Buzzby

Drug Reform Group Sends Back Ford Foundation Grant Because Of Anti-terrorism Clause
David Crary | SFGate.com | 11/24/2004

The Drug Policy Alliance, an outspoken advocate of reforming drug laws, said Wednesday it is returning a $200,000 grant from the Ford Foundation rather than accept restrictions imposed in conjunction with new federal anti-terrorist guidelines.

The alliance is the second grant recipient to announce it is returning Ford Foundation money because of the provisions. The American Civil Liberties Union sent back a $1.15 million grant last month.

The alliance's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, said he and his colleagues objected to a new clause in their grant pledging that the organization "will not promote or engage in violence, terrorism, bigotry or the destruction of any state."

"You know, as do I, that the Drug Policy Alliance does not promote or engage in any such activities -- and the Ford Foundation knows it too," Nadelmann said in a letter to supporters. "But we also have to contend with federal officials and politicians who are incredibly reckless in linking drug use with terrorism, and who edge ever closer to linking drug policy reform advocacy with support for terrorism."

He cited a recent federal ad campaign that asserted that people who smoked Marijuana were supporting terrorists.

Most of the grant was renewed funding for a project promoting HIV and hepatitis prevention among minorities in Southern California, Nadelmann said. He appealed to alliance supporters to make donations to cover the lost funds.

The voluntary government guidelines for foundations and charities took effect after President Bush signed provisions of the Patriot Act in 2002 that prohibit contributions of funds, goods and services to terrorists or their associates. Thereafter, several philanthropic organizations, including the Ford Foundation, amended their grant policies.

Last month, the Washington-based Council on Foundations, which represents more than 2,000 foundations, charities and corporate grant makers, said it would push the U.S. Treasury Department to reconsider the guidelines, which it called "impractical, costly and potentially dangerous."

Calls to the Ford Foundation for comment on the Drug Policy Alliance action were not immediately returned. After the ACLU's return of grant money last month, foundation president Susan Berresford said, "We are proud to support the ACLU's defense of free speech. We do not, however, believe that a private donor like Ford should support all speech itself (such as speech that promotes bigotry or violence)."

(BuzzNote: What does the movement to legalize Marijuana have to do with bigotry, violence, or terrorism? Those seem to be the province of the people trying to suppress Marijuana!)

Nadelmann said he was disappointed that Ford had adopted the new guidelines.

"They can make clear that they don't support terrorism," he said. "But don't require us to put words into our own mouths that can be misinterpreted down the road."

__________________

Bluee

Buzzby, your confusion on that bigotry quote is testament to the strategy of these neo-cons. They take terms that liberals and the like have been using since forever, and they absolutely change the meaning and start using the new word themselves. Liberals have since been unable to cope with this strategy, and they have been running out of words to explain themselves and explain what is wrong with the religious right. Language is the most powerful form of persuasion (aside from military might), and they're stealing our language from us.

A big personal essay from some professor briefly goes over this, http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

__________________
Pessimism is being content when things go bad, while enjoying life when proven wrong.

Nelvin

Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind after reading this. Another phrase of theirs that makes me cringe is when they describe growing as manufacturing. It’s depressing to know that by paying taxes I’m funding a war against myself. I still think the best way to win is to use the election process. Even if a Green, Libertarian or Independent doesn’t win, if we all vote for one of them they will get a large minority percentage of the vote, maybe 10, 15 or 20 percent. Okay so the Republican gets 41% and the Democrat gets 39% and the media will say the third parties cost the election for whomever. In the next election and considering that the margin of victory is likely to be more often than not so slim, both parties will want to adopt the main issue that attracted 20% of the voters to the third parties. It’s a win-win.

Bluee

The election process will get us nowhere. We need Total War.

Hemp-fueled nuclear missiles, anyone?