It has become apparent that there is only one true minority in North America. When I say one true minority I say that because many of what we use to consider minorities don't really fit the bill any more. In the good ol' days we use to use the term to distinguish a group of people who were discriminated against by the public and, often, the media and/or government. This list once included blacks, Spanish, gays, women... basically everyone but white adult males. Unfortunately, I don't believe the word "minority" suits these groups anymore. No sir, not to the extent that it fits one other group. That is, the last true minority; drug users. No other group in days recently passed has been as discriminated and lied about by our government and media for years.
Allow me to begin with a few things that caught my eye after I'd already discovered this trend. To quote an article from the anti-drug side on the site http://www.mapinc.org/:
“I know from personal experience the negative consequences of smoking dope. In my first year of college I smoked it with two of my friends. All three of us flunked out. Unfortunately, my two friends became so addicted to dope that they ended up committing suicide. I was also involved in a very serious car accident with a high school friend. At 55 mph, we missed a telephone pole by two feet. My friend was driving and he was high on marijuana when he lost control of the vehicle. Been there, done that, and threw away the T-shirt. Marijuana is a terrible thing.”
Well that's just super. So because you had a dumb-ass for a friend marijuana is a terrible thing? Cool. So how many die a year from drunk driving? I guess then you'd agree if I said: Alcohol - It's worse than slaughtering babies.
A few quotes from the major mover "Parents: The Anti-Drug".
(1) "Smoking marijuana's is at least as bad as smoking cigarettes, and you already know how dangerous tobacco is to your health"
(2) "If you smoke marijuana, you could do things that jeopardize your future, like having sex or getting in trouble with the law"
(3) "Sometimes it makes people violent. Kids who use marijuana weekly are four times more likely to engage in violent behavior than those who don't."
(4) "More kids use marijuana than any other illicit drug by far"
(5) "Most kids who smoke marijuana don't make straight As. Research shows that kids with an average grade of "D" or below were more than four times more likely to have used marijuana in the past year as kids who reported an average grade of A."
(6) "The bottom line is clear: Marijuana trafficking and use is a big, often violent business. Have you and your kids made the connection between this dangerous drug and acts of violence committed against innocent people around the world?"
And now, the awkward replies:
(1) So you’re saying that if I smoke as many joints as smokers do cigarettes I’ll get the same problems they do? Oh mercy me, I best cut down on the 20 joints a day I smoke. Oh, wait, you say because I don’t use a filter it’s worse? You say that one joint is equal to 7 cigarettes? Gosh darn, I’ll have to cut down from the 3-4 joints I smoke a day then!
(2) If you drink alcohol… If you live in a city… If you step outside your door… Secondly, is there any proof that this is as a result of the drug? That is, any proof that any correlation found between marijuana users and “trouble with the law” or sex (???) is due to marijuana and not the individual’s personality?
(3) Again, drug or already in place personality? How about the fact that marijuana use is higher among poor neighborhoods. I suppose a poor neighborhood doesn’t have anything to do with the violence?
(4) For a reason. It’s the lightest.
(5) Again; pot or person – and – poor neighborhood.
(6) If pot was legalized the people behind it would be the government. Though, admittedly, the government is simply another form of criminal at times.
Perhaps by now you’ve noticed my major concern with the media and government unfortunately being the ones to teach young people about drugs. You see, the government is, contrary to some belief, intelligent. The people who run anti-doping campaigns are not complete idiots. They know one thing very well; marketing. Imagine yourself setting up an ad for the anti-drug community. What would make a good ad? Would you make an ad that gives the whole story? Surely you would not, because the whole story would include good experiences with drugs and the positive side of drug use. So the best idea is, what? That’s right, to only give one side of the story! The government’s job is not to give the truth, it is to give you the pieces of truth they wish you to know and then tell you it’s the whole puzzle.
Another major anti-drug gathering is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. With a stated goal of ending drug use among American (and world) citizens, the Partnership is one of the largest organizations devoted to prejudice against drug users. In fact, the Partnership is one of the best places to see the policy of; “the truth we want you to know, and only that truth”. Here is an exert from their official information about the drug commonly known as shrooms (hallucinogenic mushrooms):
Pardon me? Perhaps I missed something; “similar to alcohol intoxication”?? I would very much like to see one user or experimenter with mushrooms refer to the effects as similar to drinking beer! Secondly, where is the mention of the positive side of mushrooms? Why is there no mention of the commonly stated mind-opening or perspective-broadening caused by use of hallucinogens? Why, my friend? Because that would be giving the whole truth, and that’s never a good idea. In every drug’s section on the Partnership’s Information site there is a category listed as “long-term affects” which generally states the health risks involved in a drug. As there are no (known) health risks with mushrooms, it would seem right to simply put “no known health risks”. However, the Partnership would never do this. They, like the good little marketers they are, simply didn’t put a “Long-term” section. It merely looks like they just plum forgot!
The last point I would like to bring up is the one that initiated this whole sentiment in myself. My high school, which is a public school, recently handed out a “Drug Information” magazine. Featuring articles about drug use, the magazine’s stated goal was to “inform teens on the truth about drugs”. Allow me to sum up the magazine in one word; bullshit. Never have I laughed so hard as when I opened up the first page of this beautiful bounty of baseless claims.
The opening article discussed the nature of heroin production. It informed us that heroin was produced largely in Afghanistan and that the heroin production in Afghanistan supported renowned terrorist Osama bin Laden. It neglected to mention a few things however, such as that America supported said terrorist, or that the poppy-fields which one day produce heroin are the only way for a large amount of Afghans to make enough money to survive right now. This, though, caused little more than a chuckle to myself. My first big laugh came after the article, where the magazine presented (ready for this?) an “Ethics Test”. Let us forget the ridiculousness of this for just a second. The questions on the test (with possible answers of yes or no) were:
While the magazine was full of poor excuses for “informing teens” on the truth (such as “first-hand accounts” of teens who went straight from marijuana use to heroin addiction), there is only one more I wish to comment on. There was a two-page section of the magazine that it called an interview between a psychiatrist and three teens from Ontario high schools. At one point a teen says one of his brother’s friends once tried drugs. The doctor responds by asking if the brother did as well. The student’s reply: “No, his feelings were pretty much the same as mine. Why be a jerk?” The doctor then confirms the young boys opinion. Why indeed, Johnny. Later, one of the students asks the psychiatrist what drug use was like when he was young. Now, I would like to take a step back and analyze something here for a second. The current year is 2002. To have become a psychiatrist, the man would need to be at least, roughly, 25 years old. So let’s say the latest possible date he was born was 1977. But then again, what are the chances they give this important an assignment to some rookie? Reason would stand that it is likely that this great undertaking would be given to an established veteran. Say, someone around the age of 40-50? This would mean that the good doctor was born between 1952 and 1962 (roughly). Thus meaning the good doctor grew up during the late 60s to the mid 70s; an era which featured psychedelia, The Beatles and Timothy Leary. Now, back to the article. The question is posed and the doctor responds: “*Laughs*. Oh, the same as now, really. It was done by people on the fringe, it was never in the mainstream.” Drugs were never in the mainstream in the sixties and seventies? Hmmm, perhaps the good doctor lived on the mood. In a cave. Inside a cardboard box. With a rock keeping the cave shut.
With lies being told about the people and the products, only parts of the truth being told and both the government and public schools getting in on the act, it would seem our last true North American minority is drug users.
Allow me to begin with a few things that caught my eye after I'd already discovered this trend. To quote an article from the anti-drug side on the site http://www.mapinc.org/:
“I know from personal experience the negative consequences of smoking dope. In my first year of college I smoked it with two of my friends. All three of us flunked out. Unfortunately, my two friends became so addicted to dope that they ended up committing suicide. I was also involved in a very serious car accident with a high school friend. At 55 mph, we missed a telephone pole by two feet. My friend was driving and he was high on marijuana when he lost control of the vehicle. Been there, done that, and threw away the T-shirt. Marijuana is a terrible thing.”
Well that's just super. So because you had a dumb-ass for a friend marijuana is a terrible thing? Cool. So how many die a year from drunk driving? I guess then you'd agree if I said: Alcohol - It's worse than slaughtering babies.
A few quotes from the major mover "Parents: The Anti-Drug".
(1) "Smoking marijuana's is at least as bad as smoking cigarettes, and you already know how dangerous tobacco is to your health"
(2) "If you smoke marijuana, you could do things that jeopardize your future, like having sex or getting in trouble with the law"
(3) "Sometimes it makes people violent. Kids who use marijuana weekly are four times more likely to engage in violent behavior than those who don't."
(4) "More kids use marijuana than any other illicit drug by far"
(5) "Most kids who smoke marijuana don't make straight As. Research shows that kids with an average grade of "D" or below were more than four times more likely to have used marijuana in the past year as kids who reported an average grade of A."
(6) "The bottom line is clear: Marijuana trafficking and use is a big, often violent business. Have you and your kids made the connection between this dangerous drug and acts of violence committed against innocent people around the world?"
And now, the awkward replies:
(1) So you’re saying that if I smoke as many joints as smokers do cigarettes I’ll get the same problems they do? Oh mercy me, I best cut down on the 20 joints a day I smoke. Oh, wait, you say because I don’t use a filter it’s worse? You say that one joint is equal to 7 cigarettes? Gosh darn, I’ll have to cut down from the 3-4 joints I smoke a day then!
(2) If you drink alcohol… If you live in a city… If you step outside your door… Secondly, is there any proof that this is as a result of the drug? That is, any proof that any correlation found between marijuana users and “trouble with the law” or sex (???) is due to marijuana and not the individual’s personality?
(3) Again, drug or already in place personality? How about the fact that marijuana use is higher among poor neighborhoods. I suppose a poor neighborhood doesn’t have anything to do with the violence?
(4) For a reason. It’s the lightest.
(5) Again; pot or person – and – poor neighborhood.
(6) If pot was legalized the people behind it would be the government. Though, admittedly, the government is simply another form of criminal at times.
Perhaps by now you’ve noticed my major concern with the media and government unfortunately being the ones to teach young people about drugs. You see, the government is, contrary to some belief, intelligent. The people who run anti-doping campaigns are not complete idiots. They know one thing very well; marketing. Imagine yourself setting up an ad for the anti-drug community. What would make a good ad? Would you make an ad that gives the whole story? Surely you would not, because the whole story would include good experiences with drugs and the positive side of drug use. So the best idea is, what? That’s right, to only give one side of the story! The government’s job is not to give the truth, it is to give you the pieces of truth they wish you to know and then tell you it’s the whole puzzle.
Another major anti-drug gathering is the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. With a stated goal of ending drug use among American (and world) citizens, the Partnership is one of the largest organizations devoted to prejudice against drug users. In fact, the Partnership is one of the best places to see the policy of; “the truth we want you to know, and only that truth”. Here is an exert from their official information about the drug commonly known as shrooms (hallucinogenic mushrooms):
Pardon me? Perhaps I missed something; “similar to alcohol intoxication”?? I would very much like to see one user or experimenter with mushrooms refer to the effects as similar to drinking beer! Secondly, where is the mention of the positive side of mushrooms? Why is there no mention of the commonly stated mind-opening or perspective-broadening caused by use of hallucinogens? Why, my friend? Because that would be giving the whole truth, and that’s never a good idea. In every drug’s section on the Partnership’s Information site there is a category listed as “long-term affects” which generally states the health risks involved in a drug. As there are no (known) health risks with mushrooms, it would seem right to simply put “no known health risks”. However, the Partnership would never do this. They, like the good little marketers they are, simply didn’t put a “Long-term” section. It merely looks like they just plum forgot!
The last point I would like to bring up is the one that initiated this whole sentiment in myself. My high school, which is a public school, recently handed out a “Drug Information” magazine. Featuring articles about drug use, the magazine’s stated goal was to “inform teens on the truth about drugs”. Allow me to sum up the magazine in one word; bullshit. Never have I laughed so hard as when I opened up the first page of this beautiful bounty of baseless claims.
The opening article discussed the nature of heroin production. It informed us that heroin was produced largely in Afghanistan and that the heroin production in Afghanistan supported renowned terrorist Osama bin Laden. It neglected to mention a few things however, such as that America supported said terrorist, or that the poppy-fields which one day produce heroin are the only way for a large amount of Afghans to make enough money to survive right now. This, though, caused little more than a chuckle to myself. My first big laugh came after the article, where the magazine presented (ready for this?) an “Ethics Test”. Let us forget the ridiculousness of this for just a second. The questions on the test (with possible answers of yes or no) were:
Below the questions it read: “While it is impossible to say ethics are objective, if you answered ‘yes’ to all these questions Congratulations, you have perfect ethics!!” I hope it is unnecessary for me to dive into the follies of this quote.
While the magazine was full of poor excuses for “informing teens” on the truth (such as “first-hand accounts” of teens who went straight from marijuana use to heroin addiction), there is only one more I wish to comment on. There was a two-page section of the magazine that it called an interview between a psychiatrist and three teens from Ontario high schools. At one point a teen says one of his brother’s friends once tried drugs. The doctor responds by asking if the brother did as well. The student’s reply: “No, his feelings were pretty much the same as mine. Why be a jerk?” The doctor then confirms the young boys opinion. Why indeed, Johnny. Later, one of the students asks the psychiatrist what drug use was like when he was young. Now, I would like to take a step back and analyze something here for a second. The current year is 2002. To have become a psychiatrist, the man would need to be at least, roughly, 25 years old. So let’s say the latest possible date he was born was 1977. But then again, what are the chances they give this important an assignment to some rookie? Reason would stand that it is likely that this great undertaking would be given to an established veteran. Say, someone around the age of 40-50? This would mean that the good doctor was born between 1952 and 1962 (roughly). Thus meaning the good doctor grew up during the late 60s to the mid 70s; an era which featured psychedelia, The Beatles and Timothy Leary. Now, back to the article. The question is posed and the doctor responds: “*Laughs*. Oh, the same as now, really. It was done by people on the fringe, it was never in the mainstream.” Drugs were never in the mainstream in the sixties and seventies? Hmmm, perhaps the good doctor lived on the mood. In a cave. Inside a cardboard box. With a rock keeping the cave shut.
With lies being told about the people and the products, only parts of the truth being told and both the government and public schools getting in on the act, it would seem our last true North American minority is drug users.
Last edited: