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
Americas 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 RWJFs 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 approachs 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, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-392 next last
To: MrLeRoy
"an amendment empowering federal criminalization of drugs was never passed."Now this is news. An amendment must exist first before another amendment can reverse it? Surely you're not series?
You brought up the proposition. I say pass an amendment if you want drugs, just like the 21st amendment was passed by those who wanted alcohol.
To: cinFLA; tacticalogic
I realize you have no heart for the truth. I think he has no patients for the trolling of irrelevant truths.
42
posted on
04/17/2003 8:52:02 AM PDT
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: cinFLA
"The thread is prohibition."
It most certainly is.
You Native American Totalitarians with your Prohibition and your propagandistic public schools and your lawyer-driven Courts will never learn until the whole rotten structure collapses on your socialist heads.
Prohibition. Shove it sideways.
And twist.
43
posted on
04/17/2003 8:54:37 AM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(Help me decide: Is the Left morally corrupt and intellectually bankrupt, or vice versa?)
To: robertpaulsen
An amendment must exist first before another amendment can reverse it? Surely you're not series?An amemdment may be the chosen way to reverse a constitutional law; it is a travesty to suggest one for an unconstitutional law.
44
posted on
04/17/2003 8:54:39 AM PDT
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: robertpaulsen
I say pass an amendment if you want drugs, just like the 21st amendment was passed by those who wanted alcohol.Should we also have to pass an ammendment if we want to "allow" the sale of SUVs for private use?
Should we pass an ammendment if we want to allow the use of mustard on hot dogs for that matter?
What about an ammendment for homosexual sex?
45
posted on
04/17/2003 8:54:43 AM PDT
by
B. Rabbit
(Can I get a witness?)
To: cinFLA
I realize you have no heart for the truth.Don't confuse "heart for truth" with "time for trolls". Your bait stinks. Try it on somebody else.
46
posted on
04/17/2003 8:56:10 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: WaterDragon
I don't see why acohol shouldn't be the most regulated mind-altering substance around. I can't think of any drug more dangerous except maybe PCP.
47
posted on
04/17/2003 8:56:29 AM PDT
by
johnb838
(Free Republic of Iraq)
To: headsonpikes
You Native American Totalitarians with your Prohibition and your propagandistic public schools and your lawyer-driven Courts will never learn until the whole rotten structure collapses on your socialist heads. Prohibition. Shove it sideways. Then why is it that the druggies on this board pull out socialist prohibitionist Sam Farr from California as an icon of "progressiveness"????????????????????????
48
posted on
04/17/2003 8:56:37 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: headsonpikes
You Native American Totalitarians YOU HAVE NO BASIS FOR THIS CLAIM!
49
posted on
04/17/2003 8:57:47 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: MrLeRoy
I didn't know you had a pro-druggie.I didn't even know I had an amateur-druggie. Maybe he's living in the spare dog house. I'll check when I get home.
50
posted on
04/17/2003 8:58:32 AM PDT
by
tacticalogic
(Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
To: cinFLA
the druggies on this board pull out socialist prohibitionist Sam Farr from California as an icon of "progressiveness"Yet another of your many, many lies.
51
posted on
04/17/2003 8:58:51 AM PDT
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: MrLeRoy
"protected from social ostracism?"Oh, please. Social ostracism -- since when, the 50's? In today's society, if it's not illegal, it's Ok to do. bassmaner knows this and so do you.
And don't you dare pass judgement on a legal activity -- who do you think you are?
To: MrLeRoy
Yet another of your many, many lies. Not. If fact a thread was started with an article about him!
53
posted on
04/17/2003 9:00:17 AM PDT
by
cinFLA
To: robertpaulsen
In today's society, if it's not illegal, it's Ok to do. bassmaner knows this and so do you.I don't know it---in fact, I seem to see a growing ostracism of tobacco smokers.
54
posted on
04/17/2003 9:04:04 AM PDT
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: cinFLA
the druggies on this board pull out socialist prohibitionist Sam Farr from California as an icon of "progressiveness"Yet another of your many, many lies.
Not. If fact a thread was started with an article about him!
Even if that were true, it is laughably far from "pulling him out as an icon."
55
posted on
04/17/2003 9:05:45 AM PDT
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: cinFLA
you are anti RWJF which is shifting focus to the suppliers!
I'm anti-RWJF because of their communitarian agenda (i.e. Gun Control, funding the idiotic commercials from the PDFA, telling me they know what's best for me such as is indicated in this article, etc.). It reminds me of the attitudes of some FReepers I know, who will go nameless.
56
posted on
04/17/2003 9:32:33 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
To: aristeides
Instead of bringing up libertarians and marijuana, which are not mentioned in this article, why don't you stick with the main jist of the article which is alcohol?
57
posted on
04/17/2003 9:34:51 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
To: robertpaulsen
the pursuit of happiness [is]
"More like "the selfish and irresponsible pursuit of immoral behavior."
-rp-
See #11. -- You are the perfect example of:
---- "The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. - Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others."
58
posted on
04/17/2003 9:43:14 AM PDT
by
tpaine
To: robertpaulsen
Social ostracism -- since when, the 50's? In today's society, if it's not illegal, it's Ok to do.
Might I humbly suggest you take a look at some homosexuality and/or abortion threads here on FR.
59
posted on
04/17/2003 9:43:42 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
To: jmc813; aristeides; cinFLA
Oops! #57 was intended for cinFLA.
60
posted on
04/17/2003 9:45:04 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson