has been around a lot longer. Guess what...they're not funded by Soros as far as I can tell.
And here is something for you to consider... Who Funds Prohibition?The National Drug Control Budget for national and international law enforcement has risen dramatically from 1991 to 2000, surging 68% in ten years, from under $11 billion to nearly $18.5 billion. The separate demand reduction allocation similarly swelled 61% from $3.7 billion to nearly $6 billion. Nevertheless, marijuana use among twelfth graders rose even more dramatically, more than doubling between 1992 and 1997. Clearly, there is no correlation between anti-drug spending, both federal and private, and drug use.
Furthermore, though General McCaffrey labels the drug reform movement as "carefully camouflaged", he does not mention that the leading sponsors of the anti-drug movement are scarcely revealed. Few know that the companies from which they purchase products, or whose stock they own, also fund these pro-drug war organizations.
And he certainly fails to include the budgets of pro-Drug War groups when lambasting the size of the supposedly formidable anti-drug organizations.
These figures are quite minute compared to the considerable assets of the prohibitionist side. The budget of NORML and its sister NORML Foundation, from 1980 to 1999, has never exceeded $750,000. NORML has no endowments and the NORML Foundation received its first $1 million matching grant just this year. For the past several years, the Soros backed Lindesmith Center and Drug Policy Foundation have worked within the $5 -7 million neighborhood to fund harm reduction and drug policy reform, needle exchange grants and OSI grants to numerous organizations. Compare this to the nearly $40 million private pro-Drug War groups had at their disposal and the sharp rhetoric falls flat.
Further, the lack of adequate funding appears to be the major reason behind the supposed "carefully camouflaged" claim of General McCaffrey. There would be little secrecy to this movement, if not for the lack of financial support. As public policy groups intent on influencing public opinion, secrecy would be the least desirable quality to maintain.
Moreover, the major donors to the drug reform movement, New York financier George Soros, insurance magnate Peter Lewis and educator-entrepreneur John Sperling, are open about their support of the issue. The media, the Congress as well as Mr. McCaffrey have highlighted Mr. Soros as a supporter of changes to drug policy on numerous occasions.
In clear comparison, it is obvious that the drug reform movement is badly overmatched in a struggle of truly David and Goliath proportions. But the girth and strength of the prohibitionists is nonetheless hardly enough to keep teen drug use rates down, let alone stable. It is clear that increases in funding have had no discernable effect on use rates. And the current Ad campaign of $1 billion over five years will have the same lack of effect.
Some good information in there for you.
It seems you are right, in part. Three men are the major donors to the drug reform movement. Does it necessarily mean something? NO, not in the least, no matter what your "implications" are!
Any comments on the opposing viewpoint?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson