The Green State Project: Fighting Reefer Madness

I have been a reader (subscriber) of this blog for a while now. I have seen what effect small possession charges bring on people, when there is no way those people would ever commit a real crime, harm a soul, or ever do anything anti-social. As a matter of fact, the prison systems are full of casual users and medical users, when rapists, murders, etc roam free. 

I have friends who have died in agony, when its usage could have helped them with the pain and especially the sickness.

The system is playing people and funds an unneeded monstrous behemoth (Big Prison)… infringing on personal liberties and ruining lives for no good reason. It is insane what we hold as the most harmful crimes against society, when anyone who really knows, understands that a pothead wouldn’t hurt a flea.

Facts are that alcohol and prescription drug use causes many more issues against society than cannabis ever would or could. The only crime associated is the imaginary one that Big Petrochemical and Big Prisons want to cloud us with… for profit. More and more profit.

ACLU to take on Marijuana Relegalization

Better late than never, I suppose, but finally, after decades, the ACLU had decided that cannabis laws are not fair.

I’ll try to keep it short and sweet on the flip.

The Seattle Times report starts with the necessary reference to the failure of alcohol prohibition and makes a quick jump to the racial issues. Good stuff.

Saying the laws disproportionately affect minorities and can impose severe consequences for possessing as little as 40 grams (roughly the equivalent of two packs of cigarettes), the state ACLU received funding from the national organization to create an informational program it hopes will air on television stations and the Internet. Steves appears in the program.

There’s a great lead-in to talking about this subject: getting the negative comparison to tobacco AND information about racial disparity into one sentence.

I am glad to see an “informational program” about cannabis and reform issues coming out with the credibility of the ACLU behind it.

So often I have seen “liberal and progressive” folks commenting on relegalization articles, deeply offended by the suggestion that the inequities visited upon us by the fervent enforcement of cannabis possession laws rise to the status of prejudice and deprivation of civil liberties.

Well, here it is: the ACLU is seeing fit to finally wade into this unacceptable and artificially-created morass that is so big and tangled up, it has several different names: The war on Drugs, cannabis prohibition, reefer madness (no, really - it’s a great term).

The ACLU reports developing a program to educate people on the realities of this issue. Most people have only anti-marijuana propaganda in their heads where actual information should be. They are filled with it.

And like fish floating in water, they are unaware of it. They even get agitated when one managed to point this out. People with perfectly good brains, but the file in their brains where all their marijuana knowledge is stored is corrupted and filled with nonsense and emotional hyperbole. Nothing resembling verifiable knowledge - just reefer madness.

American minds are full of this nonsense because of folks like Tom Riley and the ONDCP, a federal agency that gets BILLIONS of your tax dollars every single year so they can keep burying the American public discourse on cannabis reform in fresh layers of absolute bullshit.

This has to somehow be corrected before the necessary legislation can be approached.The ACLU program will hopefully help fix this problem of “cannabis ignorance”.

The ACLU’s decison to approach the issue with information also reinforces my thoughts on approaching the Democratic party to help fix this issue. The main thing we need right now is talking. Rational, responsible adult talking.

Leadership.

Legislation is almost a distraction from the central need to train people to talk about cannabis like normal, intelligent adults, not propaganda-babbling fanatics.

And speaking of propaganda-babbling fanatics, no mainstream media news article on cannabis reform is complete without a visit from those high-paid liars in the Federal Government.

Throughout most of the country, the popularity of decriminalizing marijuana use has waned, said Tom Riley, spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The potency of the drug has tripled in the last 10 years and its use is not “a harmless pastime,” he said, “but a much bigger part of substance abuse and a much bigger part of mental-health issues.”

None of that means a friggin’ thing.

Let’s disassemble it real quick and call it good.

• the popularity of decriminalizing marijuana use has wanedNonsense. The issue continues to be placed on ballots each election and the medical marijuana movement is slowly spreading across the country. This is pure propaganda.
• The potency of the drug has tripled in the last 10 yearsThanks to years of heavy-handed drug war enforcement, folks moved marijuana production indoors and potency = profitability - just like in the days of Alcohol prohibition and the rise of moonshine. Potency means increased profits.

  But with pot, never mind that the increased potency - if you can even find it: it’s a rare treat for me - usually means people smoke less. This is called making a mountian out of a molehill: another propaganda technique.

• its use is not “a harmless pastimeCompletely meaningless but very distracting hot air. What is “harmless”? We can talk about this until the sun goes down and get nowhere. Forks are possibly harmful. Cars are certainly harmful. Eating McD’s is harmful.

  How about prescription drugs, eh? Where’s the outrage when a major pharmaceutical company, with the utter complicity of the FDA, allows over 22,000 people to die from a drug known to cause problems?

  Dr. Dennis Mangano, the study’s researcher, said during the program that 22,000 lives could have been saved if Trasylol had been taken off the market when he first published his study in January 2006, according to a CBS News report on its Web site ahead of a broadcast slated for next Sunday.

  He said in the broadcast that Bayer failed to disclose to the FDA during an FDA advisory panel meeting in September 2006 — at which Mangano’s negative findings were discussed — that the German drugmaker had conducted its own research which confirmed the same dangers established by his study.

  The chairman of the FDA advisory panel, Dr. William Hiatt, told 60 Minutes he would have voted to remove Trasylol from the market had he been informed about Bayer’s study, according to the CBS report.

  Take these dangerous, ridiculously expensive drugs but don’t smoke non-lethal mar-ju-wanna, ya hear? Especially medical marijuana. Don’t do that.

  Folks, they really do think you are stupid.

  Here’s the last myth to tackle:

• a much bigger part of mental-health issuesCompletely misleading again: this is supposed to raise the “specter” of mental illness being “caused” by pot smoking. Scare-mongering, pure and simple.

Actually, the folks over in the UK really get off on a lurid sort of reefer madness - the myth that smoking pot will make you hopelessly schizophrenic.

It’s nonsense. This propaganda vector involves both a complete lack of understanding about schizophrenia combined with the standard reefer madness meme that pot smoking can cause anything known to be bad and scary.

Not only is this entirely wrong, it is a gross disservice to folks with serious mental illnesses by perpetuating nonsensical myths that hamper needed progress in society really understand these illnesses.

It’s just not true. Schizophrenia affects about 1% of the human population, period. It’s a complex syndrome of co-occuring illnesses in the brain and nervous system. You don’t just “catch it”.

Now, I will agree and clarify that IF one is predisposed to have such an illness lingering in one’s biological make-up cannabis CAN precipitate onsets of the illness. This appears to happen in only a percentage of folks who ultimately have experiences of psychotic decompensation, what percentage it is, I don’t know and won’t speculate. If we had a more honest scientific look at all this, we’d know better. But my firsthand professional experience is that some people who are “loaded” for psychotic illness can smoke without adverse affects and some cannot. I don’t have a problem telling a client to not smoke pot. I get paid to help them get well and stay well and if they need to not smoke pot, that’s what I support.

I digress.

Notice how the ONDCP got one small paragraph at the end of a pro-reform article, I suppose to provide “fairness and balance”, but it takes a lot of space and time to dissect it and attempt to undo the damage they do to the proper discourse with few bullshit-packed sentences.

3 Cheers for the ACLU: This is exactly their sort of fight and it’s about time they really joined in.

Brainwashed America’s View of the World

America’s View of the World

Charles Barkley Calls Out Fake Christians

 I have not been a great fan of Mr Barkley’s over the years (sometimes a bit obtuse and self-aggrandizing at times). Admittedly, he was a great ball player. Nor is this an endorsement for Mr Obama (which IS Mr Barkley’s reason for going on CNN).Nonetheless, I saw this clip and knew I had to post it, for I agree with him in every aspect (but one, which was the respect for John McCain thing, I have none anymore since his capitulating and soulless sucking up to Bush and the system). The Maverick is no more.Anyway, let Mr Barkeley explain:

BLITZER: How do you think he would shape up against John McCain, who is the likely Republican presidential nominee, on this specific issue of national security?

BARKLEY: Well, I think, you know, people keep saying, well, he doesn’t have enough experience on national security and things like that. First of all, whoever the president is, he’s going to have tons of advisers. It ain’t like the president gets to make every decision on his own. You have great advisers around you.

>>> Hey, I live in Arizona. I have got great respect for Senator McCain. Great respect. But I don’t like the way the Republicans are taking this country. Every time I hear the word “conservative,” it makes me sick to my stomach, because they’re really just fake Christians, as I call them. That’s all they are. But I just — I’m going to vote Democratic no matter what.

BLITZER: What about you in politics? At one point you were thinking of running back in Alabama. What do you think?

BARKLEY: Well, I just bought a house in 2007. And in 2014, I promise you I’m going to run for governor of Alabama.

BLITZER: And when will you run for governor of Alabama?

BARKLEY: 2014. You have to have residency for seven years. And I bought my house at the end of last year. And I will be eligible in 2014.

BLITZER: All right. One quick point before I let you go. You used the phrase “fake Christians” for conservatives. Explain what you’re talking about.

BARKLEY: Well, I think they — they want to be judge and jury. Like, I’m for gay marriage. It’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice. And I think these Christians — first of all, they’re supposed to be — they’re not supposed to judge other people. But they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like their Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all.

BLITZER: So you’re going to get a lot of feedback on this one, Charles.

BARKLEY: They can’t do anything to me. I don’t work for them.

BLITZER: You feel comfortable saying all that?

BARKLEY: I feel very comfortable saying I’m pro-choice, and I’m for gay marriage. Very comfortable.

BLITZER: But you can’t lump all these conservatives as being fake. A lot of them obviously — most of them are very, very sincere in their religious beliefs.

BARKLEY: Well, they should read the part about they’re not supposed to judge other people. They forget that one when it doesn’t fit what they want it to say.

(Full Transcript here)

The Craftiness Of The Right by Tristero of Hullabaloo

The Craftiness Of The Right

by tristero

In early 2005 BuzzFlash posted an article by Drs. Neil Wollman and Abigail A. Fuller entitled “How Does Right-Wing Media Craft Its Message?” I wrote to them and, based on my own observations, suggested a few additions. Wollman and Fuller have decided to re-distribute their original article and are doing me the honor of appending my letter. With Dr. Wollman’s permission, here is both the original article and my response. Something tells me it may come in handy in the months to come…

How Does Right-Wing Media Craft Its Message?

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Drs. Neil Wollman and Abigail A. Fuller

The following presentation styles were gleaned from an observation of right-wing broadcast media over the months leading up to the 2004 election. (The principle sources were right-wing radio, the Drudge Report and Fox News web sites, and Fox News Channel.)

We use the term “presentation styles” here, but one could also call these “techniques,” “strategies,” or “propaganda,” depending on your take on the intention of the media outlet. No attempt was made to differentiate between the media outlets in the type or amount of usage of these styles–nor was an analysis made of left-wing broadcast media for comparison purposes. It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of such styles in swaying public opinion, but certainly some of what was presented in right-wing media was picked up by mainstream media and so exposed more widely to the public.

1. Highlight a quote from the opponent out of context from a speech or interview. Comments made by Ted Kennedy opposing Bush’s policy in Iraq, for example, were used this way. These and similar quotes were then used to paint the liberal establishment as strident Bush haters. Although Teresa Heinz Kerry is not shy about voicing strong opinions, specific quotes that cast her in a negative light were often repeated. This is a way to hurt her credibility and, indirectly, that of her husband.

2. Use loaded terminology to describe a disliked program. For example, use “death tax” instead of inheritance tax or “class warfare” to describe Democratic support of a more progressive tax to benefit lower-income Americans. (George Lakoff has discussed this in his work on political rhetoric.) An accompanying tactic is to make repeated negative associations with key concepts or constituencies so that they conjure up negative feelings (as with “Liberal” or “trial lawyer”).

3. While attacking liberals, promote the idea that it is conservatives who are under attack or marginalized, whether you actually are or not. (Thom Frank notes this in his bestselling book What’s the Matter with Kansas?) For example, conservatives push the idea of a liberal bias in media, academia, and Hollywood. This keeps the focus on areas of real or apparent liberal strength, without acknowledging conservative or pro-corporate influence in major social institutions.

4. Give coverage–and thus credibility—to right-wing groups and individuals with an overtly biased perspective, while granting some limited coverage to the liberal opposition. Conservative media outlets used this style in covering the Swift Boat Veterans’ slam of John Kerry. It can set the agenda of what issues get covered (even in mainstream media), while maintaining one’s claim of objectivity.

5. Attack people and their credibility, making them rather than the issue the focal point of discussion. Right-wing media focused more on Kerry’s character and personality rather than on his political record.

6. Find some vulnerability in the opponent and make that the focus for evaluating him or her. Pound away on that topic until the opponent is judged only in those terms. For example, right-wing media succeeded in painting John Kerry as a flip-flopper (even when the flip-flopping was exaggerated and numerous instances of Bush flip-flops were uncovered).

7. To divert attention away from a liberal opponent’s attack on a conservative position or individual, discredit widely one piece of their argument as a way of discrediting their entire argument. Thus, conservative media (who were followed by mainstream media) gave extensive coverage to the Dan Rather/CBS plagiarism story. This quickly deflected attention from the larger issue of President Bush’s questionable National Guard record. (It also made journalists fearful of covering related stories in the future.)

8. Accuse the opposition of doing the same underhanded things to you that you yourself refuse to acknowledge doing to them. For example, although conservatives launched numerous personal attacks on Kerry, they loudly complained about attacks on the president by “Bush haters” (see the first point above). This also tends to make the attacks by conservatives more acceptable given that it is “really” the other side that is the problem.

By the way, a quick perusal of the rhetorical literature revealed that many of the presentation styles presented here were discussed in the section on “Propaganda Techniques” in J. A. C. Brown’s 1964 book Techniques of Persuasion, Propaganda, and Communication!

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Dr. Neil Wollman is a Senior Fellow at the Peace Studies Institute and Professor of Psychology at Manchester College, North Manchester, IN. (now Senior Fellow, Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social Responsibility; Bentley College; Waltham, MA)
Dr. Abigail Fuller is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Manchester College, North Manchester, IN.

In response, we received this message with further tactics employed according to this researcher.

Dear Professors Wollman and Fuller,

I very much appreciated your recent Buzzflash Guest Contribution. I’ve been studying the right’s rhetorical style for quite some time now (as a layman). I’d like to suggest that in addition to the styles you discussed, I’ve noticed a few others that may be of interest to track. If you would like I can easily provide you with specific examples from right wing articles and blogs.

1. Be the first. The tactic is to be the first to escalate the emotional tenor of the argument and by the use of “hot button” code words and phrases, such as “infringement of my rights,” “you are a bigot,” and so on. This immediately puts their opponent on the defensive. I’ve noticed that most of these charges are projective. That is, a white supremacist will try early on in an argument to call his/her opponent a racist for refusing to respect the rights of whites.

2. Expropriate liberal symbols and culture. No one seems to have noticed this, including Thomas Frank, and yet it appears to be a conscious tactic. For a very long time, the right has, whenever possible, attempted to expropriate people, songs, and texts associated with liberals and the left. A photo of Franklin Roosevelt signing Social Security legislation appeared in a commercial advocating privatization. Daniel Drezner, a conservative commentator and blogger, claims that Reisman’s famous article, “The Paranoid Style” describes those who oppose George Bush. Incredibly, even a Bob Dylan protest song was invoked to scold Democrats for opposing Alberto Gonzales See here.. There are many other examples. Among the effects this tactic has is that it dramatically narrows the intellectual/cultural space for opponents to draw upon. Rhetorically, it blurs the meaning of these icons and symbols and marginalizes liberals by stripping them of any unambiguously positive references.

3. Conflation Often, a conservative will write as if the words “liberal” and “socialist” describe the same politics. In the same article, or similar ones, they will claim that communism is identical with socialism. They will then use “liberal” as an adjective: “the liberal Democrat [sic] Party” which rhetorically brands all Democrats as communists, i.e., discredited enemies of America.

4. Nit-picking (combined with changing the subject.) A perfect example was the right-wing attack on the Killian memos. The subject was changed from Bush’s dereliction of duty to a detailed discussion of typewriter fonts. All sense of truth was buried under the technical minutiae of the subject. Needless to say, the conservatives who began this were by no means expert on typography. When genuine experts examined the memos, nearly all the details pointed to as “clear evidence of forgery” were debunked. But by that time, it was too late. The entire Bush National Guard story was radioactive in the mainstream media.

5. Flood the rhetorical space. Pack a sentence with numerous falsehoods, misconceptions and biases so that it is difficult, if not impossible, to rebut them all within a reasonable time. For example (a hypothetical one, exaggerated to illustrate the technique): “Stem cell research, concocted and shamelessly promoted by the same Godless biologists that want to ban the Bible everywhere, has one and only one purpose, which is to kill innocent human babies.” By the time anyone has corrected all the errors of fact, any conceivable audience open to persuasion has fallen asleep.

In any event, good luck with your research.

Yours,

[tristero]