Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Reading Tonight | Attention Sons and Daughters »

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Media / Drugs Credit Where Credit Is Due

Posted by Dominic Holden on Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:40 AM

The Seattle Times has a front-page AP story today on the growing national pressure to legalize marijuana. Considering the paper routinely runs gung-ho, one-sided pieces written by prosecutors and passed off as news about the victories against pot, it's refreshing to see the other side. Good work, Fairview Fanny.

The story is over here.

But one complaint, if I must... and I must (it's in the contract). When the Times runs a piece about the heroic enforcement of druuuugz, it almost never includes any dissenting viewpoint. There's a quote from a cop, a prosecutor, and a DEA agent. It's hack journalism from a paper that prides itself on objectivity (on all other issues). Only in the rarest of circumstances—once, as far as I can recall—did the Times point out, in the context of a bust story, how futile enforcement is and what an onerous waste the drug war turned out to be. But in a piece about the legalization of marijuana, of course, suddenly there's the requisite "other side of the story":

"We're opposed to legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. We think it's the wrong message to send our youth," said Russell Laine, police chief in Algonquin, Ill., and president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The Drug Enforcement Agency also remains on record against legalization and medical marijuana, which it contends has no scientific justification.

The cops got have their say—they're wrong and all science and logic is against them—about the work of drug policy experts. The Times should take a page from the AP playbook, including both sides, and use a quote from the drug policy experts when it covers the work of cops.

PS — The Seattle Times writers have more talent in their little finger than I have in my entire body and I'm way off base on this one and the Seattle Times would never say anything like this about The Stranger and there's a difference between advocacy reporting and crime reporting and did I miss anything, commenters?

Comments (16) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

I like how now the official position is that "sending the wrong message to our youth" should result in arrest and prison sentences. Now it's not even a Gateway Drug, it's a Gateway Idea. It's not marijuana that's dangerous, it's the "message" it sends.

The justifications for the Drug War get lamer and lamer the longer this charade continues.

Posted by Cheech Marin on June 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

Your penultimate paragraph could use some work but you nailed it there at the end.

;)

Posted by Jay Stone on June 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM

But we're soooooo close to winning the war on drugs!!!

Posted by Urgutha Forka on June 16, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I'm sure the Times
appreciates the lesson
in 'objective journalism'
from the resident
JackAss
at Slog.....

Posted by hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha on June 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM

There was a delightful story on CNN today that was basically: Woman is horribly depressed and suicidal. Woman gets medical marijuana. Woman gets better. Woman then stops being better and gets suicidal again. OMG THE WEED DID IT!!!!!!

There was also the rather dubious claim that she spent 1000 bucks a month on marijuana.

Posted by giffy on June 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM

Just remember that the cops are literally getting money from every drug bust they do.

Think of them as pushers, who get rewarded as the price of MJ escalates.

They have no incentive to treat this like other, far more addictive drugs like tobacco and alcohol, and no interest in it being sold in liquor stores where it could be kept out of the hands of small children.

Your tax dollars reward them for this - every time they bust someone for MJ, they get to keep all the confiscated assets, when it should go back to we the taxpayers who pay their salaries, instead of fancy cop shops and automatic donut makers.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on June 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

5
re:$1000/mo

she got REAL better...

Posted by hey dude! on June 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

The "wrong message to kids" argument gets stupider everytime I her or read it. What about the message we are sending kids about the living definition of insanity-doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What about the message we are sending the kids by not choosing our battles wisely?

The drug war is little more than a war on non-conformists, misfits, and the insane.

Posted by Tingleyfeeln on June 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM

Umm... Fuck the Seattle Times... Fuck them and their right wing bias; I would rather read Dominic's thoughts on the shit he took this morning then be forced to glance at their front page.

Posted by Tina on June 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Yeah, I think you did miss something. When the fuck is somebody going to start a legalization initiative?

Posted by Greg on June 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Aaawww displaying insecurity about comments is so unattractive!

Also, your well-placed use of the word "druuuugz" made me laugh so much that the intern now hates me.

@8 Cheers to that!

Posted by mandaline on June 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM

@10 is right.

We need to stop talking and start DOING.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on June 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM

@5 Sweet Moses! That better be some really good weed!

Posted by More, I Say! on June 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM

@6:

More correctly, Law Enforcement Agencies are akin to addicts; they're addicted to the subsidies they receive from the federal government to fight the so-called "war on drugs", they're hooked on the additional income they receive from selling confiscated property, heck, some of them are even strung out on the personal gain they receive from "liberating" some of the contraband they impound, if not on the actual substances themselves.

If nothing else, so far as LEA's are concerned, legalization would represent a form of economic rehab; they'd still get the "high" of receiving funding, but it would from taxation of a legal substance rather than profiting from an illegal one.

Posted by COMTE

on June 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM

OMG, I actually agree with COMTE @14.

Wow.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on June 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM

And don't forget those amoral gun manufactureres. When prohibition was enacted, the gun makers profited hansomely and just in time with the end of WW1. Tommy guns made them a lot of money then and they become rich now selling guns to drug cartels. The same right wing that calls itself pro-life peddles weapons that are killing mass numbers. So all the parties profit from the "war on drugs" and that's why it continues.

Posted by Vince on June 16, 2009 at 1:44 PM