Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Behind The Neo-Prohibition Campaign
The Center for Consumer Freedom ^ | April 17, 2003 | Dan Mindus

Posted on 04/17/2003 1:03:26 AM PDT by WaterDragon

America’s anti-alcohol movement is composed of dozens of overlapping community groups, research institutions, and advocacy organizations, but they are brought together and given direction by one entity: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). Based in Princeton, New Jersey, the RWJF has spent more than $265 million between 1997 and 2002 to tax, vilify, and restrict access to alcoholic beverages. Nearly every study disparaging alcohol in the mass media, every legislative push to limit marketing or increase taxes, and every supposedly “grassroots” anti-alcohol movement was conceived and coordinated at the RWJF’s headquarters. Thanks to this one foundation, the U.S. anti-alcohol movement speaks with one voice.

For the RWJF, it is an article of faith that diminishing per capita consumption across the board can contain the social consequences of alcohol abuse. Therefore, it has engaged in a long-term war to reduce overall drinking by all Americans. The RWJF relentlessly audits its own programs, checking to see if each dollar spent is having the maximum impact on reducing per capita consumption. Over the past 10 years, this blueprint has been refined. Increased taxes, omnipresent roadblocks, and a near total elimination of alcohol marketing are just a few of the tactics the RWJF now employs in its so-called “environmental” approach.

The environmental approach seeks to shift blame from the alcohol abuser to society in general (and to alcohol providers in particular). So the RWJF has turned providers into public enemy number one, burdening them with restrictions and taxes to make their business as difficult and complex as possible. The environmental approach’s message to typical consumers, meanwhile, is that drinking is abnormal and unacceptable. The RWJF seeks to marginalize drinking by driving it underground, away from mainstream culture and public places.

The RWJF funds programs that focus on every conceivable target, at every level from local community groups to state and federal legislation. Every demographic group is targeted: women, children, the middle class, business managers, Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, Native Americans. Every legal means is used: taxation, regulation, litigation. Every PR tactic: grassroots advocacy, paid advertising, press warfare. Every conceivable location: college campuses, sporting events, restaurants, cultural activities, inner cities, residential neighborhoods, and even bars.

The RWJF scored a major victory in 2000 with a federal .08 BAC mandate, and can claim credit for restrictions on alcohol in localities all over the country. But its $265 million has accomplished much more: it has put in place all the elements required for more sweeping change. This includes a vast network of local community organizations, centers for technical support, a compliant press, and a growing body of academic literature critical of even moderate alcohol consumption. The next highly publicized study or angry local movement may now reach the “tipping point” where the RWJF-funded anti-alcohol agenda snowballs into the kind of orchestrated frenzy the tobacco industry knows well.

Click HERE for the complete article.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: California; US: Oregon; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: alcohol; antialcohol; prohibition; rwjf; secret; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 381-392 next last
To: cinFLA
Right, because it is all about having more government, more spending, less freedoms and a TOTAL POLICE STATE.
281 posted on 04/17/2003 3:06:10 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: xrp
In Congress (Senate is part of Congress)? Cut off funding and introduce legislation to eliminate the departments.

MOST would realize in the context of my post Senate and Congress were to be considered separately.

282 posted on 04/17/2003 3:09:03 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: xrp
This shows your support for BIGGER more INTRUSIVE government which results in less freedoms and a TOTAL POLICE STATE.

What is "This". I have no idea what you are referring to in your false accusation.

283 posted on 04/17/2003 3:09:54 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: xrp
This is from your homepage:

"I favor the elimination of executive cabinet spots, especially the Departments of Education and the Interior. Here I am at odds with Republicans."

It appears that you have some beef with the republicans but not with the democrats?
284 posted on 04/17/2003 3:13:10 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Why the heck would I need to make reference to Democrats on my profile on a conservative chat forum?

Your profile is completely blank. It appears you have some beef with everyone but not with no one?

285 posted on 04/17/2003 3:16:59 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Hi folks. I hope its okay with you if I jump in.

I've always voted Republican. I've always been pro-decriminalization. The Republican Party's PLATFORM is on the wrong side of the issue.
286 posted on 04/17/2003 3:21:58 PM PDT by okiesap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: CaptainJustice
The debate is which is better: a society with abject indiscriminate freedom, one with no freedoms, one where drug use is legal but frowned upon, one where drug use is illegal, etc etc. I'm comfortable with keeping drugs illegal because I dont see much good coming from letting people get high.

Commendations for making a logical argument instead of the ad hominems typical of anti-legalizers. I would submit that a critical issue you've overlooked is the civil liberties of all Americans, not just druggies. Because of the WOD, authorities can seize and keep your property without charging you with a crime, and require you to prove your innocence to get it back, and other protections of the 4th Amendment have greatly diminished as well (wiretaps, warrantless searches, no-knock warrants, highway checkpoints, etc).

So the benefit of "letting people get high" is that we don't have to spy on our own citizens to make sure they aren't getting high. Now I suspect one of our friends will make some inane response like "well why not just legalize murder and then we wouldn't have to worry about enforcing those laws either", thereby ignoring the fact that because murder has a *victim*, you don't need invasive methods to discover that a crime has occurred. Short version: if you need a police state to enforce a law, the law is wrong.

287 posted on 04/17/2003 3:27:19 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Short version: if you need a police state to enforce a law, the law is wrong.

Exactly...and if someone is puffing on a marijuana cigarette in THE PRIVACY of his/her own HOME, how is that infringing on the rights of others?

288 posted on 04/17/2003 3:34:03 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
I try to understand the reasoning behind the anti-legalization arguments and all I can conclude is that hypocrisy, ignorance and missplaced paranoia feed the beast.
289 posted on 04/17/2003 3:38:49 PM PDT by okiesap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Your profile is completely blank. It appears you have some beef with everyone but not with no one?

I have no beef with Dubaya, JEB, Joe Scarborough. I have a beef with those that relentless blast the republican party just because they can't fix 70 years of democratic control overnight. I have a beef with those that relentlessly blast the republican party for being on the "wrong" side of the drug issue. I have a beef with libertarians that think it is one easy step to utopia and to hell with who gets killed by that one step. I have a beef with liberatarians that promote personal responsibility but show no reasonable path to their utopia. I have a beef with libertarians that ally with NORML/Soros and his gun grabbing agenda.

290 posted on 04/17/2003 4:05:37 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: okiesap
I've always voted Republican. I've always been pro-decriminalization. The Republican Party's PLATFORM is on the wrong side of the issue.

Pro-decriminalization? of minor amounts of mj or legalization of all drugs?

291 posted on 04/17/2003 5:32:23 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Exactly...and if someone is puffing on a marijuana cigarette in THE PRIVACY of his/her own HOME, how is that infringing on the rights of others?

You know that is not the issue. THE ISSUE is whether or not to legalize ALL drugs. Are you saying that if you could smoke your toke in your own home you would go away happy?

292 posted on 04/17/2003 5:34:48 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: xrp
It seems you also disagree with the constitutional party on drug legislation.
293 posted on 04/17/2003 5:38:06 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
. I would submit that a critical issue you've overlooked is the civil liberties of all Americans, not just druggies.

As robertpaulsen pointed out, disregarding those issues, essentially creating a one sided debate, virtually insures that the prohibitionist argument will prevail. I just can't figure out how you can propose to limit the debate to those parameters, and still posit that there is one.

294 posted on 04/17/2003 6:07:38 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Yep, it sure seems that way.
295 posted on 04/17/2003 9:10:04 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
#1 I don't smoke marijuana.

#2 I would be happy if my money weren't being used to force a way of life upon another American citizen.

296 posted on 04/17/2003 9:11:19 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Pro-decriminalization? of minor amounts of mj or legalization of all drugs?

Well...what would you think about making ALL drugs illegal?

Would you support having government stormtroopers lay seige to the house of a person who gets drunk (alcohol is a drug) and then falls asleep?

Would you support throwing people who smoke cigarettes (nicotine is a drug) into jail for ridiculously long jail terms?

Would you support tearing a mother away from her children because the mother took 1 more aspirin (aspirin is a drug) than she should because her headache really hurts?

Would you support having DEA snipers ring the house of someone who drank too much VICKS cough syrup (which contains alcohol which is a drug)?

Would you support the DEA stormtroopers running through school hallways dragging out and arresting the students in art class who sniff a little glue or rubber cement?

297 posted on 04/17/2003 9:35:39 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA; jmc813
Cite something factually undisputably false that someone has pasted from a "Soros Ally".

Well, it all started with MrLeroy and his false claims of medical marijuana .....

The Institute of Medicine is a Soros ally?

"there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief. [...] Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine

298 posted on 04/18/2003 5:20:20 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Everyone in favor of legalizing drugs is a big-L Libertarian.

But when they're caught in an unsupportable position, they become small-l libertarians.

And when association with that group becomes awkward, they become small-l libertarians "except for that issue".

Can you provide evidence of anyone initially proclaiming themself a big-L Libertarian but then changing their proclaimed status to small-l libertarians---or anyone saying they're a small-l libertarian "except for that issue"? Or is this just yet another baseless ad hominem?

299 posted on 04/18/2003 5:24:55 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Don't you remember when they tried to eliminate the DOEd

No. When did this supposedly happen?

300 posted on 04/18/2003 5:26:59 AM PDT by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 381-392 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson