Prometheus 6

They must let the arrogance get to their heads to think we would enjoy seeing this confernce room of minds. I just saw a video of elistists who suppose to talk about business news act as if they mandate the truth of the drug problem. I like how the one guy say "inner cities" first when drugs are running more rampant in the suburbs.

Nice catch, I think more people need to see how the media create their propaganda.

There's more here.

I didn't know about the Coast Guard thing mentioned at the end.

That the wealthy drug users contacted Congress to get the zero-tolerance policy ended in less than a calendar quarter really pisses me off as I think of how young minorities are treated over the very possibility of a joint.

These video segments come weekly. I think I shall watch them. 

The smartest two people in the room are Mary Anastasia O'Grady and Nancy Schaefer Riley but I don't expect the boys to recognize this fact. I also find it interesting that the boys clearly recognize that the country's drug laws are unfairly enforced to the benefit of offenders in their social and economic class. The boys also don't know diddley about buying or using drugs but they feel they are qualified to pontificate and suggest what this country's policies should be.

I have deeply mixed feelings about watching these propagand...er... marketing tools. Those folks are writers, not actors, so I can't claim they're willfully putting on a show. But the level of control doesn't ultimately rest with them. They sit in a room and talk and SOMEBODY ELSE decides which clips with which to massage public opinion. Gives me the chills.

As far as the subject of this particular clip, I find it personally aggravating that older preppie and younger preppie INSIST that not only is legalization a complete non-starter, but that it would INEVITABLY lead to the entire country becoming "addicted" within a matter of minutes or something. Bullshit.

That's the first thing I thought about as the clip developed after reading P6's observation about the brother not being in the room.  Well, we saw just how much cloat the ladies had and they were in the room.

I don't have a very well developed position on the legalization topic but wouldn't (or shouldn't) the legalization thing work like pharmaceutical controlled substances?  I mean, there are plenty of people abusing them but most people still know it's illegal to abuse them and are therefore deterred from doing so.

About the Editorial page.

...has never stopped anybody who wanted to use drugs from using them. I decided a long time ago that the America government's policies on drugs were little more than an effort to control the consciousness of its citizens. There is no reason why certain drugs like heroin, for example, should not be treated in much the same way that we treat other pharmaceutically controlled substances. If you are addicted to heroin then you should be able to register as an addict and receive a prescribed amount of the drug through your physician.

The fact that we may see an uptick - nobody knows how large or small it may be - in the number of people using heroin is not a rational argument against its legalization. Being addicted to drugs that one can legally obtain and use without fear of being jailed for possessing the drug or, worse, committing crimes against others in order to have enough money to score the drugs is a damn sight better than the system we currently have in place.

Most of the fear that has been inculcated in the American people over the decades about the downside of drug use has been based on factors such as a fear of race mixing, i.e., between black men and white women; bunk scientific studies; a puritanic desire to control how others may seek pleasure; and, the desire of police agencies such as the FBI to increase their authority over people's lives. 

P6....

Do you think it is in settings like this in which intepretations such as the one Peyton Thomas employed to describe the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings (white feminists stifling black progress) emerge and take shape?    

On the particular issue, the idea has been around at least since the 60s'. I think it was ol' Strom that insisted on adding women to the Civil Rights Act of 64, under the premise that by including more than half the population it would put the lie to the very term "minority."

And in general, I don't think grand conspiracies are necessary. All you need is a bunch of people to agree that certain assertions are facts...they will tend toward the same conclusions. It's the same principle Carter Woodsen set forth when he said if you teach folks 'right' they will not only head to the back door automatically, they'll cut a new back door for themselves is one isn't there already. Only difference is they're cutting a front door or a window or something.

Once they come to their decision, though, well, they have to meet someplace, and the offices of the WSJ editorial pages are as good a place as any.

In places like this