With the recent revelations about propaganda in our government, this is becoming a hot botton issue - and I will do my best to give you a diary that is very relevant to today.
Propaganda wasn't invented yesterday - it goes back as far as can be imagined, and is especially prevelant in matters of war. However, there is no single issue in modern history that has been riddled with more propaganda than drug prohibition and the so-called "War on Drugs" - and that includes war - except, perhaps, the Cold War. I am astonished that what is going on now is an "outrage", but what has been going on for years and years and years is essentially a "shrug-off".
I have written a lot of diaries lately. Perhaps they were not the quality of my extensive history diaries, for example. Well, I want to give you something to be proud of again before I immerse myself in my book.
Finally, I will follow the very wise Maryscott OConnor's advice and start telling you exactly what we can do about this garbage. If you think it's important, then read on, recommend (this will likely be the last time I will ask this of you,) and act.
UPDATED! [03/14/05]
(BTW, yes, this will touch upon PropaGannon - no naked pictures, unfortunately, but the more important political law and background. The title was like that as a joke, more or less, however.)
As for my history series - I have at least two more to do - this is the deal: those things take at least three days to write - and I'm talking 8+ hour days here, too (in essence they take at least 24 hours to write). I'm sorry, but I can't write one of those without assuming they will be heavily read - by new people, too. So what I am going to do is when I reach the point in my book that deals with them, I will do them as diaries as a rough draft. So whenever I get there, I get there. I know many people will be shocked and awed by the next one - how marijuana prohibition began (and you will read much of it right here,) but it's anti-dem (during the New Deal Era no less - and signed into law by FDR) - so I don't expect it to be popular among the majority of Kossacs. (FYI, the mistakes were admitted - by Dems - for example, JFK had one of the most progressive drug policies of any President - which included disbanding (combining if I remember correctly to be exact) the era's DEA (and as I said, that's what makes us different from the cons.) And then he was killed (before most of his policies - including the disbanding/combining mentioned - were made law/practice). I hate to put on a tin-foil-hat, but there why are there SO many coincidences that point to a major conspiracy regarding the US Government and illicit drugs?
First of all, I need to restate the importance in the King County Bar Association's full proposal to end drug reform, with a state's rights defense all laid out, and the request that the Washington State Legislature do what they suggest. PLEASE, give this thing legs! As I said, Maryscott feels that people think "it's fucked up, I agree, but what can I do." Well, here's something you can do. I am not so sure she is right, as that particular diary got one of the least notice of anything I have written in a long time. PLEASE, please, give this thing the legs it deserves! If you do, a maelstorm will ensue!
OK, on to the propaganda. This thing is going to be huge. I will label sections, so if the early history bores you, despite it's outrageous statements and implications, skip to what does interest you.
The Definition of Propaganda
This is the dictionary definition of propaganda:
- The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
- Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
- Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.
(American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition.)
Yep, that's right - the word "propaganda" comes from Latin (the word "propagate"), and originates from the third definition in the list - spreading ("propagating") Christianity, essentially. A bit of an irony.
Now, as for the dictionary definition, they are saying there are two types of propaganda. One is the systematic dissemination of information that advocates (or validates) a cause (such as what we see today regarding the "War on Drugs"), and the second is material disseminated by people who are specifically advocates (or opponents) of a cause - the example here being Jeff Ganon.
Is that truly a good definition? I don't think so. By that definition, what you are reading is propaganda, as I am an advocate for drug law reform. However, I make that abundantly clear to you, and give you facts (and lots of them), but I do give you a bit of opinion - how could I not, but not deceptively and I back it up with evidence when such evidence exists. I think in order for something to truly be propaganda, one of three tests needs to be met:
#1 - The information must come from a special interest (like a company) and not an individual (like the so-called "Partnership for a Drug-Free America.")
#2 - The information must be false, misleading, or not relevant (like much of what you will read here.)
#3 - The writer or "propagator" must not tell you their views/background (like Jeff Ganon, for instance.)
But that's just my opinion. As I said, however, if the above "tests" (my invention, maybe they need tweaking,) aren't part of the definition, and we just go with the dictionary definition, virtually everything you see, read, or hear is propaganda ("everything you see or read or hear on TV is a product begging for your fatass dirty dollar" - I think that's the line - from a song - and it's very true.)
The Supreme Court even acknowledged this problem in definition in MEESE v. KEENE, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) (a case regarding foreign propaganda, which is regulated in a very different way)
We begin our examination of the District Court's ruling on the First Amendment issue by noting that the term "political propaganda" has two meanings. In popular parlance many people assume that propaganda is a form of slanted, misleading speech that does not merit serious attention and that proceeds from a concern for advancing the narrow interests of the speaker rather than from a devotion to the truth...But it also includes advocacy materials that are completely accurate and merit the closest attention and the highest respect.
Now, there is another distinctly different type of propaganda: the type that comes from (or is paid for by) the government. The dictionary doesn't mention this. Now, I consider ANY information disseminated from the government to promote a cause propaganda. The government does need to disseminate information to inform the people of certain things, namely programs, but not to promote a political agenda. Yet the government has been doing this (promoting agendas, including using taxpayer money,) as far back as I can see.
Government Propaganda is Illegal! (Well, sort of.)
Alas, since when did that stop the government? It surely hasn't on the topic of drug policy. It's been going on since the turn of the century, and has gone haywire with the "War on Drugs". If you haven't, you'd probably enjoy reading "War on Drugs": A History (The Origin of "Moral Values"), which describes how Nixon started the "War on Drugs, being "tough on crime," and emphasizing "law and order," and the formation of the "values voter" - and essentially the Dixiecrats. I also wrote an interesting follow-up, regarding Art Linkletter, and his bogus beliefs, in War on Drugs: Art Linkletter (USA-Next) [Nixon Follow-up #1].
There is an anti-government-proganda law on the books, since 1951. It makes it illegal for any government funds to be used for propaganda ("not authorized by Congress" - which isn't good enough for me.) Unfortunately, it's not a permanent law. It's passed every year as a rider in the appropriations bill. That has to change.
This is the law, as written in the 2002-2004 Appropriations Bills (Rider #2 has been identical since 1951, when it was first added, and the other was also likely identical far longer than since 2002):
Rider #1:
No part of any funds appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
Rider #2:
No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.
ACTION ITEM! A Bill to Stop Taxpayer Funded Propaganda by By Frank Lautenberg, co-sponsored by Durbin, Corzine, Clinton, Dorgan, Murray, Johnson, Jack Reed, Lieberman and Leahy. It's in response to Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus, proposed February 2nd, 2005. Give it legs, and tell them to quit ignoring the propaganda mill on drug policy mainly disseminating from the DEA and corporate interests. They do mention the Office of Drug Control and Policy (Paranoid User Note: Whitehouse Link), however, which is a positive step. There is a huge loophole you could drive a truck through however, and I will get to it in a minute - and this bill doesn't address the problem.
Propaganda had its place in Saddam's Iraq. Propaganda was a staple of the old Soviet Union. But covert government propaganda has no place in the United States Government... As we seek to establish democracy in Iraq, let's first remove this taint from our own democracy.
- The above mentioned law.
We are so busy trying to spread Democracy abroad that we fail to realize it's on life-support at home.
The GAO (Government Accountability Office), the excellent bi-partisan government watchdog (which is an actual government agency), points out propaganda, even calling it illegal, countless times. But it's unable to enforce the law, and no one is willing to do it. The law proposed by Lautenberg would change that, and withhold the salary of the head of the agency that was found guilty of violating the law if the GAO's recommendations are unheeded, and allow citizens to bring forth lawsuits. I strongly suggest you read the bill as linked, it's a great read.
You hear alot about the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violating propaganda laws to push Bush's Medicare Prescription Plan. Did you hear about how the Office of National Drug Control Policy did virtually the exact same thing?
On January 4, 2005, the GAO ruled that the Office of National drug Control Policy violated the publicity and propaganda prohibitions by distributing fake television news stories to broadcast stations from 2002 to 2004.
(Referring to GAO report #B-303495)
If you want to know exactly how the propaganda law works, and what is illegal, I suggest you read this letter from the GAO to the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) responding to whether a letter (memo) they sent out to government prosecutors "violates the ban on spending funds for "publicity or propaganda" or "disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana."
Drug Policy Propaganda and the Law.
Unfortunately, according to current law, mainly since drugs are illegal according to law written by Congress, and the DEA was formed by Congress to fight drugs, the government spreading propaganda against reforming the drug policy would not be illegal! The exceptions to this would be if there was a bill in Congress under consideration to reform the drug laws, or if the law changed.
For example, let's look at the conclusion in the GAO letter cited above, about whether the ONDCP violated the law.
Even though the statements may have been controversial [i.e. bullshit], they were made within the context of ONDCP's statutory responsibilities, which include taking such actions as necessary to oppose efforts to legalize certain controlled substances such as marijuana.
That still doesn't mean it isn't political propaganda, illegal or not. Let's call a spade a spade. And let's force a change to the law, now that this issue is so front-and-center.
The DEA is a propaganda MACHINE. The best example of this I can point you to is "Speaking Out Against Legalization", a DEA Publication full of total BS, and very strongly advocating a particular agenda. The link I provided you to, however, contains a full point-by-point rebuttal by DRCNET, and is an EXCELLENT read - especially for those who have qualms and questions about legalization. They have a whole site that is a replica of the DEA's site, with point-by-point rebutals.
For example, the publication (originally a document for how to debate the issue) contains this gem:
The present social problems in the United States, including crime, health problems and poverty, are substantial and can only worsen if drugs become legal. The arguments for legalization are a sad and bitter offering to the most vulnerable segment of our population. Legalization would increase risks and costs to individuals, families and communities--indeed, to every part of the nation--without compensating benefits.
Any proposal with the potential to do these things is unacceptable. As public policy, it is fundamentally flawed.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. DRCNET could only respond with "It is quite clear that Thomas Constantine and the DEA have not read the major research on the subject. We refer you to Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy."
So, what did the ONDCP do that violated propaganda laws, and caused it to be mentioned in the proposed law put forth by Frank Lautenberg? As was quoted, they "violated publicity and propaganda prohibitions by distributing fake television news stories to broadcast stations from 2002 to 2004." So, what exactly made this case different? These were pre-packaged news stories, and there was no disclosure of what they really were, and who made them, which is the key on why they were found in violation.
The GAO calls it "covert propaganda" and stipulates it is illegal, but there is no clear law on this - it's the same two riders we are talking about here. The NY Times anaylsis (for when the HHS did this) says "Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. The accounting office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government without identifying the source." I think I might be missing something here regarding "covert propaganda," as I don't see how those two riders imply that the Government has to identify itself as the source (unless it's a very loose interpretation), but I am sure someone will enlighten me (and if/when they do I will add an update.)
The Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998 legislates the ONDCP to conduct a "National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign" for the purpose of "reducing and preventing drug abuse among young people in the United States." This is what made the pre-packaged "news" stories by the ONDCP legal at all - if they said their source, they would have been, according to the GAO.
Looking at that language, I wonder if the DEA really is exempt from the anti-propaganda laws. If the law says that they should "reduce and prevent drug abuse," and spread information and have a media campaign for that purpose, that doesn't mean they can fight against the legalization of drugs - as it's totally debatable (and thus a political position, too,) whether legalizing drugs would increase drug use among teens. As someone who was a teen within a time frame I can remember pretty well, I can tell you with no doubt that it's far easier for most teens (and no place is "safe") to get illegal drugs than alcohol. I would really need to thoroughly investigate a crapload of law to figure out the answer to that question, unfortunately. Maybe, for my book. Or maybe the GAO has investigated it already.
Response to a request to reconsider the GAO report and findings - shot down.
What does this mean for politics today? It means as long as Congress says they can spread propaganda - even covert propaganda if they make the language say as such (or ambiguous enough), they can do it. Considering the Repugs control Congress, I would be worried. I definitely am worried.
Before we Continue - About Drug Propaganda.
You all know about war propaganda, right? How it's all about dehumanization? Well Drug Propaganda is much of the same. I will highlight what I think exemplifies this argument. Terms such as "dope fiend" which never saw the light of day until the government got into the prohibition business - hell even "addict" wasn't used back then - people were simply "sufferers."
When looking at history, it's important to take note of the dehumanization. It's blatant and disgusting.
Then we have the propaganda of how evil drugs are, but that usually speaks for itself. Unfortunately, most people don't really know the actual dangers of drugs and believe all the propaganda. There is no doubt that most drugs can be considered "dangerous." Nonetheless, many of the specifics that are said about them, or the comparisons that are implied, are just plain incorrect.
A Review of the Early Drug Laws.
OK, back to ground zero, turn of the Century. You might want to read Drug Prohibition: A History (Part II - Prohibition Begins) which discusses, in some depth, the background to how drug (and to a lesser extent alcohol) prohibition began in America.
Let's review. We have four major drug prohibitions occuring in this period: before World War II. Actually, nothing much happened after the final one in 1937 until Nixon took office (except when LSD was made illegal in the 60s, but I don't know the details of that one just yet.) So, essentially, this if from the late 19th Century (1800s) to about 1960 (where things changed quite a bit, culturally at least, the political fall-out wasn't really until 1970-1974 - see "War on Drugs": A History (The Origin of "Moral Values"). OK, so what campaigns against drugs did we have before the 60s?
First they banned smoking opium, in cities and the states (the very first ban was in San Fransisco), and then by the federal government (first with taxes and such, then finally a ban.) This was a bit of a rollercoaster ride - they kept changing the law as it just wasn't working (duh,) repealed it completely and then put it back in place. Why did they make this law? Because they didn't like the "heathen" Chinese, of course! (That's why it was for smoking opium, while white folk drank laudnum.)
What did they do next? They passed the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 (and many states passes similar legislation after propaganda campaigns and federal government pressure, for the most part,) after the UN Comission(s) at the Hague - a product of our engineering. (note: not actual "United Nations" UN, it didn't exist yet, but it's referred to that way anyway for some reason, at least I have seen it done as such). It outlawed opiates (opium, morphine, and heroin, mainly) and cocaine/coca derivatives, for non-medicinal purposes (which, after the Supreme Court reversed it's decision in 1919, included maintenance for addicts by physicians.) Why was this law passed? Well, this one was mainly for international reasons (I am still digging on this one.) HOWEVER, cocaine was added to it - despite the fact that it wasn't a "narcotic" and was not part of the Hague Comission. Why? Because of those "cocainized niggers", of course!
Next we have alcohol prohibition, which went into effect in (Jan.) 1920, via the 19th Amendment and the Volstead Act. It was repealed in 1933. This was done because of two things: Christian Values being #1, and #2 being believe it or not progressive ideals (one of the biggest mistakes in history progressives have made) that alcohol was what was preventing an American Utopia. (In reality, it was the "gilded age" conservative economic policies, of course.) Note that the campaign for alcohol prohibition goes way, way back into the mid-1800s if not earlier. I am not going to cover this here, as the campaign was by the temperance movement, and I don't have enough space to really cover it, it's huge. I give you this one cartoon from my other diary, the one to the right.
Finally, in 1937, we had the Marijuana ["Marihuana" I think it was] Tax Act (which made marijuana illegal). This one is a doozy. Why we made this law isn't really known (once again, still digging) - probably for two reasons. The first was because the architect, Anslinger, was quite simply a prohibitionist asshole (who cared nothing for the truth whatsoever,) and the other being the fear of the enormous benefits of hemp - in this case, notably paper, I don't think oil was a consideration back then (hemp is an excellent source of fuel and could likely easily end our dependence on foreign oil - but that's from what I read; I am not an expert on energy.) Even though the reasons for this one do not have any racist or christian morals in them, wait till you see the propaganda for this one.
The Propaganda of the Early Drug Laws and Prohibition
OK, this is already getting huge, so I can't possible include every piece of propaganda. I have selected the two best ones that I will quote most of, and will provide a few additional quotes and links.
First of all, regarding the "heathen" Chinese and the racist origins of prohibition, try reading Chinatown Declared a Nuisance (San Fransisco), a pamphlet distributed by the Workingman's Committee of California, the political party the mayor was in. Here is some of what it had to say:
"The Chinese Evil in the State of California has long been considered in politics a certain something to catch votes. Neither the Republican or Democratic Party ever intended that this Chinese Issue should ever be settled, because it was their favorite hobby-horse upon which to ride into office."
"...Chinatown is a cancer spot, which endagers the healthy and prosperous condition of the city of San Fransisco."
It is extremely important for me to emphasize the racist nature of the early drug laws. Without these racist fears, we wouldn't have seen drug prohibition in this era. Anslinger and the Marijuana Tax Act changed the tactics a bit, but we will get there - and it was still majorly racist.
Another major piece of propaganda spread was the "Soldier's Disease" Myth of Civil War Veterans all being Morphine Addicts. It's not true, at least not significantly. See This Article from 1879.
Here's a teaser:
The earliest (and often the only) example of opiate addiction as a social problem which is frequently cited by drug experts is Soldier's Disease -- widespread addiction resulting from widespread opiate use in the Civil War. Most writers who report Soldier's Disease devote no more than three sentences to it. It is the brevity, clarity, "catchiness," and conceptual implication of "Soldier's Disease" which accounts for the contemporary significance of such a fleeting reference. Possibly the lengthiest and most graphic description of opiate use in the Civil War, resulting in massive addiction among veterans, was provided by Gerald Starkey, a century after that war:
In 1862 (sic) the Civil War broke out.... They would charge each other, literally pound chains down cannons and fire point blank at the enemy and these young men were presented to their field surgeons with terrible shrapnel wounds ... along with terrible pain.
About all the field surgeon could do was use the two new invented tools that had been presented to him in the previous five or six years I the hypodermic needle and syringe, along with Morphine Sulfate .... They injected the young wounded veterans with huge amounts of Morphine daily (every four hours) to kill their pain.... It was necessary for the surgeons to do full-quarter amputations -- literally take the arms and legs off right at the start of the body, usually to stop infectious gangrene.
In 1865 there were an estimated 400,000 young War veterans addicted to Morphine.... The returning veteran could be. . identified because he had a leather thong around his neck and a leather bag (with) Morphine Sulfate tablets, along with a syringe and a needle issued to the soldier on his discharge.... (T)his was called the "Soldier's Disease."
Of course, contemporary comparisons such as to Vietnam show that opiate users in war do not often bring the habit home with them.
They had to sell the Harrison Act, this one didn't have the popular support that the original racist smoking opium laws had - this would hit white people. The guy who was the architect of this was Dr. Hamilton Wright, given the title "Opium Comissioner" (who, I failed to mention in my history diary, went on to be the government prosecutor in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. He died shortly thereafter.)
One of the most major things he did in terms of propaganda was this "interview" with the NY Times. This is classic propaganda, and a must read. It's 100% pure bullshit. In 1911, opium use was in a major decline, partially thanks to the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act (which required proper labelling of drugs containing habit-forming substances), and partially thanks to a wave of education that these drugs were addictive and dangerous, and wasn't that big a problem anymore. It never really was a problem (meaninging there was little harm done to society and even the user from an addiction to legal opiates) - except for "accidental addiction", which no longer happened to a large extent at this point. We did not have the worst opium problem in the world, physicians no longer used it (opium/morphine) recklessly (well compared to today they did, but in it's day, considering what they had to work with, they did not), and other countries did not pass the legislation he is suggesting they did. Oh, and Dr. Wright - he wasn't famous, nevermind worldwide. His most famous achievement was 'proving' Beri-beri was a communicable disease. It's a vitamin deficiency.
I won't post the whole thing, as it's huge, but I will post much of it as it's one of the most important articles - one of the first pieces of government propaganda regarding drugs.
Notice the moralistic tone throughout the article. All emphasis mine.
New York Times March 12, 1911
UNCLE SAM IS THE WORST DRUG FIEND IN THE WORLD
THIS HAD TO BE CUT OUT BECAUSE THE DAILYKOS CUT OFF THE DIARY AS IT WAS SO HUGE. SEE THE HUGE POST IN THE COMMENTS FOR THIS ARTICLE.
It was also important that they try to convince people that a drug habit was curable. Here's an early attempt to do so. It's so ridiculous, I'm not even going to quote it.
So there you have it. Let's move on to the "Negro cocaine fiends," shall we?
OK, here's nearly full article #2. Edited, again, way too long. Again, all emphasis mine. You should know that cocaine has not been linked to violence, does not cause hallucinations like this, and that alcohol is linked to violence more often than not. The reports cited are, to put it simply, bogus.
"New York Times, Sunday February 8, 1914
Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower Class Because They Have Taken to "Sniffing" Since Being Deprived of Whisky by Prohibition
Edward Huntington Williams, M.D.
For some years there have been rumors about the increase in drug taking in the South-vague, but always insistent rumors that the addiction to such drugs as morphine and cocaine was becoming a veritable curse to the colored race in certain regions. Some of these reports read like the wildest flights of a sensational fiction writer. Stories of cocaine orgies and "sniffing parties" followed by wholesale murders seem like lurid journalism of the yellowest variety.
But in point of fact there was nothing "yellow" about many of these reports.
...
HAD TO BE CUT TO FIT IN UPDATE. SEE COMMENTS FOR THIS ARTICLE, WHICH I WILL CALL STORY #2.
Yes, you read that right. Many police forces changed from .32 to .38 caliber pistol because the smaller was supposedly unable to kill these "cocanized niggers."
Many newspapers used terms like "Negro cocaine fiends" and "cocainized niggers" to drive up sales. There was also a panic of fear of the raping of white women. I don't believe there is but one instance of a cocaine-induced rape, as the "nigger" who committed the act would surely be killed quite brutally.
And thus, cocaine became part of the Harrison Narcotics Act - the drug law until 1970 - that is, except the Marijuana Tax Act.
Marijuana Propaganda - The Marijuana Tax Act 1937 and beyond.
There is no propaganda more egregious than that you are about to read. It was one of the biggest propaganda campaigns ever out of war - and it worked. Enough to make people ambivalent about the law, at least, much like with the Harrison Narcotics Act. In both cases, there was little support for these laws, even after the propaganda (and in the first case the legislators didn't even realize what they were doing - in the second, also, even.) There was major support for an anti-marijuana laws, but on local levels, from this massive propaganda campaign.
The whole thing was a giant campaign by a guy named Harry Anslinger - America's first Drug Czar - a position he held until 1962 when he was finally dismissed by the Democrat who I said was willing to admit the mistake - John F. Kennedy. The passage of the act is something that will make your jaw drop - but it's for another diary. By the time the law was passed, 37 states had laws against marijuana - mostly a uniform act that he engineered.
Before this act passed, marijuana was considered a legitimate medical drug and was even used often at times. After Ansligner's Campaign, however, it was completely removed from any literature.
The Marijuana Laws, both in the states and in the federal government, were, as usual, largely racist in nature. This time it was against the Mexicans. We know this because back then legislators spoke their mind. Henry Anslinger, in his testimony before Congress, said it "had a [violent] effect on the degenerate races." One Texas Legislator said "all Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy...Give one of these mexican beet field workers a couple of puffs on a marijuana cigarette and he thinks he is in the bullring at Barcelona."
You will not believe the misconceptions about Marijuana at the time. The only plausible explaination is propaganda. And we have plenty to look at. Let me just say that Anslinger also said that "Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death." THIS is the propaganda he was spreading. And he didn't stop. When it was finally to the point he couldn't say such ridiculous things, it was HE who invented the "gateway theory" of Marijuana, to justify a law for stiffer punishments. His quote was that it was "the certain first step on the road to heroin addiction" (and that became the sole justification for marijuana prohibition.) And some still believe it to this day. It may be subtle, but the propaganda was still there and is still continuing today. And what is said in the legislatures is propaganda - it is reported by the media! And nowadays, it's accepted as fact. Here's a lesson on what happens when the media does this. sigh
Alright, let's start with some quotes from Wikipedia. This is all from the period of 1915-1937.
A publication in the Montana Standard, on January 27, 1929, records progress on a bill in that state to amend the general narcotic law:
"There was fun in the House Health Committee during the week when the Marihuana bill came up for consideration. Marijuana is Mexican opium, a plant used by Mexicans and cultivated for sale by Indians. 'When some beet field peon takes a few rares of this stuff,' explained Dr. Fred Fulsher of Mineral County, 'he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico so he starts to execute all his political enemies...' Everybody laughed and the bill was recommended for passage."
Or how about this one (also take note of his "Gore File" - something that has been completely and utterly debunked):
By using the mass media as his forum (receiving much support from William Randolph Hearst), Anslinger propelled the anti-marijuana sentiment from the state level to a national movement writing for American Magazine. The best examples were contained in his "Gore File", a collection of police-blotter-type narratives of heinous cases, most with flimsy substantiation, linking graphically depicted offenses with the drug:
"An entire family was murdered by a youthful addict in Florida. When officers arrived at the home, they found the youth staggering about in a human slaughterhouse. With an axe he had killed his father, mother, two brothers, and a sister. He seemed to be in a daze... He had no recollection of having committed the multiple crime. The officers knew him ordinarily as a sane, rather quiet young man; now he was pitifully crazed. They sought the reason. The boy said that he had been in the habit of smoking something which youthful friends called "muggles," a childish name for marijuana."
There was a whole file I had of Marijuana "crimes" - his "Gore File" - all reported in newspapers, but alas I can't find it. There were many of them, and they were all discredited.
Finally, we have this one:
Most commonly this campaign also focused intensely on racist themes, popular of the time:
"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with female students (white), smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result pregnancy"; or "Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of marijuana. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."
In places without Mexicans - like New York - the justification for the marijuana laws were the fear of "substitution." Here's a quote from a 1919 NY Times Article to show you what I mean.
"No one here in New York uses this drug marijuana. We have only just heard about it from down in the Southwest, But we had better prohibit its use before it gets here. Otherwise all the heroin and hard narcotics addicts cut off from their drug by the Harrison Act and all the alcohol drinkers cut off from their drug by 1919 alcohol Prohibition will substitute this new and unknown drug marijuana for the drugs they used to use."
God forbid!
Here's one from the NY Times in 1934, in full.
USE OF MARIJUANA SPREADING IN WEST
Poisonous Weed Is Being Sold Quite Freely in Pool Halls and beer Gardens.
CHILDREN SAID TO BUY IT
Narcotic Bureau Officials Say Law Gives No Authority to Stop Traffic.
Special Correspondence to The New York Times, September 16, 1934
DENVER, Sept. 13. -- Although as appalling in its effects on the human mind and body as narcotics, the consumption of marijuana appears to be proceeding, virtually unchecked in Colorado and other Western States with a large Spanish-American population. The drug is particularly popular with latin Americans and its use is rapidly spreading to include all classes.
The poisonous weed which maddens the senses and emaciates the body of the user, is being sold more or less openly in pool halls and beer gardens throughout the West and Southwest and, according to some authorities, it is being peddled to school children. The Federal Government is powerless to stop the traffic, officials of the Narcotic Bureau say, because marijuana was left out of the Harrison Act under which the bureau gets its authority to stop the traffic in opium and its derivatives.
The seriousness of the problem, growing out of laxity in enforcing State laws barring the drug, is indicated by the fact that it is the same weed from which the Egyptian hashish is made. The plant grows wild in many parts of the United States, but when cultivated it is usually concealed in a stand of some other high-growing crop such as sugar beets, alfalfa or corn. After it grows to a height of three or four feet it blossoms and is cut and dried. The leaves and blossoms are then packed in ordinary pocket-size tobacco tins which retail at $3 to $5 each and contain enough "hay" to make thirty or forty cigarettes, one of which is enough to intoxicate the smoker.
The sensations of the addict are wholly different from those of the user of narcotics. Users of marijuana become stimulated as they inhale the drug and are likely to do anything. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts, are laid to users of the drug. However, it is said that the marijuana habit can be more easily broken than that of narcotics.
The weed's toxic qualities are not confined to men, but have equally deleterious effects on animals. Kin to the loco weed, marijuana when mixed with hay causes death to the horses that eat it.
They even went so far as to make a film: Reefer Madness (originally named Tell Your Children, and re-named countless times.) In all fairness, I don't think the government itself had anything to do with it: it was a propaganda film made by moralists. I watched in once, thinking it would be funny. It wasn't. It was made in 1936, the year before the Federal Act's passage.
The plot is like this: some high school students are lured by pushers to try "marijuana". A murder, a suicide, and madness follow.
It is in the public domain, and you can download it (legally)! For those that are interested, you can try here.
Because the government itself claimed that marijuana caused insanity, five different people who committed murder claimed they were insane due to marijuana. They all won, thanks to an "expert's" testimony - for the next history diary. This further added to marijuana's bad reputation. One guy, a doctor no less, I think it was the first, in a murder trial in NJ in 1938, was asked what happened when he used the drug. He said "after two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I was turned into a bat." He then went on a rant about how he flew around the room. That's paper-selling gold. The Newark Star Ledger Headline the next day was "Killer Drug Turns Doctor to Bat!" Anslinger put an end to this by pulling the "expert" (by threatening his job.)
One of the last things Harry Anslinger did, after creating the "gateway" theory in 1956, was de facto propaganda: he attempted ruthlessly to halt the production of a book: The Addict and the Law by Professor Alfred Lindsmith (obviously, the book was anti-drug-war). It specifically fingered Anslinger pretty hard. It was a bad time for him to try something like that, and the controversy is supposedly credited for playing a large role in his firing.
Revolt Against the 60s - The "War on Drugs" - Drug War Propaganda of the 70s.
I already wrote about this, to some extent. See "War on Drugs": A History (The Origin of "Moral Values"), which describes how Nixon started the "War on Drugs, being "tough on crime," and emphasizing "law and order," and the
formation of the "values voter" - and essentially the Dixiecrats. I also wrote an interesting follow-up, regarding Art Linkletter, and his bogus beliefs, in War on Drugs: Art Linkletter (USA-Next) [Nixon Follow-up #1].
Yeah, I pasted that from up above. This is long, and I am tired. Can't blame me, can you? It's perfect (the paragraph).
The "Moral Values" voter, the whole South as a voting bloc, it all started with propaganda - much of it regarding the "War on Drugs" (and the secret "War on Sex.")
Art Linkletter too, the President? of USA-Next, that GOP Front Organization as the AARP Alternative, is nothing more than a propagandist - as is clear. But it didn't start today. Back in the 70s, he was a drug warrior, recruited by Nixon. His daughter committed suicide by jumping out a kitchen window (which is tragic, no doubt.) Art Linkletter blamed it on LSD - even though he seemed to have no reason to believe she was on LSD (or so he said at the time, later interviews he changed his story - he still sticks to it, to this day.) Well, the whole thing is highly likely entirely bogus, and was, as far as I can tell, the foundation of the "LSD makes people think they can fly" myth. I am sure it has happened a handful of times - but in those cases these people had some serious mental illness, in my fairly strong opinion.
I will re-post just a snippet or two. For everything else, you'll have to read the diaries (which still aren't a complete picture - I am going to do another follow-up.)
In 1971, Richard Nixon declared that the drug problem was a "national emergency". He fabricated statistics - by changing the ratio of dead junkies in the morgue to assumed junkies on the street - to make it look like a heroin crisis was upon us (and he later changed it back to declare victory.) In his 1971 State of the Union, he declared that drugs were smuggled "without the slightest respect for national boundaries" and needed "an integrated attack on...their movement across international borders." And, thus, the American World Police(tm) was born. He often emphasized attacking the problem at it's source - overseas. The "War on Drugs" officially began as the 1971 midterm elections approached, in June 1971, and Nixon announced a formal declaration of war on drugs. (I thought only Congress had the ability to declare war? </snark>)
I re-posted this as it shows propaganda - fabricated statistics that were cited by Nixon time after time again.
And the DEA has been spewing vile propaganda ever since (it was formed, as a combination and re-arrangement of agencies, by Nixon in 1973).
Corporate Propaganda - The "Partnership for a Drug-Free America."
WHEW, our final topic - corporate propaganda in the "War on Drugs". Not that corporate propaganda is limited to the "War on Drugs".
I heard a commercial by the "Partnership for a Drug-Free America" the other day. Actually, I heard several - two stick out in my mind - very sadly on Air America. If you think it sucks, please write them and let them know you don't want propaganda on their network. Anyway, the first one compared using ecstacy to sticking dynamite up your ass. Yeah, that's comparable. Actually, I do believe most ecstacy deaths (which do happen, but are relatively rare, maybe a hundred of them in the USA AFAIK,) are from dehydration - something totally preventable. So instead of telling people the truth and reducing their harm, they go off with bullshit scare tactics. It's very comparable to the "abstinence only" sexual education - which has been proven that not only does it not work - but that it increases sex among teens and increases the potential danger, as they are less likely to have safe sex. The "just say no" approach is very clearly a miserable, and dangerous, failure.
Because of our propaganda campaigns, and our continuing (to this point for gods sake) illusion of a "Drug-Free America", we are still refusing to teach teens how to protect themselves as best as possible - very much like the sex ed I just mentioned. That doesn't mean we need to condone it, but I honestly think being honest with a teenager would work far better than scare tactics.
The other commercial that stuck out in my mind was about sniffing household chemicals. It ended with "what they don't know is that sniffing can cause instant death." A little gratuitous, don't you think? I mean, my god, that's like an ad for Advil saying "what you don't know is that Advil can cause instant death." Yeah, it's possible, but geez. Once again, see the above rant. And our abstinence-only policies of our government arne't just for sex - they are for drugs - and we refuse to give money to anyone who supports needle exchanges (we do for christs sake,) programs which are proven to be effective in reducing AIDS, getting dirty needles properly disposed of, and helping reach out to addicts - and they have also been proven not to increase drug use. But our government's puritanical policies are once again screwing the unfortunate.
Sorry for the rant, and the tangent. Back to the topic. There is a good reason why we still have these "Drug-Free America" Commercials: they are funded by corporations that benefit from prohibition. Most notably, the #1 financier of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America is the pharmaceutical industry. God knows if drugs were legalized, they'd lose tons and tons of money. Same goes with medicinal marijuana. And this isn't new - this type of corporate propaganda has been going on for decades.
They are the ones who made the famous "this is your brain on drugs" commercials. They also once showed a flat line brain scan supposedly hooked up to a drug user. It was later proven that it was hooked up to nothing. This advertising is supposed to be for kids - but in reality it's for adults. Do you think the pharmaceutical industry cares about kids doing drugs? They care about their parents keeping prozac as a best seller.
This should be illegal. They can say whatever they want - but make it clear who is paying for it - and if they are spreading lies, do not subsidize them (which we do), and 50% discounts are provided as they are considered "public service announcements." At one time, apparently not anymore, they were largely funded by alcohol and tobacco companies, and there was a controversy over their ambivalence to alcohol.
Plugs & Resources
The Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNET) (reform advocacy organization)
the Drug Policy Alliance (reform advocacy organization)
Common Sense for Drug Policy (an advocacy organization)
American Civil Liberties Union (they oppose drug prohibition in case you weren't aware)
Drug War Facts - a nice site with some great quotes and summaries, completely based in verifiable fact
The NarcoSphere - a journal/blog of sorts, focusing mainly on the WoD
The Vaults of Erowid - Documenting the Complex Relationship Between Humans and Psychoactives - an excellent resource.
The Lycaeum - Entheogenic Database & Community - a resource similar to erowid.
Opioids: past, present, and future [with a hedonistic view for the future] - a decent resource, especially for newbies.
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy - probably the best resource on drug prohibition.
DRCNET response to the DEA - a total duplication of the DEA Website with a point by point rebuttal to everything they have published. Great stuff.
Medscape - the source of clinical studies, with free abstracts. (registration req'd.)
Drug WarRant - one of the best anti-prohibitionist blogs.
D'Alliance - Blog of the Drug Policy Alliance.
Conclusion: The Action Alerts.
There are two action alerts. The first is what was mentioned specifically in this diary, A Bill to Stop Taxpayer Funded Propaganda. Support it. Preach it. Elevate.
The second is what is going on in Washington State. You need to tell the Washington State Legislature, as well as the King County Bar Association, that you support this. BIG news! King County Bar Association asks Washington State to tell Feds to butt out.
UPDATE: The CIA has been heavily involved in the drug trade ever since World War II - and has even directly trafficked cocaine, and likely opium as well. For those that are interested and haven't read them, please see:
War on Drugs: The Masquerade (Part I of III), War on Drugs: The Masquerade (Part II of III), and War on Drugs: The Masquerade (Part III of III)
You can find a current list of my dairies on this topic here: Dkospedia Drug War Page, at the bottom of the screen.
UPDATE [03/14/05 12:30PM EST]: Someone mentioned they wanted a PDF. Here's a present for you. It's all nice and coherently formatted, too. Anything for my loyal readers.
UPDATE [03/14/05]: Justice Department Issues Memo Telling government agencies to ignore GAO Reports!
Yes, you heard right. After pleading with the GAO, the Bush Administration has decided "fuck 'em", that their opinion on the matters trumps the GAO's - the government watchdog. Of course, since when did Bush have to answer to "accountability?
Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper "covert propaganda" even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports "that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials."
It is not certain, though, whether the office's pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a few federal agencies have stopped making television news segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and "purely informational" news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency's role in producing them is disclosed to viewers.
Friday afternoon. Surprize, Surprize!
We are talking about these "VNR"'s [Video News Releases] here, a problem that is much more widespread than Health and Human Services promoting Bush's Medicare Plan and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The US Government makes literally hundreds if not thousands of these "pre-packaged" news clippings, and they wind up being diseminated as real news when they are not.
Now, if you read the whole thing, you would know that the government needs to legimately do this sometimes to spread information about programs and things not properly covered by real news. But things have gotten out of hand in the Bush Administration - who has been flooding us with propaganda. I am not going to re-state what I have already written.
There is something important to add, however - another law on the books that I overlooked. Well, two of them. The first is FCC Policy - that says that it is illegal for broadcasters to do this. They have never fined or issued a notice about it once. The other is the The 1948 Smith-Mundt Act (which I do not believe was mentioned in, definitely not a focus, of the GAO Findings), which prohibits domestic dissemination of American Gov't. made propaganda while authorizing it for Voice of America, our propaganda circuit (one of them, at least,) abroad (a Cold War Relic). I read the act, and I can't find anything that doesn't specifically apply only to the United States Information Agency. And that's what has been claimed - "Yet State Department officials said that law does not apply to the Office of Broadcasting Services."
What can we do about it? Don't forget Sen. Lautenberg's Bill! ("A Bill to stop taxpayer funded propaganda"). Support it! We must get steam behind this bill and put the Republicans on the defensive - forcing them to defend keeping propaganda legal.
This is OUTRAGEOUS! Call your Senators, Write your Senators, do SOMETHING! TomMurphy and Lawnorder seem to be on top of this, so listen to what they have to say. Here are some other things you can do:
#1 - try stopfakenews.org - thanks to lawnorder for this tip.
#2 - go to congress.org and tell your Senators you support this bill 100%. WRITE THEM, snail mail, and CALL THEM, they don't listen to emails a hell of a lot.