There is no place in parliament for drugged-up politicians!
We would have been better off if the Two-Tailed Dog Party had remained a joke party, because ever since they started taking themselves seriously, we also have to take seriously what they are saying. Right now, it’s the legalization of marijuana. And if a party has a chance of entering the Hungarian Parliament, then it does matter what stoned politicians stand for.
But let’s take a step back: what does this issue look like in Europe? The question of marijuana and soft drugs is the subject of intense debate across the EU. Whenever it comes up, it always turns into a legalization debate, but in reality, even in countries with more permissive regulations, drugs are not fully legal. There is a sharp difference between Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe.
In Western Europe, legal frameworks are generally more permissive, but this still only means decriminalization — that is, users are not punished, only dealers are. Drug trafficking remains a criminal offense in these countries as well; it is still part of the black and grey market, and a primary source of income for drug mafias. Therefore, the claim made by the Dog Party’s lead candidate — that this could generate 200–300 billion forints in state revenue — is simply nonsense. It is not the case in other countries either. No revenue comes from the mafia’s black money. But that is the smaller issue.
The real problem is deeper. In countries that have moved toward drug liberalization, all that has really happened is that unregulated, uncontrolled-quality drugs — still distributed by illegal drug mafias — have become easier to access. There is no such thing as “controlled quality,” safer drugs, or a “cleaner” market.
It is also not true, as pro-drug politicians often argue, that more permissive regulation does not lead to an increase in drug users. Let’s look at some examples. According to data from the EU’s central drugs agency (EUDA), in countries with more permissive regulations, the number of users is often several times higher than in countries where it is not. In Hungary, 3–4% of the adult population (defined by the EUDA as ages 15–64) uses cannabis; in Germany it is 8–10%, in Spain 9–11%, and in the Netherlands 10–12%. Although regulations are not uniform, the key point is that in more liberalized systems, the proportion of marijuana users is 3–4 times higher than in countries where it is prohibited by law.
In short:
It is not true that liberalization does not lead to an increase in drug use. If something becomes easier to obtain and carries no legal consequences, more people will use it.
Even if the state turns a blind eye to the drug mafia’s multi-billion business, the market will still be flooded with unregulated drugs — and in any case, there is no such thing as a “healthy” drug.
The state gains no revenue if the government does not pursue dealers but instead passively watches the drug mafia grow richer by the billions.
And no one should have any doubt: if a country turns a blind eye to drug use, treats it as part of individual freedom, and imposes no criminal consequences, then drugs will be traded in schools like candy.
These are just the objective facts, and we have not even touched on the health effects of drugs — both mental and physical — which is a separate but equally serious issue.
The dream of the drug lobby is to have its own representation in the Hungarian Parliament. The Dog Party has openly embraced this. Our dream, however, is a country where drug dealers are in prison, our children are safe, and no parent has to watch their child’s life derail because of a bad decision.
It would be a dog-eat-dog world if unserious people were allowed to make serious decisions.
Main narrative
The central message of the text is this:
“The opposition is pro-drug, irresponsible, and puts children at risk, therefore serious decisions should only be entrusted to the governing party.”
This is not a simple opinion piece, but a political framing built on fear, disgust, and moral panic.
The hidden political objective
The text appears to be about marijuana, but in reality it does three things at once:
- It selects an easily attackable target: the Two-Tailed Dog Party
- It generalizes from that to the entire opposition
- It creates a background message: “anyone who is not Fidesz stands with irresponsible people”
This method is effective in propaganda because there is no need to attack Péter Magyar directly every time. It is enough to create an atmosphere where the entire opposition field becomes associated with the following keywords:
- pro-drug
- irresponsible
- joke-level
- endangering children
- socially destructive
After that, it becomes much easier to implicitly drag Péter Magyar into this emotional frame, even without naming him.
Main propaganda tools
1. “Drugged politicians have no place in parliament” – labeling from the first sentence
Technique: pre-emptive labeling + moral discrediting
Goal: create disgust instead of debate from the outset
Effect: the reader focuses not on policy, but on a caricature: “stoned politicians”
This is crucial:
the text does not say “bad drug policy proposal,” but “drugged politician.”
So this is not a policy debate, but character assassination.
2. “Now that they take themselves seriously, we have to deal with them” – condescending tone
Technique: belittling + status superiority
Goal: infantilize the target
Effect: the Dog Party appears not as a political actor, but as a clown
This is useful because it makes it easier to dismiss any of their claims:
no need to argue — it is enough to suggest “these are not serious people.”
3. “Western Europe shows the same” – selective use of foreign examples
Technique: selective international comparison
Goal: create an illusion of objectivity
Effect: the text appears scientific and data-driven
However, the text oversimplifies or distorts reality in several places.
4. “These are just objective facts” – one of the strongest propaganda lines
Technique: presenting a narrative as objective truth
Goal: shut down debate before it begins
Effect: anyone who disagrees appears to be arguing against “facts”
This is a key manipulation tactic.
When someone says “these are just objective facts,” what they really mean is:
“from this point on, debate is not legitimate.”
Yet the text contains interpretations, generalizations, and fear-based conclusions — not just facts.
5. Referring to EUDA data – statistical oversimplification
Technique: numerical authority appeal
Goal: dress a moral claim in scientific language
Effect: the reader perceives the argument as proven
However, the conclusion that “liberalization clearly leads to 3–4 times more users” is stronger than what the data alone can reliably support.
6. False causal chain: “if there is no punishment, more people will use drugs”
Technique: single-cause explanation
Goal: simplify a complex social issue
Effect: a strong but oversimplified message
The text suggests:
regulatory easing = automatically more users
Politically effective, but analytically weak, since drug use is influenced by many factors:
- cultural patterns
- social norms
- generational trends
- enforcement systems
- prevention quality
- relationship between legal and illegal markets
7. “Drugs will circulate like candy in schools” – child-focused panic
Technique: worst-case scenario + children
Goal: trigger maximum emotional reaction
Effect: the issue becomes a moral emergency rather than a policy debate
This is one of the strongest elements.
Once children are introduced, rational debate narrows significantly.
The question shifts from policy to emotion:
“Who wants a country where drugs spread in schools?”
This is classic moral panic framing.
8. “Drug mafia”, “dealers”, “black money” – criminal framing
Technique: conflation
Goal: equate policy debate with criminal activity
Effect: anyone advocating reform appears to support organized crime
The text eliminates the possibility of discussing the issue from:
- regulatory
- public health
- harm reduction
perspectives.
Instead, it reframes the debate as:
“so you are on the side of the drug mafia.”
This is not debate — it is delegitimization.
How this is used to implicate Péter Magyar
This is the key point.
Even if Péter Magyar is not explicitly mentioned, the mechanism still works politically.
The method:
- Select a more extreme, easily attackable opposition topic
- Build moral panic around it
- Merge the entire opposition into a “danger” category
- In this environment, Péter Magyar becomes easier to position as:
- irresponsible
- part of a bad crowd
- a figure in a chaotic opposition space
- the opposite of the “national side”
This is an indirect smearing strategy.
The goal is not to prove something about Péter Magyar here and now.
The goal is to establish the association:
opposition = irresponsibility + drugs + danger + anti-child
Once this emotional frame is fixed, Péter Magyar can be inserted into it later.
The most important hidden message
The real message is not:
“marijuana is bad”
but:
“non-Fidesz political actors are unfit to govern.”
This is why the text ends with the key line:
“A dog’s world would come if unserious people could make serious decisions.”
This is no longer drug policy.
It is a total political judgment.
The strongest manipulation
The most powerful move is that the text merges three different levels:
- drug policy debate
- moral judgment
- political competence
So the chain becomes:
support softer regulation → pro-drug → endangers children → unserious → unfit to govern
This chain is the core of the propaganda.
Short summary
This text:
- builds moral panic
- triggers disgust and fear
- uses selective data for legitimacy
- frames the debate in criminal terms
- mobilizes child-protection emotions
- and indirectly frames the entire opposition — including Péter Magyar — as unfit
The real point is not marijuana, but this:
the political goal is to portray the opposition as morally contaminated and dangerous for governance — and to later pull Péter Magyar into this same frame.