana]) is medical access. Because, once
you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana medically, under medical
supervision, the whole scam is going to be blown. I mean what we know is that marijuana
prohibition is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people…. [Their
transcript has the ….]" I then went on a talked a bit about how this would
"break down the power of the narcocracy to wage a war of terror over things."
See
Is medical
marijuana just the opening wedge to legalize marijuana generally?
There are two points about this quote. First, in the present context, Rosenthal must
have seen it if he has actually read the little booklet from which the Nadelmann quote is
taken. Nonetheless, he still goes on to rail against the "false compassion that
reformers used to attain the triumph of "medicalization" of marijuana."
Second, this recording is widely cited in prohibitionist propaganda as my saying that
medical marijuana is a "scam" to legalize marijuana. How can "under medical
supervision, the whole scam is going to be blown. I mean what we know is that marijuana
prohibition is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people…." be
interpreted as a "confession" that medical marijuana is a "scam" for
the legalization of marijuana?
The point is that the authors of this booklet do not seem to understand their own
material and Rosenthal seems either not to have read it or not to understand it, but in
any case, he is not accurately reporting it. His column is on the op-ed page and it is
clearly understood to be "opinion" but this does not excuse hateful
misrepresentation of the views of those with whom he disagrees.)
Still, perhaps the thought that narcotics will become a basic American right strikes
you as plain horrible. Perhaps you have love for your children, or theirs, or for the
mental, moral and civil stability of the country in which you live.
Perhaps you will become worried about a new report from the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America. It shows that marijuana use among children and teen-agers
is increasing, and parents don't know it, and that children and teen-agers find it
much easier to get, and parents don't know it, and that among the youngsters the fear of
the risks of the drug is decreasing -- and parents don't know that either.
See
PDFA’s Propaganda Released On the
Internet Hides Margin Of Error That Makes Headline Meaningless
Or, maybe you will be startled at the report's finding that parents think they talk to
their children about drugs a lot more than than their children recall hearing -- and
wonder if the parents remember right.
Or it could be that you are sick to the gorge of the press and TV
accepting the flood of false compassion that reformers used to attain the triumph of
"medicalization" of marijuana in California and Arizona.
Perhaps you know the "reformers," supported by benefactors like George Soros,
Peter Lewis of Ohio and John Sperling of Arizona, plan to use the same weapon in other
referendums across the country.
Then, under any of those conditions, the time has come for you to get up and fight
against drugs, instead of just looking worried. Here are three ways:
1. With your votes, letters, mouths and religious and social organizations,
pressure the people you elect to every level of government. Demand
detailed exposure of backdoor legalization, its funders and techniques.
Ask the President, again and again and again, to become the political, passionate
leader against drugs that the country lacks and so terribly needs.
Maybe he will never do it, which does not excuse us from saying it is his duty.
(Ed. note: Amen, Abe, amen!)
2. Join and support organizations that actively fight drugs
and ask that Congress fully restore the funds it cut from their anti-drug education work. Pester
newspapers and TV to give full hearings to the organizations and to the anti-drug case.
(Ed. note: Pause for laughter.)
And if the organizations are not on the Internet, tell them they are surrendering to
the crowds of legalizers who are.
(National Families in Action, an anti-drug organization, publishes "A Guide to the
Drug Legalization Movement and How to Fight It," a most useful book in which I came
across Dr. Nadelmann's "nice" thought. Ten dollars, Suite 300, 2296 Henderson
Mill Road, Atlanta, Ga. 30345; (770) 934-7137;
(Ed. note: It is only about 100 pages, but it does give an insight
into the prohibitionist mindset. It is sometimes almost as venomous as Rosenthal, and it
demonstrates the same ability to ignore and distort arguments with which they disagree. On
the other hand, it is a handy directory to the anti-prohibitionist movement. That might
make it worthwhile. It is a shame to give money to a prohibitionist organization, but the
prohibitionist movement is so well financed that it really won’t make much
difference.)
Supported