Is it right or is it wrong?
Editor's note: It's just been too much.
We had learned to love Justified Right columnist
Julie Booth over the past year. We were able to overlook her conservative
views and appreciate the fine person underneath. And then she left us.
As fair people, we offered this space to similarly
minded writer. The deluge began. And after reading all of them - we need
a break. It was akin to listening to Republican presidential candidates
Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer without interruption for days on end.
So, we turned to Libertarians for relief. This week's
guest columnist was recommended to us by Monmouth County Libertarian Party
Chairman Pat Bontempo.
And not a minute too soon!
Would you believe the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) paid the TV networks to insert story lines
favoring the use of drugs? Would you believe they paid to show the positive
medicinal aspects of marijuana on such shows as "ER" and "Chicago Hope?"
Scripts are being reviewed prior to filming, with
changes being "suggested." And even if scripts are not being changed, they
are being written to present the "proper" view. While compliance is still
voluntary on the part of the networks, if the scripts are not approved,
payments are not made.
For workers in chemical plants, investors in securities
and buyers of real estate, there are full disclosure laws. But apparently
full disclosure laws do NOT apply to prime time propaganda. Whether you
object to the lack of disclosure or the method of the message, this is
just plain wrong! Does this bother you? Is your blood boiling?
Well, it is not NORML paying for drug themes to
be inserted into TV shows - its not really happening.
What is happening is that the federal government
under the direction of President Clinton (the chief non-inhaler himself)
and Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, in the insane War on Drugs, are paying
over $25 million (and counting) for anti-drug themes to be inserted in
TV shows. This program reeks of censorship and poses serious questions
about the validity of the First Amendment.
In a report by writer Daniel Forbes of Salon, it
all started in 1997 when congress approved $1 billion in advertising as
long as the television networks provided the advertising time at half price.
With the demand for advertising so high, the networks were not too excited
about the deal so the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) came up with a solution - they would pay the networks to incorporate
anti-drug themes into television shows. The government gets its message
out while allowing the networks to sell its advertising time at full price
and collect additional fees for incorporating the anti drug message into
its shows.
So, if you objected when you thought NORML was doing
this, you should object to the government doing it too.
Because what's next? And who decides?