From: henniss@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Kathryn Henniss)
Subject: 48 Hours Anti-LSA Propaganda
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:02:35 GMT

I thought the 48 Hours show on acid last night was
irresponsible, sensationalistic, bullshit journalism, 
very skewed towards portraying acid as a societal menace.

The only sympathetic points (and they were way outnumbered
by the other kind) were (a) they did suggest the
absurdity of sentencing users/dealers of acid with terms
greaters than that of most rapists and murderers, (b) they
showed one guy, an alcoholic, who took acid under medically
supervised circumstances (what a waste of a trip, eh?)
and it changed his life for the better (he quit being an
alcoholic), and (c) they did show the old propagandum about
LSD causing chromosome damage to be a bald-faced lie.

But other than that, I thought they were way heavy on
stories about people who ate HUGE amounts of acid and ended
up with problems, people who (like the guy who did acid
and said he had a bad trip that lasted 3 years), who just might 
have been fucked up to begin with, and would have had to deal
with it whether acid existed or not.  And they talked to a 
doctor who deals with visual disorders -- they gave the
numbers of his patients who had done LSD, but coincidentally
they DIDN'T give the numbers of his patients who DIDN'T do LSD.
And then they expect the viewer to be persuaded when he says 
there's a connection.  Maybe there is, but they sure didn't 
demonstrate it.

And even if there is a correlation between LSD use (or
abuse, more likely) and some problems, they didn't give 
the statistics for alcohol-related deaths/psychosis/murder 
which seems like a minimal point of comparison to me.

And what's the implication of saying that "the return of
the popularity of acid hasn't reached crisis proportions YET" 
supposed to convey?  Pretty obvious.

So where are the documentarists with good media connections 
who know the other side of the story when we need them?  Don't 
you think it would be just as sensational (and hence, just as 
good for tv ratings) to have a whole hour during prime-time in
which they interviewed LOTS of people who have done acid and 
who (surprise, surprise) hold down jobs, make lots of money, 
create important things, contribute to American 
education/art/industry/politics? 

It'd be so refreshing to see some credible demographics on 
the careers and earning potentials of the acid-washed
population compared to the population at large.

As for the people like that DEA official who responded, when
the reporter asked if he thought it made sense for one person
to get sentenced to 40 years and another to just 10 years just
because the blotter paper one sold was heavier than the other
one, "Rather than answer your question myself, I think the
parents of someone who's dead from acid, or in a hospital
with permanent psychosis should be asked that question.  And you 
know what they'd say? They'd say the people selling acid should
be shot."  Well, let's ask the parents of a kid who got
killed by a drunk driver the same question, and I wonder
what they'd say. And what does that have to do with whether
the weight of the paper should matter or not?

I wonder what those people who think people who sell a sheet
or two should be shot think the chances are that that 17-year 
old kid from Santa Cruz who was convicted for selling acid once 
will turn out to be a productive and law-abiding member of society
after he spends 10 years in prison with criminals, more than
most violent criminals will serve.

I guess I'm mad at 48 Hours for such shoddy journalism, but
even angrier at the underlying fascism that characterizes the
DEA's treatment of acid, and the ignorance and bigotry  in
this country allows and even encourages it.
From: Trog.Martian@f66.n365.z1.fidonet.org (Trog Martian)
Sender: NewsMeisterII@mcws.fidonet.org