“The Hungarian Two-Tailed Dog Party takes a strong stance on drugs: we support the legalization of cannabis.”
Across Europe, drug use and narcotics are a source of problems, yet the Dog Party and its representatives repeatedly advocate legalization.
Dávid Nagy and his colleagues regularly downplay the short- and long-term risks of marijuana use; their candidate in Csepel spoke about this again recently.
This is something we do not even want to hear about, because we will never allow drugs to consume our children’s future.
In Hungary, there is zero tolerance when it comes to drugs, and as long as the national government remains in power, this will not change. That is why Fidesz is the safe choice.
Do you think young people need drug legalization? I definitely don’t. There are already serious problems in Europe, and unfortunately drug use is also increasing in Hungary. Yet it seems that supporters of the Dog Party think differently. This is not the first time they have argued in favor of legalization, claiming that cannabis is not dangerous at all, thereby relativizing the risks of marijuana use.
At the recent debate of candidates in Csepel—where, incidentally, only the Tisza candidate was absent—their candidate once again spoke in favor of marijuana use. Here, the Dog Party clearly represents a strong position on drug legalization: “we support the legalization of cannabis.” This would essentially mean that even the most disadvantaged regions and poorest social groups could gain access to quality marijuana.
We, however, want to continue protecting our children from drugs. We believe this is harmful, and that zero tolerance is the only acceptable approach when it comes to drugs.
🧠 Quick snapshot
👉 Main narrative:
“Kutyapárt = drugs = danger to children”
“Legalization = social decline”
“Fidesz = protection, zero tolerance”
👉 Underlying formula:
drugs + children + fear + moral panic → “only we can protect you”
🔍 Influence techniques
1️⃣ Creating moral panic (involving children)
👉 “drugs will consume our children’s future”
Technique: emotional escalation + invoking children
Goal: immediate emotional reaction (fear, anger)
Effect: rational debate disappears
➡️ Classic move:
not a policy issue → “child protection”
2️⃣ Strawman argument (distortion)
👉 “according to them, it’s not dangerous at all”
Technique: oversimplifying / distorting the opposing position
Goal: make it easier to attack
Effect: avoids engaging with real arguments
➡️ Reality:
legalization ≠ “not dangerous”
3️⃣ Black-and-white thinking (false dilemma)
👉 “zero tolerance is the only acceptable option”
Technique: false dilemma
Goal: exclude all middle-ground solutions
Effect: no nuance (e.g. regulation, prevention)
➡️ Yet alternatives exist:
- decriminalization
- regulated market
- public health approach
4️⃣ Fear through generalization
👉 “it’s a problem across all of Europe”
Technique: overgeneralization
Goal: amplify perceived threat
Effect: everything seems to be “going wrong”
➡️ Ignores differences in:
- countries
- policy models
- outcomes
5️⃣ Conflation (drugs = all drugs)
👉 “drug and narcotic use” → marijuana
Technique: category conflation
Goal: create stronger negative associations
Effect: marijuana = same level as hard drugs
6️⃣ Enemy construction + discrediting
👉 “Kutyapárt supporters trivialize it”
👉 “not for the first time”
Technique: delegitimization + repetition
Goal: make them seem unserious
Effect: character attack
7️⃣ “We will protect you” (protector framing)
👉 “we want to protect our children”
👉 “zero tolerance will remain”
Technique: savior / protector role
Goal: create a sense of safety → political support
Effect: Fidesz = the only protection
8️⃣ Linking it to poverty (subtle framing)
👉 “the poorest groups would gain access”
Technique: fear + social stigma
Goal: create a negative future image
Effect: “this would make things worse”
➡️ Implicit message:
poor people + drugs = danger
9️⃣ Repetition (very important)
👉 “not the first time”
👉 “again”
👉 “regularly”
Technique: repetition = illusion of truth
Goal: make it stick
Effect: feels true even without evidence
🧩 Deeper communication logic
This text is not really about drugs.
👉 It’s about:
- fear (children, future)
- moral superiority (“we protect”)
- an enemy (Kutyapárt = irresponsible)
- a simplified worldview (good vs bad)
👉 Classic formula:
complex policy issue → moral panic → political choice
⚖️ What’s missing (very important)
The text does not talk about:
- regulatory models (e.g. Portugal)
- public health approaches
- reducing the black market
- tax revenue
- control mechanisms
➡️ Only one frame remains:
“legalization = danger”
🧠 Summary
This is textbook propaganda:
👉 Main tools:
- fear (children)
- strawman (distorted opponent)
- false dilemma (only zero tolerance)
- category conflation
- savior narrative
👉 Goal:
not to help you understand the issue,
but to make you react emotionally and pick a side