Super Bowl anti-drug/terrorist ads were dishonest 'Super Bowloney'

Todd-'o'-Vision

Super xVirgin Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Posts
5,609
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Super Bowl advertisements claiming that Americans who use illegal drugs help finance terrorists were dishonest, outrageous, and a waste of taxpayers' money, the Libertarian Party
charged today.

"These Super Bowl ads were Super Bowloney," said Ron Crickenberger, the party's political director. "For the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy to claim that drug users are to blame for financing terrorists is like a maniac who kills his parents, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

"The fact is, it's the War on Drugs that causes the very problem these ads complain about. The War on Drugs enriches terrorists, finances violence, and makes America less safe. And no amount of advertising spin can change that."

On Sunday, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) spent about $3.4 million to run two 30-second advertisements during the Super Bowl. It was the largest single government ad purchase in U.S. history.

One of the ads, which pretended to show a terrorist buying weapons, explosives, and fake passports, asked: "Where do terrorists get their
money? If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." In the other ad, young people matter-of-factly made statements like, "I helped kill a judge."

However, in reality, the War on Drugs -- not peaceful Americans who use drugs -- is responsible for funneling tens of billions of dollars into
the hands of murderous terrorists, said Crickenberger.

According to the United Nations, the illegal drug trade is worth $400 billion a year, he noted. And according to the Hoover Institution, drug
prohibition drives up the prices of drugs by about 17,000%.

"The War on Drugs is a price support system for terrorists and drug pushers," he said. "It turns ordinary, cheap plants like marijuana and
poppies into fantastically lucrative black market products. Without the War on Drugs, the financial engine that fuels terrorist organizations
would sputter to a halt."

That's not the only way the War on Drugs makes America more vulnerable to terrorists, said Crickenberger. The War on Drugs also misdirects
police resources.

In 2000, for example, police arrested an estimated 34,498 people for marijuana violations, most for simple possession, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report.

In addition, more than 8,000 military personnel participate in anti-drug missions on U.S. soil, and more than 19,000 state and local police
work full-time on drug cases. The total cost: About $50 billion a year at the federal, state, and local levels.

"Law enforcement agencies have only a finite amount of money, people, and time to investigate crimes," said Crickenberger. "It's clear that
politicians have made the tragically ill-advised decision that detecting murderous terrorists is less important than arresting non-violent Americans who choose to use marijuana or other drugs."

So who is really to blame for helping terrorists?

"Forget what you saw on the Super Bowl," said Crickenberger. "If you are looking for the real cause of the drugs and terrorism connection,
you need look no further than the politicians who voted for the War on Drugs, the federal bureaucrats who administer it, and the ONDCP spin-
meisters who try to blame the 95 million Americans who have used illegal drugs."
 
Well that article should make it clear

why the Libertarian Party can't get anyone elected.

It's one thing to advocate the legalization of marajuana. It's a totally different thing to push for the total elimination of all drug prohibitions.

That's like the Libertarian Party's stand on gun control. While MANY of us are advocates for the "right to bear arms". The Libertarian Party believes those legal arms should include handgrenades and rocket launchers.

I admire the Libertarian's strong stand on "principal". But I think it is foolish to stand on principal at the expense of what is "practical."

just a thought...:)
 
Pot should be legal. How many scientific studies do we need to have to proof that it is not that harmful and not really a gateway drug?

I don't see most other drugs being made legal. I don't think it is pratical.

Those ads were of course complete bull shit. As soon I saw them I had the thought that if drugs were legal and controled them terrorists would get no money from them. Our military would instead be getting money from drug sales.
 
Re: Well that article should make it clear

Texan said:
why the Libertarian Party can't get anyone elected.

It's one thing to advocate the legalization of marajuana. It's a totally different thing to push for the total elimination of all drug prohibitions.
...
I admire the Libertarian's strong stand on "principal". But I think it is foolish to stand on principal at the expense of what is "practical."

While I don't agree with the Libertarian idea that drugs should be not only legal but unrestricted and unregulated, I do agree with what this article says -- the War on Drugs is a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

The USA's current drug policies are the functional equivalent of Flood Control by building a dam with no spillway -- you just have to keep building it higher and stronger forever for it to work.

Compare how many tax dollars come from Tobacco and Alcohol taxes and how much comes from the war on drugs. (A negative amount of taxes coming from the war BTW.)

On a purely practical level, Prohibition disin't work with alcohol, and it is NOT working for drugs. It's about time the government realized this and came to it's senses. (If politicians can be claimed to have any sense at all. :p)
 
Drug prohibition laws are a product of the early twentieth century morality legislationists who also concocted alcohol prohibition which has been such a resounding success, the most notable and famous success probably being Al Capone. And fully understanding that it means absolutely nothing to most people, these laws are completely unconstitutional.
 
Hell Yeah! If drugs were decriminalized, the "terrorists" wouldn't be making the profit...the government would! Knocking the profit out from under the cartels would be the Hiroshima of the drug war! I fear this type of labeling drug users as equal to terrorists, opens the door to liberty crushing police powers. Pretty soon the government will say if you break any law, you are supporting terrorism. Military tribunals for no auto insurance? Speeding?
Bin Laden said his actions will drive freedom from the West....too bad we're handing that objective to the pukes on a silver platter!
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Liberty or Death! :D
 
If any form of legalization comes about, you can be sure that outrageous taxation will be a large part of the package. Don't some states already require tax stamps for you illegal pot?

One reason pot is probabbly not yet legal is because everyone can grow it in the yard. How do you tax that?
 
Back
Top