Cheech & Chong Blame 'Right Wing' for Turning People Against Legalization of Pot

[Grat3fulh3ad]

No, not really. As in, you fell for another internet hoax. The quote is pure fiction.

Now lets hear that govna's name!

Wanna see a reagan quote that's verifiably recorded on video, and you can't deny?


"...Marijuana, pot, grass, whatever you want to call it, is probably the most dangerous drug in the United States, and we haven't begun to find out all of the ill effects, but they are permanent ill effects..." -- Ronald Reagan in 1980.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfdFEyHKhAs

 

[hkush]

Well, I don't know. You're not being very credible in your history, recounting fake quotes, believing even faker stories about governors. Thats the problem with the left. They seem to only lie. The biggest liar is their hero, and they can't make up enough BS to ever satisfy themselves.

And at the same time they despise anyone who points out the foolishness of their ways.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Well, I don't know. You're not being very credible in your history, recounting fake quotes, believing even faker stories about governors. Thats the problem with the left. They seem to only lie. The biggest liar is their hero, and they can't make up enough BS to ever satisfy themselves.

And at the same time they despise anyone who points out the foolishness of their ways.

Hmmm.... well most quotation repositories attribute the quote to reagan, and I can't find a debunking anywhere... Mind if I ask you to back up your assertions?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Folks like you listened to, believed in, and were scared by Reagan?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Folks like you listened to, believed in, and were scared by Reagan?

not folks like me... I was obviously never turned against legalization.

Don't post silly straw man bullshit, hoos.




Remember when Reagan's Drug policy guru, Dr. Carlton Turner, said publically that Marijuana causes homosexuality and a breakdown of the immune system... and therefore AIDS?

And here is a newspaper clip of the guy bragging about how effective the anti marijuana media blitz was: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9YeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cmgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5438,5363331

History is on my side, whether or not your memory of it is.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz06E3Sa79Q

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

"There is no middle ground... We want you to help us create an outspoken intolerance for drug use... For the sake of our children, I implore each of you to be unyielding and inflexible in your opposition to drugs... Won't you join us in this great new national crusade?" -- Nancy Reagan Sept 1986

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The comprehensive crime control act of 1984, the Anti-Drug Abuse act of 1986 and it's amendment in 1988, raised federal penalties for marijuana possession, cultivation, and trafficking. Sentences were now to be determined by the amount of pot involved. Conspiracies and attempts were to be punished as severely as completed acts. 100 marijuana plants were now to carry the same penalty as 100 grams of heroin...

"If you are a casual drug user, you are an accomplice to murder"

-- Nancy Reagan in the New York Times, March 1 1988, page A16

 

[hoosierdaddy]

The right wing media did all the spreading of this misinformation too, yes?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

The right wing media did all the spreading of this misinformation too, yes?

Nope... It is very rare for any group to do "all" of anything. They did the lion's share of it, though...

I did post the link to the article from the old newspaper about Reagan's Drug policy guru bragging about how effective their use of the media had been...

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Just who was considered right wing media in the 80's?
Maybe it was the left wing leaning media that was doing the lions share of the misinformation passing, as they were the lions share of the market. As they are now as well.

We just want to be accurate...historically and all, yes?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Just who was considered right wing media in the 80's?
Maybe it was the left wing leaning media that was doing the lions share of the misinformation passing, as they were the lions share of the market. As they are now as well.

We just want to be accurate...historically and all, yes?

Right... well, I guess you win... there in not nor has there ever been a right wing media... especially not in the 80's when conservatism was not the direction of the popular tide.

The Reagans were champions of Marijuana Legalization in the face of that damned pernicious liberal opposition...

After years of denial, The Washington Post has acknowledged the existence of the Right-Wing Machine.
Post national political correspondent John Harris came to this epiphany grudgingly, never using those exact words. But in a May 6, 2001 Sunday article in the Outlook section, Harris recognized that U.S. conservatives have built a powerful and well-financed apparatus that can dictate the tone of the political discourse in Washington. The article observed that there is no countervailing apparatus on the liberal side of national politics.

In his article, Harris concedes that he'd still like to deny this. Harris writes that his initial reaction to Democratic complaints about the fawning press coverage of George W. Bush was to dismiss the griping as "self-pity," characteristic of President Clinton and his allies.

Nevertheless, Harris does ask the question: "Are the national news media soft on Bush?"

"The instinctive response of any reporter is to deny it," Harris writes, unintentionally revealing how widespread this press corps' defensiveness is. "But my rebuttals lately have been wobbly. The truth is, this new president has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton."

After ticking off a few innocuous reasons why the news media might have gone a little soft, Harris then acknowledges that "there is one big reason for Bush's easy ride. There is no well-coordinated corps of aggrieved and methodical people who start each day looking for ways to expose and undermine a new president.

"There was such a gang ready for Clinton in 1993. Conservative interest groups, commentators and congressional investigators waged a remorseless campaign that they hoped would make life miserable for Clinton and vault themselves to power. They succeeded in many ways," he wrote in the Washington Post.

As we have reported at Consortiumnews.com since we went online in fall 1995, this Right-Wing Machine indeed has succeeded in many ways. Beyond coloring the immediate political environment, the Machine has altered the nation's understanding of its own recent history, creating a mythology for the past quarter century. This has occurred with the acquiescence of the national news media and some leading Democrats.

The mythology also is not something of the past. It continues to cost the nation dearly, from the hugely expensive plans to construct Ronald Reagan's Star Wars dream to rejection of environmental alarms about global warming.



The Machine's origins can be traced back about a quarter century, to the mid-1970s and to two key elements of conservative dogma. One founding myth was the belief that a "liberal" press lost the Vietnam War for the United States. The second was that an innocent Richard Nixon was hounded out of office through a bogus scandal called Watergate.
As it turned out, neither point was true. Historical studies by the U.S. Army concluded that poor strategy, high casualties and overly optimistic battlefield reports were the chief culprits in losing the Vietnam War. Nixon's own words on the Watergate tapes make clear that he was guilty, guilty, guilty of gross abuses of power during his reign in the White House.

Nevertheless, these twin articles of faith convinced the conservative movement that it needed its own institutions -- think tanks, news media and activist groups -- to counter the perceived "liberal" bias that had led the public to see the Vietnam War as a terrible mistake and to view Nixon as a corrupt politician.

In the late 1970s, with the coordination of Nixon's Treasury Secretary Bill Simon, conservative foundations began funneling millions of dollars to think tanks, media outlets and attack organizations that would become the spearhead of the Right-Wing Machine.

With Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, the power of the federal bureaucracy was thrown behind this effort. Reagan authorized what was called a "public diplomacy" apparatus that spread propaganda domestically and targeted journalists who reported information that undermined the prescribed "themes."

Also, in the early 1980s, Rev. Sun Myung Moon began pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year from mysterious sources in South America and Asia. He used the money to build expensive media outlets, such as The Washington Times daily newspaper, and to sponsor lavish conferences for conservative activists. Though members of Moon's inner circle admitted that the Moon organization was laundering money in from overseas to finance his operations, few questions were asked about the source of the cash.



During the 1980s, major news organizations began to buckle under the pressure -- from The New York Times and Newsweek to National Public Radio and the national TV networks.
Reporters who wrote straightforwardly about U.S. military adventures in Central America, for instance, found themselves under harsh attack from the Right-Wing Machine and from the Reagan-Bush administration. Gradually, these journalists were weeded out of the national news media, leaving behind a residue of journalistic quislings who won high-profile spots both in the news columns and on the pundit shows.

Yet, since these journalists had grabbed the high-salaried jobs at the expense of honest reporters who were targeted by the Machine, this new journalistic elite had a powerful self-interest in denying the existence of the Machine. To admit its influence would amount to a self-condemnation.

So, over the years, this caste of top journalists evolved into a bunch of sneering loudmouths who often moved as a pack and would tear apart victims already bloodied by the Machine. Conversely, these journalists and pundits instinctively understood the danger of taking on allies of the Machine. A few conservatives might overreach so much that they became vulnerable but they had a far greater measure of protection.

During the Reagan-Bush years, the Right-Wing Machine mostly worked as a defensive mechanism, protecting Ronald Reagan, George Bush and their subordinates during such crises as the Iran-contra scandal or disclosures of cocaine trafficking by Reagan's Nicaraguan "freedom fighters." Even, lifelong Republican conservatives, such as Iran-contra special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, came under withering attack when they dared to press for the truth about Reagan-era scandals.




After Bill Clinton's election in 1992, the Right-Wing Machine switched from playing defense to playing offense.
The national media elite switched, too, eagerly joining in the attacks against Clinton for relatively minor indiscretions, such as the Travel Office firings and ill-timed haircuts. The quisling journalists saw their opportunity to attack Clinton as especially liberating because it was a way to free themselves from the conservative label of "liberal media."

As Clinton's eight years rolled on, the mainstream press corps increasingly merged with the right-wing apparatus. Both elements obsessed on every Clinton indiscretion, invading his personal life in ways that have never been seen before in U.S. history.

In the early days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, First Lady Hillary Clinton complained about what she called a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Her comment provoked howls of laughter and knee-slapping in the punditocracy. If a "right-wing conspiracy" existed, surely the Washington press corps would have written about it.

Yet, the behind-the-scenes story of the assault on the Clinton Presidency remained a non-story, explained only at Web sites like this one, at Salon.com and in books, such as The Hunting of the President by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason.

While going 24/7 on tales of Bill Clinton's sex life, the mainstream and conservative press joined in ignoring or pooh-poohing convincing new evidence of major Reagan-Bush crimes. The press corps barely noted in 1998 when the CIA itself admitted that scores of Nicaragua contra units were implicated in cocaine trafficking and that the Reagan-Bush administration had hidden the evidence.

These two journalistic standards existed simultaneously, side by side: one protective of the right's friends and one destructive of the right's enemies. Through it all, the mainstream press insisted that it was behaving with professional objectivity.




The parallel double standards continued through the 2000 campaign. While Al Gore was called to account for every perceived misstatement -- even some manufactured by leading newspapers -- George W. Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, largely got free passes for lies, distortions and hypocrisy.
For instance, while Gore got hammered for allegedly puffing up his resume, Cheney dodged any significant criticism when he insisted during a vice presidential debate that he received no help from the federal government in his business career at Halliburton Co. In fact, the giant oil services firm had benefited from Cheney-arranged government loan guarantees and juicy Pentagon contracts.

While avoiding criticism for this deception about his business dealings, Cheney was allowed to lead the attack on Gore for alleged petty lies about his achievements. The news media made no mention of the hypocrisy.

This double standard was crucial in enabling the Bush-Cheney campaign to remain competitive in the election. Their campaign lost by only about half a million votes nationally and snuck into office when five conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court effectively awarded Bush 25 electoral votes from Florida.



Though gaining the White House as the first popular vote loser in more than a century and the first to reach the presidency through the intervention of allies on the Supreme Court, Bush found the Washington news media eager to grant him a mantle of legitimacy.
In doing so, the press corps oohed and aahed over what might have seemed like serious bungles, such as his handling of a downed U.S. spy plane on a Chinese island.

As Harris noted in his Washington Post article, the reaction would have been quite different if Clinton was the one who claimed the crew members were not hostages and then sent a non-apology letter saying "very sorry" twice to win their release.

"What is being hailed as Bush's shrewd diplomacy would have been savaged as 'Slick Willie' contortions," Harris noted.

Similarly, Bush is allowed to reward his rich donors by granting them closed-door meetings with top administration officials, elimination of regulations and giveaways in his budget. By contrast, Clinton faced months of hearings and screaming headlines over White House coffees and sleep-overs in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Harris ends his Washington Post article with a positive spin. He writes that it is "good for Washington in giving a new president a break at the start. And those people eager to see this president face scrutiny can rest assured: The opposition is sure to awaken."

But there is little reason to think that Harris is right. He may be pleased that the Washington press corps has been generous toward Bush -- as the press was to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and was not to Clinton and Gore. Harris might not be disturbed by the lack of professional evenhandedness that is supposedly the hallmark of American journalism.





It is harder to understand why anyone would expect this pattern to change.

Why will the balmy breeze that has so far puffed out George W.'s sails stop blowing? For nearly a quarter century, the national news media has been drifting in the same direction.

Virtually all the top news executives are products of this system. Almost all have been rewarded handsomely by it. Why would they suddenly change course, challenge the right, and risk their careers?

Only a determined effort by Americans who recognize the threat to democracy that this quisling media now represents can change the direction.

Possibly, the only hope is to build an entirely new news media dedicated to the real journalistic principles of honesty and fairness. That will not be easy and will not be cheap. But it should now be clear what the costs are of doing nothing.

 

[vta]

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Michael Ordona

THEY HAVEN'T GONE TO POT

At Least Not in the Retirement Sense. Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong Are on a Mission With Their "Get It Legal" Tour

In a puff of smoke, they were gone for 25 years. But on Tuesday ( 4/20 to fans of pot culture ), Cheech and Chong, those aging icons of stoner comedy, will be everywhere - in theaters, video on demand, DVD, even on iTunes, PlayStations and Xboxes.

Did that just blow your mind?

"They're always looking for new methods of how to look for an audience," says Cheech Marin, 65, of the Weinstein Co.'s multiplatform release of the duo's new concert film, "Cheech and Chong's Hey Watch This." Though the film will play theatrically just the one day, it's the home entertainment segment that is the key attraction. "In a dwindling market for DVDs, we're doing very well, the initial reports say. Big orders," Marin says.

Sounding equally businesslike is Tommy Chong, 71: "And we couldn't be with a better company, Weinstein. They have a history."

"And they pay in advance," Marin adds.

So, there it is. The deans of doobies have done their bit, making nice about the movie taken from their 150-plus-date "Light Up America" tour of 2009. For the rest of the conversation - in a Weinstein Co. conference room surrounded by still-viable pizzas, doughnuts, chips and all manner of other munchies - it's perfectly clear that when you've been around as long as they have ( their first album was released in 1971 ) and been as successful as they have been ( their spokesperson says the recent reunion tour grossed "in the mid-seven figures" ), you can say whatever you want. Especially if, as Chong declares, they're going to quit the road after their 2010 tour.

"We'll retire to our country estate," Marin says with a smile.

"We'll keep working but I'm at the age now where, 'Oh, this is my last one...,' " says the remarkably fit-looking Chong.

"This is our 17th annual retirement tour," Marin jokes.

Chong turns serious, which he does more frequently than his round-faced partner: "I really want to get off the road. I want to be able to spend a whole weekend in my house without having to pack."

Marin sneezes. But rather than excusing himself, he explains, "That's my bull detector."

The longtime partners can't be blamed for wanting to immerse themselves in their fans' adoration for the last year and a half on tour. The two parted ways in the '80s because, as Marin puts it, they "ran out of stuff" after years of touring, recording and making movies, and besides, each generation has its comedians. As evidenced in the film, however, devoted fans of a wide age range seem to lose their minds at the sight of them reunited.

"There's a rock 'n' roll element to what we do," Marin says. "We're not cerebral - although we can be - we're loud and boisterous and visceral and physical. Sometimes comics will open for us and say, 'How do you get 'em to scream like that?' 'You play those three chords loud!' We should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame."

And they're more than happy to give the people what they want, performing largely improvised variants of the sketches generations have grown up with in smoky basements - Blind Melon Chitlin and Alice Bowie, anyone?

"It was the birth of a stoner class," Marin says of their cultural impact. "It was a whole pot generation and we embody that sense of humor. It's an international language."

Chong describes their humor as "juvenile" but adds, "If you can speak Cheech and Chong, skateboarders will accept you, guys in prison, rappers will accept you, white guys - the Gothic kind, anti-social - a lot of cops are big fans because we're in their world."

Marin says, "They used to send us to prisons all the time - San Quentin, Folsom, Soledad, Chino, San Luis Obispo - they used to send us in when they had an uprising, a racial war going on, to calm the natives. Those are tough places. But everyone can come together over Cheech and Chong."

Chong became a member of that kind of captive audience after a 2003 bust for his connection with the manufacture of drug paraphernalia; he served nine months at Taft Correctional Institution.

"What I came across is why pot definitely should be legal," says the defiantly non-corrected Chong. "There are so many growers in there; there are growers doing 30 years because they had a shotgun in their room - on a farm, where you need guns. The laws are so one-sided."

Therefore, the comics are men on a mission on their current "Get It Legal" tour. Despite the Obama administration's repeated rejection of legalization, the highly hopeful Chong is not discouraged.

"I understand Obama, I love the man. He's so brilliant, it makes my eyes water. Like he did with healthcare, he's playing the Republicans like a sheepherder with a cattle prod," he says, laughing. "On one hand he's saying, 'Marijuana will never be legal.' But on the other hand, he's telling his attorney general, 'Stop arresting people [who use it] for medical purposes.' That's all it takes."

"If we can't get it legalized with a brother in the White House," says Marin, as they both laugh, "... come on, please."

"And look how close we are," says Chong, eyes glinting.

"My prediction is within three years," Marin says.

"Arnold might. That might be his last act in office," says Chong, saying he has spoken with California's outgoing chief executive on the topic. Gov. Schwarzenegger has, after all, reportedly acknowledged using marijuana in his pre-political days and said last May that its legalization and taxation deserved debate. "At the time he smoked pot, he was the healthiest man in America. That was the only thing he'd put in his body - he wasn't doing chicken skin; he'd take that off. He wouldn't touch a drop of liquor, he wouldn't touch any sugar, but he'd smoke a joint."

"So there! And he got to be governor!" Marin chimes in, adding that by that standard, Cheech and Chong should be "super-governors!"

"I want to be drug czar," Chong says. "I tell you one thing, I've got the research in."