[grancasa]

Does anyone else feel the recent anti-drug ads have been way over the top? The ad with the young girl pregnant because she smoked marijuana just blew my mind. I mean, honestly, I thought that was just a bit to far. The tag "The youngest grandparents on the block", in regards to the parents, had me laughing out loud. Or the other one with the ghosts talking to the man on the subway... maybe if we decrimilized marijuana, there wouldn't be drug dealers carrying guns shooting people up. And let's compare deaths due to marijuana-selling dealers to deaths due to drunk driving. I'd imagine its about 1000 to 1 in favor of drunk driving.... yet I saw about 10 beer commercials this Super Bowl.

Anyone?

 

[grinch]

yeah, i thought the anti-drug and anti-smoking commercials were utterly ridiculous. i don't do drugs or smoke (cept for the occasional cigar) and i found them repulsively stupid.

yadda yadda yadda, alcohol kills more per year.. etc.

 

[skippy]

i find the anti smoking commercials to be incredibly obnoxious, and some of the anti-drug ones. i do like a few of the anti-marijuana ones (like that chick that's stoned and the guy tries to take advantage of her... though the same argument can be made for alcohol...).

 

[aeberbach]

How about you try to think of one government anti-drug message that doesn't rely on half-truths and hyperbole? When you look at it that way it's no surprise.

 

[aos]

>like that chick that's stoned and the guy tries to take advantage >of her...

Oh man, I watch WB and I just hate that ad! There's so many ads these days that make fun or are downright hostile towards males that things like this piss me off. What I don't get is why any man or boy would ever want to be part of such bashing and be an actor in such an ad. Oh yeah, get a girl stoned so that one can mess up with her, that's the lamest anti-antyhing that I've seen. Not only it makes all man look like jerks (or criminals) but it doesn't do anything to make an argument that marijuana is bad (on which I really have no opinion).

I'm fine with anti-smoking ads, except that there's just way too many these days. We all know already that smoking kills, don't we? There's tons of those messages paid by government here in Canada, though I do see the point (health care is universal here so cutting smoking cuts health care spending) and the ads are WAY more gruesome than in US (showing body parts removed from dead smokers).

 

[royboy2k]

Yeah, and don't forget drugs support terrorism.

 

[Ebonyks]

Let us all protest this by lighting up from end to end

Really, this is just ridiclious, althought it could be worse. We could get an encore presentation of reefer madness (although reefer madness does kick ass...)

 

[LobsterSan]

as well, drug posession is made into an arrestable crime. the california jail system is something i have a hard time comprehending... it really is an industry here and one that certain lobbyists and congressman would like to see thrive. besides, i would rather see murderers and rapists in my prisons than the stoner kid who sits next to me in lecture (and quite often, lightens everybody's mood).

yes, i am alluding to a larger issue, but who do you think is funding these increasingly ridiculous anti-drug commercials? gimme "this is your brain. this is your brain on drugs" anyday... still silly, but not completely absurd.

 

[Mr.PD]

I remember in grade school (back in the horse and buggy days) they told us that pot was an halucingenic. Too bad they that wasn't true.

I agree that the ads go too far. They throw in other subjects llike guns, date rape etc. that have nothing to do with drugs. Then they lose a lot of credibilty with their lies. The same for the anti-smoking ads. They are not all true either. They are just very annoying. People have been lying about drugs for years, now they are free to do the same thing with cigarettes. It's just more of the same old thing. People trying to impose their lifestyle on everybody else, and making up BS to do it with.

 

[Ramtha604]

Well, marihuana _is_ a psychedelic drug (=hallucinogen), not the strongest one, but it is a well known fact among the informed that people can in fact get hallucinations from smoking _unlaced_ high quality weed/dope (not sure if it was just one of them or both, though good dope does contain a higher percentage of THC).

IMNSHO:

Drugs are not dangerous by themselves, it's the lack of quality information and the _mis_information about them that makes them dangerous. And the fact that most of the good stuff is forbidden while rather pointless, really harmful _and_ at the same time highly addictive substances like alcohol, coffeine or especially nicotine are kept legal. Real hallucinogens are not physically addictive and not harmful to the majority of the population (those with no hidden psychosis) when intelligently used instead of ignorantly abused.

I have very limited first hand experience with drugs myself, although I have tried some of the harder stuff and I can say that the only bad experiences I've ever had were really minor ones and only on weed and only because I underestimated it.

The only real protection is true information, too bad that this fact is being ignored by the authorities, although my guess is that certain companies or cartels are not completely uninvolved in the whole matter.

 

[Jeff Guidry]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramtha604 Drugs are not dangerous by themselves, it's the lack of quality information and the _mis_information about them that makes them dangerous.

www.erowid.org

 

[williamgoody]

I agree about the anti smoking ads being obnoxious. It's like those "truth" ads really give you, the viewer, no credit for being able to make up your own minds. I'm no fan of the cigarette companies by any stretch, but to lay the blame for cigarette smoking on them is crazy. They don't decide that people will smoke, do they? All these do IMO is reinforce this "I'm not accountable for what I do" attitude that seems to becoming more prevelant.

 

[Mr.PD]

The big tabacco companies are just evil. All they think of is how to get kids to start smoking. That is why the Joe Camel ads were banned. They were only geared towards children. Adults would never enjoy or react to a cartoon character.
It's kinda like Ford advertising. I would never have purchased an automobile if I hadn't seen a Ford ad. I especially would not have started driving an SUV with out those ads. Those evil car companies, all they want to do is get people to start driving cars. Chevrolet has ads with cartoon characters in them, they are only geared towards getting children to start driving. If we banned that ad we could save some children. C'mon how many people are killed by automobiles each year? The numbers are staggering. Sure they can add airbags and other crash protection but can they really make a safe car? Or, is that just an illusion used to promote driving? Don't even get me started on second hand exhaust.

Oh, the horrors of it all. People actually making a choice to do something that is not healthy. There oughta be a law.

 

[yage]

Quote:

People trying to impose their lifestyle on everybody else, and making up BS to do it with.

I think that argument is total bunk. Think about it - what would you define as a lifestyle choice? If if I drive while under the influence of [insert your favorite drug here], wouldn't I be making making a lifestyle choice, albeit a stupid one? The fact is, your lifestyle choices affect not only yourself, but the strangers around you and laws have to be put in place so that you end up ******** up your own crap most of the time instead of mine.

I agree that the facts about drug use should be brought to light - such as how much of a certain drug does it take before judgment is severely impaired (much like the blood-alcohol limits we have right now), addiction rates, etc. etc., and that the current crop of commercials do nothing to address or aid in the fight against drug abuse.

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally posted by yage I think that argument is total bunk. The fact is, your lifestyle choices affect not only yourself, but the strangers around you and laws have to be put in place so that you end up ******** up your own crap most of the time instead of mine.

When it comes to affecting people around you ie: drunk driving, I can mostly agree. Even that argument has been taken too far.


I'll leave it at that since there is sooooo much more involved in this debate.

[size=xx-small]edit[/size] rather than post again I'll just add this.
See the movie Demolition Man. Interesting view on the subject of "If it's not good for you, it's illegal".