Walter Cronkite: Telling the Truth About the War on Drugs

Church said:
LOL, I know, of all the things mentioned in this article, THAT was the one that jumped out at me too... That's a LOT of acid!!!! 8(

Can nebody say THUMB PRINTS WOOT!!!!

Lol but in all seriousness, it is really nice to see a very respected and mainstream reporter writing something like this. It is a sentiment that i have shared for a LONG time, even before i actually started using "drugs". I think that the main problem is ignorance, if more of the public knew the figures of the "War on Drugs" and more about the substances themselves than we could put pressure on the government to change legislation.
 
if the DPA supported the legalization of Heroin along with Marijuana, i think theyd lose alot of the people beginning to think marijuana is harmless.
 
mongo_the_bad said:
Can nebody say THUMB PRINTS WOOT!!!!


Umm, no, because l33t sp33k is for retarded pre-pubescent kids to communicate amongst themselves.

Also, you only saved your fingers the undue wear-and-tear of hitting ONE key by typing "nebody" instead of "anybody."

Sorry, but I'm all out of herb and I'm cranky.
 
Good article, despite the misrepresentations that davesoviet (SovietContin?) pointed out.

And why that dude got charged with posession of 9 g of LSD is that the police are not measuring the amount of LSD, they are measuring the weight of whatever medium the LSD was in.
 
Crazeee said:
^^ Walter Cronkite is as mainstream as you can get (hence I posted this on FP)

true, this is as mainstream as it will get. i meant there wont be any mass comm. company that will put up their journalism licence up for cause. although more and more people are reading blogs now-a-days.
hopefully this will get more light and lots talk about it, and maybe it will get its 2 minutes on a friday night. i only wish it could get better, but at least its a good nudge in the right direction
 
Wow, didn't expect to see such a prominent news reporter openly arguing against the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, this will only convince so many people. Some people are just stubborn in this belief systems, and they won't change their opinions no matter what is said to them, unless God himself descends from the heavens and informs them that they are wrong.
 
5-HT2 reincarnated, yeah i agree with you
9grams of pure LSD is a ridiculous amount, and your average joe doesn't get his hands on that. If it were 9grams then thered be some very rich chemists and a lot more hippies.
 
davesoviet said:
This is bullshit. There was reason to believe Nicole Richardson was involved in drug dealing. Mostly because she WAS involved. Nicole was convicted in the first place because she knew the caller was looking to purchase LSD from her boyfriend. Thus she was part of a conspiracy to sell LSD and rightfully convicted.
Care to provide me credible evidence that she knew that was what the call was about? Or address the fact that she was given DOUBLE the sentence of the dealer?


davesoviet said:
However, Walter Cronkite is doing the very thing he faults politicians and the government for doing when he selectively uses parts of the Nicole Richardson story and misuses facts in what amounts to anti-drug-war propaganda.
I strongly disagree.

davesoviet said:
I thought of it as being more like robbery than drug dealing. After a few months, a few of her "customers" were so hooked that they were basically giving her their paychecks before they earned them.
There *are* morally responsible drug dealers. I know several, among them my former self. When I used to sell, I NEVER sold to addicts, and I never sold to people that I felt were doing themselves a disservice by doing drugs. Period. And besides, your point about dealers is worthless, because you're only helping Cronkite's case - if the drug war were gone, there would be no shady dealers left.

davesoviet said:
So maybe Jan Warren thinks her sentence is unfair. But maybe it was unfair she was taking money, that in part, came from pathetic drug addicts who had lost all self-control. Maybe it was unfair that she was enabling people to destroy themselves.

Not to mention that she was about to bring a life into the world AND had a young daughter she was supposed to be caring for. She was knowingly commiting a felony. How unfair is that?
Not any more unfair than the fact that she somehow couldn't find other ways to provide for herself and her daughter....





davesoviet said:
The majority of drug arrests occur in urban areas. There are more drugs in urban areas. There are more users in urban areas. There are more open air drug markets in urban areas. There are more minorities in urban areas. Drug laws don't target minorities. It's simply easier to catch people for drug offenses in urban areas.
While you are correct here....

davesoviet said:
I know dozens of white people who have been arrested and convicted for drug violations. If the police catch you possessing or distributing drugs, you're going to be arrested. Police don't selectively enforce drug laws based on race, sorry.
...you are ABSOLUTELY wrong here. I know minorities and whites that have been caught with similar amounts of drugs. The whites all got probation with the exception of one instance which was a multiple offense, and the minorities got fines and jail time.

davesoviet said:
I agree with all of this. But I don't understand why Walter Cronkite couldn't have backed it up without misleading statements and hysteria.
I don't think any of his examples amount to hysteria.

davesoviet said:
The DPA only has ending criminal penalties for marijuana listed as a goal. This is as opposed to ending criminal penalties for all drugs. And this contradicts their mission statement....

...If they really stood by their mission statement, they'd work to end criminal penalties for consenting adults regarding ALL drugs.
I agree with you here.
 
A lot of people here are amazed with the amount of LSD stated in that one arrest. As someone in here mentioned (and I can vouche from my own unfortunately personal experiences), the cops just measure the LSD on whatever medium it happens to be on. If you get busted with sugar cubes, you might only have 10 or so hits but be charged with grams worth of lsd.
 
About a year ago, one of my friends began selling cocaine. I only recently even started talking to this person again now that they've stopped. I still have a lot of resentment towards her, though.

See, that's just business, man. Dealing drugs does not make someone a bad person, even when their work puts other people in terrible positions. Trust me, I've been on the other side of the fence. From late August to mid December my friends and I spent over 20 large on blow. We basically bought my dealer a nice used car and partially helped him put a down payment down on a house. But he never once forced us to buy cocaine, that was all on us. We knew we were getting out of hand and we did so anyway. I mean, it's up to you how you feel about dealers, you're completely entitled to your own opinion. I'm just trying to say I've been in some pretty deep shit with coke, and I place no blame on my dealer, only on myself. I think sometime we all have to accept that our mistakes are indeed our own.

I'm not saying addicts are innocent victims. I do feel like their dealers are victimizing them, I just don't think they're innocent.

I'm not sure I really see this either. I was responsible for my condition during that time, but I wasn't guilty of anything in the moral sense of the word. I was guilty in the legal sense of the word, but I believe drug use is in a way civil disobediance. I believe the laws are unjust, so I don't believe myself, or any user, to be guilty of something.

Not to mention that she was about to bring a life into the world AND had a young daughter she was supposed to be caring for. She was knowingly commiting a felony. How unfair is that?

Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. If she were doing coke herself, I'd say throw her to the wolves. That is sick. But hat if she was simply too poor to support another child? There are many reasons for breaking the law, and not all of them are as selfish as they might seem on first inspection.

I am completely sick of racist implications regarding drug offenders.

I'm sorry, that's just not acceptable either. For example, one of my friends was in a predominantly white neighborhood late at night and happens to be black. He was stopped for 'curfew violation', and even though he is 22 and displayed his ID to the police, he was searched and he had 1.5 oz of pot. Thankfully I gave him my lawyer's number and he got the case dropped as an illegal search. You can't simply say that there are more minorities in an urban area so a higher percentage of them are arrested. This was an example of racial profiling, and similar things have happened to several people I know. Minorities are such a disproportionately large group of drug 'offenders' that you can't just chalk it up to there being in an urban area. I also doubt Tulia is large enough to really be an 'urban center'. I was brought up partly in the south, and let me say if racial profiling in law enforcement (and a hell of a lot of other things) exists anywhere, it is there.

I know dozens of white people who have been arrested and convicted for drug violations. If the police catch you possessing or distributing drugs, you're going to be arrested. Police don't selectively enforce drug laws based on race, sorry.

I have been arrested. I am white. Was i singled out? No, I broke other laws and the cops called me on it, I just happened to be carrying some pot with me. Was my friend singled out? Yes.

National drug policy has nothing to do with our civil liberties being threatened as a casualty of the War on Terror. And the War on Terror has nothing to do with drug policy.

Is that so? I'm not saying i actually agree with that horseshit, but I'm saying if Bush says the war on terror involves drugs, then it does. Not because his word is god, but instead because he is making the connection and many people will believe it.

So that's nice. The DPA would gladly give me clean needles, but apparently won't fight for the end of criminal penalties regarding the heroin I'd need the needles for.

If you come out and say 'We want legalized heroin!' you will not be taken seriously. You must approach the public from the right direction to gain their support. Sick old men and women who need the wacky weed for pain are perfect for representing the struggle against the war on drugs in the public eye. John and Jane Public aren't gonna support a bunch of crazy heroin fiends who want legal dope. they might just feel sorry for the old woman with cancer down the street who needs marijuana to feel okay.

It ain't all black and white man, seriously.
 
11755341.jpg
 
Walter Cronkite is definitely a big step in ending this "war on drugs", or more accurately, at least changing the inhumane draconian methods currently implemented on fighting this war. Hopefully the DPA will someday steer the goverment in the right direction and make them realize that there should be no war on drugs and there are much more efficient ways to approach the issue at hand. I personally believe that a person has the right to introduce chemicals into their body and that it should not be considered a crime in of itself.
 
Cronkite vs. O'Reilly: May the Most Trusted Man Win

Friday, March 03 2006 @ 06:50 AM PST

Cronkite vs. O'Reilly: May the Most Trusted Man Win
Thursday, March 02 2006 @ 06:46 PM PST

When Walter Cronkite spoke out against current drug war policies, Bill O'Reilly--predictably enough--launched an attack.

By Phillip Smith, AlterNet.
March 2, 2006

Walter Cronkite, the legendary CBS news anchor widely dubbed "the most trusted man in America," has joined the legions of those who have earned the scorn of Fox News television host and commentator Bill O'Reilly--and it's all about drugs. Or is it? While Cronkite's views on drug policy were what set O'Reilly off, the talk show host strayed far from the issue, touching on everything from Cronkite's age and mental condition to the evils of secular humanism.

Cronkite came up on O'Reilly's radar when he penned a fundraising letter for the Drug Policy Alliance, a non-partisan group seeking a more humane approach to drug issues. "Today, our nation is fighting two wars: one abroad and one at home," Cronkite wrote. "While the war in Iraq is in the headlines, the other war is still being fought on our own streets. Its causalities are the wasted lives of our own citizens. I am speaking of the war on drugs."

In the letter, Cronkite explained his reasons for opposing the current drug war policies.

"And what is the impact of this policy? It surely hasn't made our streets safer. Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people...disproportionately people of color...who have caused little or no harm to others--wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime, or catching white-collar criminals.

"With police wielding unprecedented powers to invade privacy, tap phones and conduct searches seemingly at random, our civil liberties are in a very precarious condition," he added. "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this effort --with no one held accountable for its failure."

For O'Reilly, attacking drug reform is a favorite pasttime, and he was on Cronkite like a hungry dog on a juicy bone. On the Feb. 24 edition of "The Factor," O'Reilly began by portraying Cronkite as "a very far-left guy" who lives "in the same left-wing precinct" as Bill Moyers and Tom Brokaw. Not to put too fine a point on it, said O'Reilly, Cronkite is "more far-left, he's always been that way, but he masked it."

It sounds like O'Reilly is still sore at Cronkite for telling national TV audiences the Vietnam War was a failure back in the late '60s. The fact that Cronkite is trying to help a group that has also received funds from current conservative bete noire George Soros probably doesn't help either. In addition to funding drug reform, the Hungarian-born currency speculator and financier worked hard to defeat President Bush in 2004, infuriating O'Reilly and his conservative colleagues, some of whom refer to him as that rarest of all creatures, the "left-wing billionaire."

"Anyway," O'Reilly continued, "he wants to legalize drugs." Actually, Cronkite didn't say that, but for the talk show host it's "truthiness" rather than truth that counts. Worse, said O'Reilly, Cronkite "lied" by saying the war on drugs had not made our streets safer. "That's not true, the war on drugs broke the back of the crack that was out of control in major cities all across the country," O'Reilly claimed.

What really happened to the "crack wars" is a matter of serious debate, with the role of law enforcement being only one of many factors. Researchers also point to learning curves--a crackhead is not a very enticing role model--and the consolidation of markets as key factors, and, of course, the crack trade is still going strong.

O'Reilly also attacked Cronkite for suggesting law enforcement has locked up millions who have done no harm to others. "Listen, violent crime is induced by hard drug use, Walter," O'Reilly lectured before adding "I don't want to be too tough on you, you're 90."

But then it was back to full O'Reilly attack mode for the grand finale: "Now Walter Cronkite, the most trusted news broadcaster in American history...[is] embracing every left-wing, crazy theory there is and now says drug dealers cause little or no harm to others. I mean, it's staggering. It is staggering!"

Actually, drug-related violent crime is much more likely to be related to drug prohibition than the psychopharmacology of illicit substances. Police arrested more than 1.5 million people on drug charges last year, half of them for marijuana. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were about half a million people behind bars on drug charges on any given day last year. O'Reilly would have us believe they're all machine-gun toting Pablo Escobars, but for every drug kingpin, there are thousands of low-level drug offenders doing years in prison for non-violent crimes.

Ask the kid from Washington, DC, doing a mandatory minimum five-year sentence for a few dollars worth of rock. Ask the poor white guys in the Midwest serving three- or five- or 10-year sentences for a few flecks of methamphetamine. Ask the college student doing 30 days for a joint because he got caught in the wrong county.

It's not that O'Reilly hasn't had the opportunity to know better. In fact, dope is one of his hot-button issues, sure to get his fans all riled up as they ponder the decline of Western, Christian civilization. He has even had Drug Policy Alliance members on his show on several occasions.

In February 2003, he invited drug education specialist Marsha Rosenbaum onto the show, but used her mainly as a foil for his outrage over parents who had allowed teens to drink at a party while under adult supervision.

A year earlier, in a bizarre segment with Drug Policy Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann, following the drug czar's cue, O'Reilly tried to paint marijuana and ecstasy users as supporting terrorism. When Nadelmann explained that neither drug had much to do with Afghanistan or Al Qaeda and that ecstasy was being manufactured in Holland, O'Reilly objected.

"No, but it's not run by the Dutch, it's run by Middle Eastern guys," O'Reilly exclaimed, and challenged Nadelmann to a $100 bet. The next night, he gloated he had won the bet. "OK, here's what the Office of the National Drug Control Policy says, and we quote, 'Drug Enforcement Agency reporting demonstrates the involvement of Israeli criminal organizations in ecstasy smuggling. Some of these individuals are of Russian and Georgian descent and have Middle Eastern ties.'"

So, the presence of Israeli mobsters in the ecstasy trade constitutes "Middle Eastern ties" that link ravers to Al Qaeda. Only in Bill O'Reilly's world. You know, the one where respected American newsmen and left-wing billionaires team up to wage "crazy" wars on the drug war, and undoubtedly, on Christmas, as well.

Phillip Smith is an editor at DRCNet.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/33009/
 
Church said:
Umm, no, because l33t sp33k is for retarded pre-pubescent kids to communicate amongst themselves.

Also, you only saved your fingers the undue wear-and-tear of hitting ONE key by typing "nebody" instead of "anybody."

Sorry, but I'm all out of herb and I'm cranky.

I wonder why we use slang terms ;p Its much easier to say thumb print than explaining the whole process ;p But yeah it did seem a lil kiddy the way he said it but who really cares ;p
 
well i first wrote a reply with the idea that this article will probably not get as much recognition as it should, thus making the amount of people's minds it changes less than those which it didn't change.

well i'm glad i deleted that. i think that BLer's and their friends should show people they know this article. A lot of prominent people still take cronkite just as he has been dubbed, "the Most trusted man in america." this article has a high chance of not causing much wake, but it also has the potential to become a big enough surf to wipe out an extremely large portion of america's largest attempt to control its citizens, the war on drugs.

i hope a lot of you at least give it a shot; if anything, a few more people will become better educated.
 
Top