WHAT IS OPINION AND WHAT ARE LIES

WHAT IS OPINION AN= D WHAT ARE LIES

The Phil= omath School District, Benton County police departments, the local news editors and various individuals seem to = be very confused about what is factual and what is opinion. They deliberately = omit important facts and then depict these facts as matters of opinion. They repeatedly deny reasonable claims about their own deceit and dishonesty. I = will give five facts and then paraphrase 2 scriptures that will place the “differences of opinion” claimed by our deceitful government servants into context.

Note: none of these fact= s are explained – much less disputed by Pete Tuana. If your child or close friend deliberately misled you in the exact same manner as Pete Tuana misle= ads students and parents in the school district: how would your response differ from mine?

1] Fact – not an opinion: The US government has never conducted any studies prior to criminalization of any drug. This is easily refuted: all the government has= to do is present any study on any currently banned drug when that drug was leg= ally available. I have made that challenge for over 2 years. Just because this f= act was presented in the opinion section and every editor has refused to acknowledge this fact does not make it an opinion. It just reflects badly o= n the integrity of our editors.

2] Fact not an opinion: The curriculum taught by the Philomath School Di= strict does not have Fact number 1 included. They agree that it is an important fa= ct because they adamantly refuse to include it when they teach about banned drugs.

3] Fact – not an opinion: the Philomath School District has= held two meetings at taxpayer expense where Fact number 1 was deliberately exclu= ded from presentation and drug war critics were specifically barred from speaki= ng. Why are they so afraid of some facts?

= 4] Fact: in this country if you deliberately withhold important information under oath you can be convicted of perjury. It does not even matter if that information proves material to the prosecution or defense of any other crim= inal activity.

= 5] Fact: in this country if you deliberately withhold important information= in an application for employment or contract or in any other attempt to gain cooperation or remuneration you can be convicted of fraud or material misrepresentation. It may be a matter of opinion that scam artists and perjurers are lying. That’s up to the public to decide.

= Scripture 1 – to paraphrase Chairman Mao: truth is only relevant to t= he extent that it promotes the greater public good

= Scripture 2 – to paraphrase John 3:20 – those who do evil hate = the light for they don’t want others to know the evil that they do. =

Our school superintendent blithely assigns my complaints about deliberately withholding important inf= ormation as a “difference of opinion”. He – like Chairman Mao - believes that it is in the greater public good to promote drug prohibition = and it really isn’t dishonest to withhold information that might undermine public support for this policy that promotes the greater public good. Sadly this flexible definition of truth only applies to the government. He = will not apply this lenient standard to anyone else: a flexible standard for government and the higher one for the governed – for the greater publ= ic good.

There are serious philosophical differences on drug policy between Pete and myself. He strong= ly believes that restricting access to drugs for everyone will result in less = drug abuse and addiction problems – and that is desirable. This philosophi= cal difference is sincere and legitimate. That is NOT the “difference of opinion” that we have. Pete believes that it is OK to deliberately li= e to the public – for a good cause - and I do not. We are both in total agreement on one statement. I contend that you can’t promote the drug= war without lying and he adamantly refuses to tell the whole truth. Can’t= be more in agreement there!

What should be noted is = that while most people agree with Pete Tuana to a certain extent, it is a fact t= hat no one who agrees with him is willing to discuss – much less debate – drug policy issues with critics. All it would take to refute this f= act would be for one person to step up and defend current policy in a public setting [step into the light of public scrutiny]. I contend that the best explanation for this statistical anomaly [what are the odds in a country of over a quarter billion people that no one is willing to defend one side of = one issue in a public debate?] can be found in John 3:20. Does anyone else find= an alternative explanation? If so call JT Barrie at 929-5392 or email me at rimchamp77@juno.com .

Copies of this sheet can= be downloaded and/or printed at www.ori= ginaldrugmanualforkids.com/factvsopinion.htm .

To see the responses of = local Philomath churches go to ww= w.originaldrugmanualforkids.com/philomathchurches.html