In the 12/30/02 issue at page 8, The Nation published this full page ad:

Header: Picture of small bag of marijuana.
Title: "Is it OK to Support Terrorism if it's only a Little Bit?"
Sponsored by: Office of National Drug Control Policy

The text of the ad states that if you buy drugs you are financing drug cartels, people who are responsible for terrible things. If you stop buying drugs, the dealers and violence would go away. It concludes by saying it doesn't matter if you only buy a dime bag... "you pick which side you're on by buying it in the first place."

So pot smokers are on the side of the "terrorists?" Oh really. I did not know Oregon organic is the product of a terrorist cartel. Could be members of the dreaded ELF, I suppose. Of course, the ad fails to mention that drug prohibition creates the huge profits that inspire formation of cartels.

The Nation says that it blanketly accepts any advertising that does not impede the use of its editorial columns, unless the ads are "blatantly misleading" or purveying harmful products in which case they fall into the gray area of discretion. If the above ad is not blatantly misleading, what is?

Apparently, discretion is a utilitarian calculus at The Nation, the editors assuming that an infusion of government cash outweighs any damage done by the ad. In other words, the end justifies the means. They are going to run more such ads in the future.

I wonder if The Nation would print a government ad claiming that anyone who buys goods from a Muslim business is supporting terrorism. (Could well happen subsequent to another terror attack.) Would this be sufficiently "blatantly misleading" to warrant the editor's discretion? My bet is yes.

The Nation says its up to our readers whether to believe what they read. True. But advertising influences people's minds. Why else is so much money spent on it?

It seems that pot smokers are easy targets, and OK to sacrifice for some quick cash. But ... what's the old saying? I'll paraphrase: They came for the pot smokers and I wasn't one, so I did nothing. They came for the Muslims, and I wasnt' one, so I did nothing. They came for the activists and I wasnt one, so I did nothing. They came for me and ... end of magazine.

Sounds to me like the govt just wasted a lot of $ on these ads in The Nation. I can't believe any reader of that mag would take them seriously.