US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC :
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | View comments | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
News ::
"Liberal" Nation magazine publishes govt anti-pot ad (english)
20 Dec 2002
Modified: 28 Dec 2002
Title: "Is it OK to Support Terrorism if it's only a Little Bit?" Sponsored by: Office of National Drug Control Policy
In the 12/30/02 issue at page 8, The Nation published this full page ad:

Header: Picture of small bag of marijuana.
Title: "Is it OK to Support Terrorism if it's only a Little Bit?"
Sponsored by: Office of National Drug Control Policy

The text of the ad states that if you buy drugs you are financing drug cartels, people who are responsible for terrible things. If you stop buying drugs, the dealers and violence would go away. It concludes by saying it doesn't matter if you only buy a dime bag... "you pick which side you're on by buying it in the first place."

So pot smokers are on the side of the "terrorists?" Oh really. I did not know Oregon organic is the product of a terrorist cartel. Could be members of the dreaded ELF, I suppose. Of course, the ad fails to mention that drug prohibition creates the huge profits that inspire formation of cartels.

The Nation says that it blanketly accepts any advertising that does not impede the use of its editorial columns, unless the ads are "blatantly misleading" or purveying harmful products in which case they fall into the gray area of discretion. If the above ad is not blatantly misleading, what is?

Apparently, discretion is a utilitarian calculus at The Nation, the editors assuming that an infusion of government cash outweighs any damage done by the ad. In other words, the end justifies the means. They are going to run more such ads in the future.

I wonder if The Nation would print a government ad claiming that anyone who buys goods from a Muslim business is supporting terrorism. (Could well happen subsequent to another terror attack.) Would this be sufficiently "blatantly misleading" to warrant the editor's discretion? My bet is yes.

The Nation says its up to our readers whether to believe what they read. True. But advertising influences people's minds. Why else is so much money spent on it?

It seems that pot smokers are easy targets, and OK to sacrifice for some quick cash. But ... what's the old saying? I'll paraphrase: They came for the pot smokers and I wasn't one, so I did nothing. They came for the Muslims, and I wasnt' one, so I did nothing. They came for the activists and I wasnt one, so I did nothing. They came for me and ... end of magazine.
Add a quick comment
Your name Your email


Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.


Pharmacology and the Public Mind (english)
28 Dec 2002
There's something besides the name of the magazine but I can't fault only the name because National Radio Project is really an international scope and concern but again there's something about the former. Maybe it's corporatization to some extent of issues.

Such magazines at first seem quite informative but even if you have never watched "the news" before, remember for some people, there's a first time, even corporate local news may seem to be "so now I'm a news watcher" and then you may hopefully move on from there after seeing the repeat nature of car accidents, weather fascination, entertaitment features, and begin seeing a promising distinction between it and if in the U.S. the so-called public radio.

You hear longer "in depth" reporting" and the commercials are not as explicit but they're still there and quite prominent as you continue in this media pattern.

Next there's notice of european press even that which is considered "mass" appealing seemingly not only more critical of the U.S. but even of local issues from their perspective.

Maybe now you listen (and it's implied you reflect, share, act, etc.) from even more varied sources Making Contact (noted above -, Alternative Radio, heard on Martin Voelker in addition to his own recordings and now you're likely to be even less apt to be satisifed watching car accidents - maybe you could accept if attention was given to how to limit them, etc.

It's not to say you don't want to be able to watch "local" news but under the circumstances you'll have to hope you can hear webcasting from Allston Brighton Free Radio hear on AM radio, etc.

Oh yea, the point of the title: There may be some people who hopefully after going through the interactive doctor-client process and knowing what non-pharmacology treaments are available may understand all the possible side effects and other relvant issues related to a prescribed medication.

As I often add when ever my mom says: "they put me on..." I quickly jump in to her annoyance and say please don't make it sound as if you're forced to take anything. You decided upon hearing and understanding the above factors to agree to take the medication and you or family will report any and all possible side effects or anything out of the ordinary.

Point, Jim, where is it? Anyone who is so against "drugs" may not know that some form of mental illness are believed to be related to either too much or not enough of certain neurotransmitters, chemical messengers, that could be broadly called natural drugs, and of which actual medications usual mode of action is to complment or limit natural phamacologial proceses in the body.

Much of which could be better explained by a nurse or doctor and such with proper known and verified expertise and creditionals, etc.

I also think the "local news" in addition to mentioning so many medications could get into some of these details so that some people don't end up relying on match stick folder information or something they read without proper credibility such as from me. The hopefully implicit disclaimer in someone seeking information: Consult a....or several....
Having seen the crowds that gather for the rally in the Boston Common if only such events mobilized people to get involved with other efforts localy and across the skies.

I should know better than to write on the fly if your're hear I can hearing you.