Do you get your news online?

If so, do you ever comment after reading stories?




In this story in Truthout, author Roberto Cintli Rodriguez writes:




The unexpected new locations for hate crime scenes in the 21st century appear to be the comments sections of the nation's leading newspapers, where calls to violence have become routine and through which progressives have decided correcting the record is a waste of their time.




In his story, he provides examples that show "letters or comments sections appear to have become sanctuaries to virulent hate and, especially since the advent of the internet, a comfortable home to discourses of extremist hate and calls to violence, primarily of the extreme right-wing variety."


Now, this might be a partisan conclusion, but the point is that PEOPLE (whatever their politics) now use the Internet to talk trash and say horrible things, thinking they are anonymous (which they are not). As a result, many people simply do not read the letters or comments.




This is because of the "scripted messages" ... "talking points" ... "coded language, preposterous stereotypes and outright falsehoods" contained within.




You might not agree with the author that "right wing utilizes or engages the letters to the editor sections ... much more frequently, with much more volume and much more effectively than their liberal or progressive counterparts. It does this through the use of powerful metaphors and imagery, albeit false ones, which are effective because they are generally wrapped in the flag and/or the Bible. Demonization, fear and hate work. Repeated often enough, outright lies and distortions appear to be effective, especially when meanings of words are changed or misrepresented, and especially when they are not refuted. Soon, lies, distortions and misrepresentations become conventional wisdom. Conservative talk show hosts become credible sources, whereas facts are readily dismissed as liberal hearsay and heresy."






But you should agree with the argument that: "Audiences become susceptible in times of high stress, such as severe economic downturns, national crises, and especially in times of war. These are the times when people scapegoat the most politically powerless sectors and close ranks to fight a 'common enemy.'" This is what is happening right now with the immigration debate.

Why you should write letters to the paper

A reporter wrote this article claiming that legalizing marijuana would be a big mistake.

More than 1,200 people have shared it on Facebook. Which is how I saw it!

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/health/fl-nbcol-legalize-marijuana-brochu-0120110114,0,1710872.column

So I wrote her back via email. I said:

Hi

I am a professor of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University; I teach and do research on national drug control policy.

I read your article about marijuana legalization and feel like you are doing a disservice to your readers.

First, I agree that young people should not smoke pot. And thus it should be a concern that marijuana use among young people is increasing (although it is clear from the evidence that marijuana is a safer choice
than alcohol; alcohol leads to the most psychopharmacological violence of all drugs among young people and also is responsible for the greatest share of antisocial behavior on college campuses).

Yet, it does not therefore logically follow that marijuana should be illegal for adults. We can in fact express the clearest of dissatisfaction and disapproval for young people using drugs while simultaneously allowing responsible adults the right to do so. It's a proven fact that if you treat teenagers like adults and they actually
are more likely to act like it.

Any policy, including drug prohibition, should be assessed in two ways:

1) Does it meet its goals?
2) Do its benefits outweigh its costs?

Any policy that meets its goals and offers benefits that outweigh its costs is a successful policy.

Drug prohibition does neither. There are dozens of books from people of all ideological perspectives that now show this so clearly. Some of that evidence can be found in my article here: Robinson, Matthew B.
(2010). Toward a More Useful National Drug Control Strategy. /Justice
Policy Journal/, 7(1), 1-49.
See article <http://www.cjcj.org/files/toward_a.pdf> (PDF Format)

Thus, legalization is a real alternative worthy of serious consideration. Frankly, it should not be ruled out so easily with terms like "smoke and mirrors." In fact, it has serious, even scholarly proponents, like myself and many others, who base their decisions on real evidence (and not just that offered by the DEA, who obviously has a vested interest in the status quo).

Obviously, no one knows what would happen if drugs like marijuana were legalized; it is a safe bet that we would benefit greatly overall (even if use went up, overall costs would still be substantially down).

I'd be happy to talk with you about this, especially if you are willing to write a follow-up piece that makes the opposite argument to promote critical thinking in your readers.

Sincerely,
Dr. Matt Robinson

And guess what? She's invited me to write a response where I get to argue the other side.

And that's why you should write letters to papers.