A.M. Rosenthal, Drug War Stooge October 23, 2003 Last week, we were treated to one of the standard drug war cheerleader columns that could have been a press release from the Drug Czar. But this was by a Pulitzer Prize and Light of Truth winning, Presidential Medal of Freedom receiving, former Managing Editor of the New York Times. So what's up? For those who haven't followed Rosenthal's writings over the years, or the glee with which drug policy reformers have responded to the rich wealth of stupidity in his drug war pieces, it's a strange story. Today, I'm going take you on this little exploration of a supposed journalist who has spent much of his career spreading propaganda, and even conspiring with the ONDCP to find ways to use the press and the government to attack drug policy reformers. Start with the current piece: Case for legalized pot is a deadly con job by A. M. Rosenthal. A few of the points he makes. The specialists say legalization of it would create mass addiction and vastly multiply the cost of drug treatment. What specialists? Unspecified. Based on Rosenthal's past references to "specialists," they tend to be drug addiction personnel who make their living from the war, or even work for the Drug Czar. History shows us that the mass addiction scare is completely false. Experiences in the Netherlands and past decriminalization in the states have demonstrated at most, a mild increase in use, and generally a decrease in addiction. John Walters, the head of federal drug enforcement, says that of the 7 million Americans who need treatment for drug addiction, 60% are hooked on marijuana. "Marijuana is at the heart of drug problems," he says. Here, Rosenthal takes Walters' distortions and stretches them further. This is one of the recent favorites of the drug warriors. The fact that 60% of those in treatment are there because of marijuana has nothing to do with dependence or addiction or being "hooked." It's because the criminal justice system is putting people in treatment who are caught using marijuana (regardless of any dependence issues) and treatment is used in the same way to deal with positive drug tests in the workplace, schools, etc. In fact, the over-use of treatment for marijuana users is actually reducing treatment availability for those who need it for harder drugs. (If we made everyone who was caught eating chocolate go through treatment, then I guess we'd say they're all hooked and that chocolate is at the heart of the drug problem.) Experts also point out that one marijuana cigarette contains as much tar as four tobacco cigarettes. Rosenthal tries to infer danger above that of tobacco (which is legal). Yet, studies have shown no established link between marijuana and mortality, unlike tobacco. For example, marijuana has now been shown to cause physical dependence and physical withdrawal. True. So have snack foods. The National Institue of Medicine showed that dependency rates for marijuana use are dramatically lower than those for tobacco and alcohol (which are legal), and "marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs." In fact, addictions specialist Jack Henningfeld (see, I can use specialists, too) ranked marijuana lower than caffeine in dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal. [quoting a statement by "prominent specialist" Dr. Herbert Kleber] "Unfortunately, the American public too often is sold a bill of goods by a clever campaign funded by a small group of billionaires who have engaged in extraordinary advertising and political manipulation." This is a favorite rant of Rosenthal's -- that the drug reform movement is heavily funded and using their great resources to hoodwink the public with an expensive advertising campaign. Well, let's see, so far my pay for doing this has come up to a whopping $0. And most of the drug reform organizations I know are being run by interns and begging for funds to pay for their web server space and postage (more on this tomorrow). However, on the other side, the ONDCP has an almost unlimited budget paid for by... us, the taxpayers. Whose propaganda ads do you see on national television all the time? (Oh, and by the way, the prominent "specialist" he quoted is a former deputy drug czar!) Does A.M. Rosenthal matter? When he worked for the New York Times, his constant attacks on drug policy reform on behalf of the "the paper of record," were of real concern. At various times he used his columns to advocate vastly increased numbers of drug arrests, increased drug sentences, maximum application of sentences, and increased taxes to pay for it all. Then, according to MAPtalk regular Elmer Elevator (who alerted me to a lot of this material): Finally his columns and behind-the-scenes efforts to spike reform-friendly columns and news stories had become such a public embarrassment of ignorance, irrationality and cruelty that senior management at The Times overruled his demand to parlay his seniority into staying beyond retirement age, gave him a gold watch, and pushed him into the elevator. He took a cab across town and was given a column in ... The New York Daily News. Rosenthal's Daily News columns are a sort of marginalized relic of The Golden Age of Drug Prohibition, when nearly everyone in the American media swallowed any and all loopy Prohibitionist crap and propaganda. Reading this is like visiting a Reefer Madness museum. Do a lot of people read The New York Daily News? Sure. They get around to the editorial page as soon as they've finished the Sports section, the comics, the Hollywood scandal du jour, and the Lotto game. As a Bloomingdales executive once explained to an ad salesman for The Daily News: "Your readers are our shoplifters." Nobody with a solid vocabulary of three-syllable words cares what The Daily News thinks. Rosenthal is still ranting, but to an essentially empty auditorium. The Journalist as Conspirator and Stooge Back in 1996, while Rosenthal was a New York Times columnist, California and Arizona passed referendums legalizing medical marijuana. This upset Rosenthal, and he actually called then Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey to strategize how to go after the drug policy reform movement. McCaffrey recorded his calls with journalists, including that one. In 2000, when the case of Conant vs. McCaffrey came up (the federal government's attempt to keep doctors from discussing marijuana, later called Conant vs. Walters, and finally refused by the Supreme Court), the phone conversation was included as an exhibit. Harper's magazine ran the entire conversation in November, 2000: Dope Fiends (thanks to MAPInc.). It's quite entertaining - I recommend reading the entire thing, but here are some highlights, which give some fascinating lessons in Pulitzer Prize journalism: Rosenthal starts out by demonstrating his skills in interviewing a government official... ROSENTHAL: Yeah, because I really need somebody, I need a little help - I want to show the opposition to this.  He then shows the role of journalist as independent government watchdog: ROSENTHAL: Well, we got caught off base in California- McCAFFREY: Yes sir.  Absolutely we did.  The two of them toss around some meaningless numbers about drug deaths of all kinds over a decade, and Rosenthal gets an idea of getting people opposed to medical marijuana based on people dying from drugs (although marijuana has never caused a single fatal overdose). ROSENTHAL: And what we've got to do, I mean, not we, but all of us, is convince people of the connection between the California initiative, which they still see as a pot initiative, and the 100,000 dead.  McCAFFREY: Yeah, that's right.  ROSENTHAL: That's what we have to do.  Then the "journalist" and the drug czar really get down to it. How to stick it to people like George Soros and others -- individuals who, on their own, contributed some funding for the medical marijuana initiative campaign. ROSENTHAL: Well, that's right, but how do we - I mean, as a society and the people who are anti-drugs - make it socially unacceptable not to smoke pot but, but to give money to these causes? McCAFFREY: Yeah, I agree.  ROSENTHAL: It's terribly important.  McCAFFREY: Yeah.  ROSENTHAL: And I think that is really something that you and the President ought to be doing.  McCAFFREY: That's another idea, Abe.  I have not heard that.  I will take that aboard, that's a very good thought.  ROSENTHAL: If it hadn't been for Soros- McCAFFREY: Yep.  ROSENTHAL: -and a couple of other people that I run into at parties all over the place and everybody admires, blah, blah, blah- McCAFFREY: Yeah.  ROSENTHAL: -this would not have passed.  McCAFFREY: Yeah, I agree.  ROSENTHAL: And we all know that.  McCAFFREY: Yep, absolutely.  ROSENTHAL: And I think we have the right to say - You know, I wouldn't let a pornographer in my house, I wouldn't, I really will not allow - I'm just saying this to you - George Soros in my house.  McCAFFREY: I absolutely agree.  He ought to be ashamed of himself.  ROSENTHAL: Couldn't you say that people who give large amounts of money to these causes ought to be ashamed of themselves? McCAFFREY: Yeah, I just said it.  Good for you.  ROSENTHAL: All right, and I'll use that.  I think the problem is, I live in the city, and these guys, like the pornographers and whoever, get respect, are allowed to do what they want with their money, a lot of it tax-free, and at the same time the respectability is not demeaned.  McCAFFREY: Yeah, I agree.  I absolutely agree.  ROSENTHAL: I really have this deep-bone feeling that if somebody like the President or you or somebody said that people like Soros should be ashamed of themselves - I'm not going to put his name in because you didn't say - but people who give large amounts of money ought to be ashamed of themselves- McCAFFREY: Yeah, I think that, yeah.  ROSENTHAL: I think it would have - I really believe that it would have an effect as much as any ad or anything, or more, a thousand times more.  McCAFFREY: Yeah, I agree.  A.M. Rosenthal, conspirator and stooge, and possibly the originator of the campaign to actually try to go after those who help fund drug reform efforts. That particular campaign then developed a life of its own and reached a low point in June, 1999 in a Congressional Hearing called "The Pros and Cons of Drug Legalization, Decriminalization and Harm Reduction." This included such highlights as Mark Souder's: "We do not have hearings called 'The Pros and Cons of Rape,'" and: Suggesting the depth of hostility toward the notion of legal drugs, Rep.  Bob Barr, R-Ga., asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs.  Gee thanks, Abe. Thanks for all your intolerance, and your contribution to the hundreds of thousands of drug war victims. Thanks for demonizing people who want to change a failed war. Thanks for conspiring with the drug czar. Now take your prizes and go home. It's time to retire for good.