Why do antidrug sites say they promote truth when they censor anything not related to their cause?

Question by Jeremy: Why do antidrug sites say they promote truth when they censor anything not related to their cause?
Here is a post from someone who copied their messaged, which was never posted on “freevibe.com” and posted it on another website.

“Hello, I was just browsing and happened to come to your site. What disturbs me is how prejudiced and dogmatic the employees of this domain are. I am a 17 year old. I have a 3.997 GPA (out of 4.0), am 3rd in my class of 375, play hockey (head captain), run cross country and track, have played trombone for two years in my state’s All-State Orchestra, am an active member in the National Honor Society, serve on my school’s student council, scored above 30 on the ACT exam, am a National English Merit award winner, am a Voice of Democracy essay winner, and have never been in disciplinary trouble of any sort at school or otherwise. I volunteer in the community in the form of delivering Meals on Wheels, playing music for Habitat for Humanity, coaching younger hockey players at our local arena, and other ways, as well.
But, according to the “facts” of this site I am a troubled person. I have used marijuana 5-6 times per month for about the past 8 months. When I use marijuana I do so in the controlled environment of a friends house, not out in public. The marijuana we use is not from some dealer on the streets, but is homegrown- purchased as seeds from a legal overseas merchant. I know people attending the extremely selective schools of Northwestern University and Notre Dame that use marijuana, all the while do just fine in their studies. Our National Honor Society President uses marijuana. Your site makes it sound as if every person that uses marijuana is a loser. That is blatantly false- an outright lie. When people come to you for answers you steer them to documents containing only the negative effects of drugs, showing no mention of the positive. There has to be some reason or benefit that is gained from these substances, right?
Why would someone willingly take, for example, crack which according to your data, acts to “increase temperature/chest pain, respiratory failure, nausea, abdominal pain, strokes, seizures, headaches and malnutrition…”, with no positive effects. In no way am I condoning the use of crack, but I terribly disapprove of the way you present information. Next time someone asks for information try giving them the pro-marijuana documents, and the anti-marijuana documents. Here is a report by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D that you can use- “http://www.norml.org/canorml/myths/myth1.shtml”. Then let them decide. Humans declaring something illegal does not mean it is evil. This message is in no way in violation of the terms of service of your message board. I am not blatantly defending an illegal substance, merely questioning your way of handling information.
Sincerely,
The “bad kid”
Well, I can’t agree and say that it is rare, because I’ve moved between two states and all my friends I know that are involved with marijuana use, are either. Doing well, maintaining B and A averages, in school and maintaining out of school activities, martial arts for instance, or doing exceptional in school such as the above case. They generally have better outlooks on life than nondrug users and higher goals than most other people I know.

Best answer:

Answer by Woodstock
This shouldn’t surprise you. Anyone who’s dogmatically ANTI something is going to ignore contrary information our of necessity. You can’t change the mind of someone who refuses to listen, so why bother? Smoke your pot and let them bitch.

On the other hand, some anti-drug organizations have caught on that youth aren’t receptive to one-sided drug messages. I interviewed a woman from the Pot and Driving campaign ( http://www.potanddriving.cpha.ca/ ) and she was saying how youth are more aware of drug facts than anyone, so giving them biased information will just make them suspicious and tuned out. Mind you, this came from a woman whose campaign is not against smoking pot, but against driving while high.

Add your own answer in the comments!