George Soros wants all Americans to have easy access to drugs -- and, if that doesn't kill us, to euthanasia as well.
In a recent issue of Organization Trends, published by the Capital Research Center, narcoterrorism expert Rachel Ehrenfeld describes the ongoing efforts of a misanthropic multimillionaire to promote the legalization of drugs in America. "With the canniness of an aggressive businessman, George Soros has assembled, advised, and financed a management team to overcome the common sense of the American public," Ehrenfeld charges. "By constant reference to safe use, or use to relieve suffering, these promoters are succeeding in making use of illicit drugs appear to be acceptable conduct."
Ehrenfeld reports that Soros "played the most important supporting role in the campaign for the passage of pro-drug legalization laws in California and Arizona. His fame and fortune lent credibility and respectability to the campaigns for California's Proposition 215 and Arizona's Proposition 200, both of which passed last November." Ehrenfeld argues that "Soros' checkbook advocacy and advanced marketing techniques enabled the forces of drug legalization to blitz those states with ad campaigns . . . designed to play to voter sympathies."
Proponents promoted Proposition 215 as "a humane measure which would allow physicians to use marijuana to treat cancer and AIDS patients and other seriously ill people," Ehrenfeld recalls. "What they did not advertise is that the initiative does not limit marijuana use to AIDS or cancer. Instead, it is allowed 'for any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.'"
Drug legalization is but one of two pet projects for Soros. In 1994 this maven of morbidity donated $15 million to establish "Project Death in America," a foundation dedicated to the promotion of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The following year, the foundation began forming "a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America's hospitals and lead to . . . the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying." That effort is spearheaded by the foundation's director, a practicing physician who serves as the chief of pain service at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Ehrenfeld describes how this macabre organization misrepresents euthanasia "as an act of compassion for the individual against the ignorance and bigotry of society. This tactic," she observes, "easily fits the preconceptions of the media habituated to portraying political and legal challenges to existing prohibitions as reform movements." The tactic is working, too. "Last year," Ehrenfeld recalls, "two federal appeals courts struck down laws banning assisted suicide, holding that there exists a 'constitutional' right for physician-assisted suicide."
If the prospect of legalized euthanasia can be made as seemingly appealing as the prospect of marijuana for medicinal purposes, "then all Americans may soon have the right to drug themselves and others to death," observes Ehrenfeld. "Physicians, no longer bound by the Hippocratic oath, will have the authority to mix their professional judgment with political expedience and economic self-interest to decide whose time is up."
