Comments on: ONDCP Ads Make Kids Want to Get High

ONDCP Ads Make Kids Want to Get High

Amy Phillips — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:06:47 -0800

GAO: Anti-Drug Ads Still Don't Work In 2002 , Drug Czar John Walters admitted that anti-drug advertising was failing and may have tempted more kids to try marijuana. He called for more rigorous testing of the ads. Now, the GAO has released a report showing that drug ads since 2002 have been equally ineffective. Young teens and girls who saw the ads were more likely to try pot. The White House kept the results of their latest study from GAO auditors for over a year, and Walters is now claiming that the testing he commissioned should be discounted because the effects of the campaign can't be measured through testing. The 2007 federal budget proposes $120 million for ONDCP anti-drug advertising.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:12:04 -0800

Shocking...

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:15:36 -0800

"Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.' "

By: SBMike

SBMike — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:16:30 -0800

Didn't Einstein say that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over again and expecting... Oh, nevermind.

By: Bageena

Bageena — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:23:19 -0800

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:25:08 -0800

When he says the new creed is 'lets roll', is he talking about rolling up another fat one? Is Laura still selling those dime bags or what?

By: rollbiz

rollbiz — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:29:40 -0800

"Let's Roll"

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:31:48 -0800

Dumb, dumb, dumb. How is this not an issue that both conservatives and liberals can agree on? The drug war is, for the most part, a fantastic waste of money and time. How can my government be so stupid and short-sighted? *sigh* What are you talking about? Both liberals and conservatives do agree, that the war on drugs is great and that they ought to keep at it!

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:35:52 -0800

For too long our culture has said, 'If it feels good, do it.' Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: 'Let's roll.' In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass." Translation: Don't bogart. Let's Roll!

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:36:41 -0800

This is your money: $ This is your money being spent on a futile attempt to enforce a hypocritical morality: *

By: doctor_negative

doctor_negative — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:37:56 -0800

Delmoi, what have you been smoking?

By: doctor_negative

doctor_negative — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:41:34 -0800

The 2007 federal budget proposes $120 million for ONDCP anti-drug advertising. Ah, the satisfying smell of pork wafting on the autumn breeze. Small potatoes when compared to the current Iraq-WarOnTerror burn rate, but still, it's money that could be better spent almost anywhere.

By: quin

quin — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:53:34 -0800

There is a cynical part of my mind that works like this: Those in power (both right and left) know that things like marijuana are essentially harmless. They knowingly develop "anti-drug" ads that provide exposure to concept of teens doing drugs. After seeing commercials, teens do drugs. Drug war is perpetuated. Those in power (both right and left) stay in power based on selling the fear of a 'dangerous' drug. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. /conspiracytheoryfilter

By: edgeways

edgeways — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:53:52 -0800

I've slowly come to realize that the GAO is actually a pretty damn good part of the government. They seem pretty even handed and non partisan in their reports. I read the report the gave on the USA patriot ACT awhile back and also being impressed.

By: nickmark

nickmark — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:55:48 -0800

"it's money that could be better spent almost anywhere" For example: supporting public radio (PDF, see p. 27, $250,000-$499,999 range)

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:56:45 -0800

Westat's evaluation indicates that exposure to the campaign did not prevent initiation of marijuana use and had no effect on curtailing current users' marijuana use, despite youth recall of and favorable assessments of advertisements. I wonder what they mean. Some of those commercials are hilarious. Is that a favorable assessment?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:59:02 -0800

Delmoi, what have you been smoking? Huh? What are you talking about? Can you name a single big-time democrat who opposes the war on drugs? Clinton actually tried to fight legislation that would have made it more difficult for police to seize money they suspected (even without any proof) might be related to drug trafficking. The democrats are just as bad on this issue as the republicans. Unless by "liberal" you mean something other then "democrats" Seriously, where would you even get the idea that dems are somehow better on the WoD? I would say that most anti prohibitionists are probably politically liberal, but they don't have much political sway.

By: CautionToTheWind

CautionToTheWind — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:00:44 -0800

By: anomie

anomie — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:01:27 -0800

Unless by "liberal" you mean something other then "democrats" rofl

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:02:25 -0800

Lather, Rinse, Repeat. /conspiracytheoryfilter This dynamic needn't be supposed to be consciously operated, what you've described is a clear feedback mechanism. It would be interesting if such things could be usefully measured. Can we treat beauracracies like stochastic systems? Since all decisions in these programs are optimizing towards some goal, if there is this kind of feedback in the allocation of resources, we could see commercials and other materials trend towards promotion instead of dissuasion. Or is that even more 'out there'?

By: daksya

daksya — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:03:06 -0800

From the Slate article: It shows that the ad campaign isn't working, as the Associated Press reported in late August. Instead of reducing the likelihood that kids would smoke marijuana, the ads increased it. Similar type of results were shown in a study earlier this year Explicit and implicit effects of anti-marijuana and anti-tobacco TV advertisements - However, analogical analysis on explicit measures showed that attitudes to marijuana became less negative among students that watched anti-marijuana ads than the group with anti-tobacco ads But as John Walters says, the 'well-financed legalization lobby' (to the tune of $10m annually, most of it Soros and Peter Lewis money) has to countered, so another $120m needed for advertising. Bageena: How is this not an issue that both conservatives and liberals can agree on? The drug war is, for the most part, a fantastic waste of money and time. How can my government be so stupid and short-sighted? Who says the government is short-sighted? In 1970, Nixon instituted a 14 member committee (9 conservatives, 5 liberals IIRC) to look into drug abuse, headed by Raymond Shafer, a Republican governor of Pennsylvania. The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, in its final report, says Because of the intensity of the public concern and the emotionalism surrounding the topic of drugs, all levels of government have been pressured into action with little time for planning. The political pressures involved in this governmental effort have resulted in a concentration of public energy on the most immediate aspects of drug use and a reaction along the paths of least political resistance. The recent result has been the creation of ever larger bureaucracies, ever increasing expenditures of monies, and an outpouring of publicity so that the public will know that "something" is being done. Perhaps the major consequence of this ad hoc policy planning hag been the creation, at the federal, state and community levels, of a vested interest in the perpetuation of the problem among those dispensing and receiving funds. Infrastructures are created, job descriptions are standardized, "experts" are created and ways of doing business routinized and established along bureaucratic channels. During the last several years, drug programming has become a multi-billion dollar industry, one administering to its own needs as well as to those of its drug-using clientele. In the course of well-meaning efforts to do something about drug use, this society may have inadvertently institutionalized it as a never-ending project.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:04:33 -0800

I would say that most anti prohibitionists are probably politically liberal, but they don't have much political sway. I don't even know if that's true. What about all those libertarians and small government types? There's a good argument to be made for Thomas Szasz being the father of anti-prohibitionism, and Szasz definitely falls into that category.

By: MonkeySaltedNuts

MonkeySaltedNuts — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:05:41 -0800

from the GAO

Between 1998 and 2004, Congress appropriated over $1.2 billion to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.

When pissing away this much money on a program that has proven worse than useless, the first question that comes to mind is cronyism: what lesislators are pimping this program, which people/companies have received the funds for which they don't have to demonstrate any results, and what is the relation between tthe two groups?

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:07:55 -0800

Didn't Nixon angrily dismiss the report without reading it as soon as he learned what its conclusions were?

By: prostyle

prostyle — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:10:47 -0800

Or is that even more 'out there'? It's out there because drugs sell themselves. You don't need advertisements, let alone ones composed of subversive projection. Drugs will be legal the day we stand up to our leaders who have taken us so completely astray, betrayed our passive collective judgement through action and codified their prejudice. That is to say, never, because we are weak and ignorant and will accept anything as long as it's easy to swallow and we don't have to think about it too hard. The justifications for the functional arm of action employed by the War on Drugs remain as flimsy and ridiculous as the same set of circumstances resulting from the War on Terror, and are we ever going to get out of that loop? Make hay while the fucking sun shines, huh?

By: Tablecrumbs

Tablecrumbs — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:15:03 -0800

What amuses me is that you can be watching a show on TV and sit through an advert for some pain killer or anti depressant and at the end they will have the disclaimer of all the side effects and dangers of the drug (this is required by law). However your teen is most likely smart enough to know that marijuana could help with the same kind of pain or depression without the horrible side effects, but our government decided to make it illegal. They surely see the hypocracy in that.

By: daksya

daksya — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:15:14 -0800

PeterMcDermott - I don't even know if that's true. What about all those libertarians and small government types? I would say that most legalizers are socially liberal. As I point out every now & then when this aspect comes up, in the 2004 ballot measure in Alaska to legalize pot, 74% of liberals voted Yes and 75% of conservatives voted No, as per the CNN-reported exit poll. doctor_negative - Small potatoes when compared to the current Iraq-WarOnTerror burn rate The 120m is just the advertising budget. Total annual federal expenditure is $18+ billion with $40-50 billion more at the other levels. Even estimating $20 billion as regulated regime costs, that's still $40 billion pork. [expletive deleted] - Didn't Nixon angrily dismiss the report without reading it as soon as he learned what its conclusions were? That's th earlier one, specifically on pot, recommending depenalization of personal possession and non-profit trading.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:16:12 -0800

"How is this not an issue that both conservatives and liberals can agree on?" One side likes to throw money at problems the other likes to syphon money out of the government? Actually, I think it's more a dem/republican thing. (Say, how're those labels on records working out?) Thinking liberals and conservatives tend have positions beyond organizational self-interest. But yep. It should stop. It should have ended with Nancy Reagan. It should never have even started with Nancy. It's a frikkin dog and pony show with the government using our own money to convince us they're doing something useful with our own money.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:19:50 -0800

PeterMcDermott, Szasz doesn't count because he's bugfuck crazy. As proof, I present this: Thomas Szasz and Tom Cruise at the awards dinner for the anti-psychiatry group Szasz founded along with the Church of Scientology. Having read some of his work, I will say that his ideas about medicine and particularly psychiatry as a tool of social control are interesting. He makes good points about how merely socially unacceptable behavior (such as masturbation) has made it into the DSM with ease on numerous occasions, often leading to tragic consequences. That said, methinks he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and thus descends into crackpottery when he claims all mental illness is a myth. I've seen mental illness; it is no myth.

By: illiad

illiad — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:22:22 -0800

Stop funding the War on Drugs? That'll happen when something porcine generates its own lift. The WoD apparatus is so firmly entrenched and so protective of the money it gets that any attempts to curb spending in this area will be met with the usual propaganda: "They're cutting much needed funds for the War on Drugs! THEY want to hook YOUR kids on heroin!" Then someone trying to do something intelligent loses an election or gets fired, while another fat cat apparatchik gets a bigger budget.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:25:48 -0800

I think the quickest path to legalisation is to push for mandatory regular drug testing to all high government officials. Its an idea that should be fun to push, if only to watch them squirm. Not a one time thing, but keep it on until legalisation. After all, the little minded twats that oppress us are only human too. I don't think that would work to well. I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who either are not drug users or who could give up in order to keep their seats.

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:26:52 -0800

George Soros the "Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization."

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:29:13 -0800

I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who either are not drug users or who could give up in order to keep their seats. Uh, or more likely, just fix the results.

By: SBMike

SBMike — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:33:13 -0800

I've always thought that much of the ineffectiveness is due to the misleading nature of the ads. Simply put, the ads don't portray drug use in a realistic light. As a kid watching these ads, it seemed like I would get offered marijuana from the "bad kids" in school, the ones who were always getting suspended and getting into fights. They would start with marijuana, and then push harder and harder drugs until I was a crack addict. I would quickly alienate my old friends and become a habitual user, ruining my prospects for the future. They never said that my lifelong friends who were in the same honor classes as me would be the ones toking up after school. They never say that occasional recreational use is much more common than habitual use. They never mention that most high schoolers wouldn't know where to begin looking for anything harder than weed. When I encountered the truth, it became apparent pretty quickly that most of what I had been told was lies. I think they'd be more effective telling the truth, but since the truth is that marijuana really isn't that bad for you and should almost certainly be legalized, it'll never happen.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:37:32 -0800

Did they separately test the "Parents: the Anti-Drug" bit of the campaign? 'Cos I thought that was pretty sensible, myself. Not to mention more true than anything else they dreamed up. I'd also like to see whether it's only marijuana that saw increased use, or hard drugs as well. Maybe part of the problem is that more awareness means more awareness of its essential harmlessness (vs. legal drugs, anyway)? Ultimately, though, I'm just depressed that there are several recent studies about sex and drugs showing media exposure encourages "trying", which was always the argument against sex education (yet ironically drug education continues apace).

By: melixxa600

melixxa600 — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:37:55 -0800

I love how Tom Cruise is the new "crazy" trophy. (Not that I didn't already think Redskins owner Dan Snyder is a bit weird and off-putting, but it was confirmed last night when I saw him schmoozing with Tommy in the owner's booth during Monday Night Football.) Movers-and-shakers: By all means, do NOT let yourselves be air-kissed into photo ops with Tom Cruise! Re the commercials. Not surprising information and yet still shocking information. I suppose shocking that good money will continue to be thrown after what has definitively been proven to be bad. I found the anti-marijauna TV spots quite compelling (the girl sexually assaluted by POT at the teen party! the one with 'the youngest new grandmother in town' because POT got her 13-by-the-looks-of-it daughter pregnant! I could have watched these ad nauseam!). I'm no expert on advertising image and public perception, but they seemed to stage scenes of appealing squalor - like heroin-look, cigarette-dangling models in haute couture ads. Squalid. Dangerous. Life-threatening. Pulse-quickening. Beautiful. They sorta made me want to smoke pot.

By: Holy foxy moxie batman!

Holy foxy moxie batman! — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:54:26 -0800

They never said that my lifelong friends who were in the same honor classes as me would be the ones toking up after school. They never say that occasional recreational use is much more common than habitual use. They never mention that most high schoolers wouldn't know where to begin looking for anything harder than weed. When I encountered the truth, it became apparent pretty quickly that most of what I had been told was lies. Here here. Living in Northern California, pot is everywhere. People light up on the Muni buses in the city and pass them around, you see it all the time. Even my mother smoked pot when i was growing up and made no attempt to hide it. The result? I tried it a few times and that was that. It was a take it or leave it thing. I didn't have this need to rebel against my parents or the system or anything like that because it was there in front of me. If the government said, "Drugs really aren't that bad after all, go ahead and toke" it probably wouldn't be such a problem.

By: NationalKato

NationalKato — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:58:50 -0800

SBMike, right on. Put videocameras into the hands of the teens and let them create their own Anti-Drug commercials. Give it to the Straight-Edge kids. You'll find honest, realistic, and effective anti-drug messages that other teens will actually listen to. Don't just emphasize the extreme effects of hard drug use or drug addiction - highlight those dangers as well as the responsible approach, as is used with alcohol and cigarettes, which compared to marijuana can be much more dangerous (something many teens already know).

By: Bageena

Bageena — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 11:59:23 -0800

Please read this book. Especially since it's completely free and entirely online.

By: bobo123

bobo123 — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:10:38 -0800

Didn't Nixon angrily dismiss the report without reading it as soon as he learned what its conclusions were? Nixon: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ." So there you have it, America's anti-marijuana policy has it's roots in anti-semitism.

By: Doorstop

Doorstop — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:12:02 -0800

i actually kinda LIKE the new drug ads. has anyone seen them? the ones where they pretty much say "i just smoked pot. i had a great time!" and then go on to explain that its basically a WASTE of time and all you do is sit around and do nothing in reality. it's pretty much true unless you're a veteran smoker and can handle yourself well on it. i think they may actually be effective... cuz who really wants to be that boring anyway?

By: Karmakaze

Karmakaze — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:13:26 -0800

Has anyone run into the new ad campaign warning us that "kids have found a new way to get high" by abusing prescription drugs. Errr, no. I'm pretty sure that's not new.

By: anthill

anthill — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:13:51 -0800

sonofsamiam, I think analyzing buraucracies from a systems theory point of view is very appropriate. Conspiracy theories to my mind are often just a way of putting a human face on something that really just requires human self-interest coupled with (un)natural forces... :)

By: anthill

anthill — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:15:16 -0800

The ONDCP Ads make me wanna smoke crack

By: SBMike

SBMike — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:17:58 -0800

Didn't Nixon angrily dismiss the report without reading it as soon as he learned what its conclusions were? Nixon: "I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. That's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists . . ." So there you have it, America's anti-marijuana policy has it's roots in anti-semitism. Actually, the roots of the policy go further back into the '30s when marijuana use was associated with black jazz musicians which was a big part of the campaign to criminalize it. Although, if the Jews are for it, you know it can't be good anyway.

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:25:18 -0800

two words: Freeeeeeeench Tooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaast.

By: CautionToTheWind

CautionToTheWind — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:30:16 -0800

delmoi writes "I don't think that would work to well. I'm sure there are plenty of politicians who either are not drug users or who could give up in order to keep their seats." The mindset that people will give up drugs IS what got us here in the first place. It should be clear by now it might be doable by a few but i doubt all would choose that. It essentially would include this most important class (politicians) into the reach of the law, unlike now, where only poor people or very unlucky rich people ever have to concern themselves with drug law. Having them "adjust" the results would be an ideal outcome if it eventually got exposed. Can you imagine the reaction? All those smiling pictures of campaign posters with the subtext "I'll be taking those drugs, citizen" or "When you get arrested, i'll just buy it from someone else". Above all, it would bring the issue into discussion, where the current position would not withstand scrutiny.

By: Durhey

Durhey — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:30:36 -0800

Man, that $120 million sure could buy a lot of weed. The new drug ads do seem to be a bit more honest, even if they rekk of backpedalling. "Yeah, I smoked some pot, and I didn't die, or go to jail, or get pregnant. In fact, I didn't do much of anything." It's true that many people will get high and sit around doing pretty much nothing. However, many people sit around doing nothing while sober too. They may as well have a war on laziness.

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:39:17 -0800

Someone needs to run the ad campaign that tells teens the powers that be actually want them to use drugs. It is your duty to become the "customer" in the privatized prison industry via mandatory sentencing laws to generate revenue for elderly, white shareholders. So toke up, teens of today! A little closer to that school, if you please! The economy needs your help!

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:41:46 -0800

When I encountered the truth, it became apparent pretty quickly that most of what I had been told was lies. Exactly. If you lie to someone, and they find out your lying, then you won't believe anything they say.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:43:51 -0800

Having them "adjust" the results would be an ideal outcome if it eventually got exposed. Can you imagine the reaction? All those smiling pictures of campaign posters with the subtext "I'll be taking those drugs, citizen" or "When you get arrested, i'll just buy it from someone else". Yeah, but you don't seem to understand. Either the law will go no where and no one will care, or worse it would work locking anyone sympathetic to drug users out of government.

By: Amy Phillips

Amy Phillips — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:45:29 -0800

More effective than drug tests for public officials would be drug tests for public officials' families, with mandatory minimum jail sentences for those who test positive. Jeb Bush might be a little more sympathetic to other drug users if his daughter had to face the same sentences he advocates for other people's children. I imagine there are plenty of politicians' kids who would qualify for long jail sentences if the laws were applied uniformly to them. (I think it's barbaric that we send people to jail for nonviolent drug crimes, but if putting the children of the rich and powerful in jail beside poor, minority drug users will get the laws repealed, I can't say I wouldn't be tempted.)

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:21:20 -0800

If you lie to someone, and they find out your lying, then you won't believe anything they say. Man, what are you smoking?

By: pax digita

pax digita — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:22:03 -0800

The ultimate irony, to me, is that if grass got legalized tomorrow, America by and large would give W & Co. a total pass on Iraq, the GWoT, etc. We'd kick back, spark up, and stop giving a crap. Well, some of us.

By: prostyle

prostyle — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:40:10 -0800

The ultimate irony, to me, is that if grass got legalized tomorrow, America by and large would give W & Co. a total pass on Iraq, the GWoT, etc. What? We kick back, assault our livers with alcohol and fill our lungs with tobacco smoke that doesn't get you high and only gets you addicted instead. Are we putting their balls to the wall now? No, they've received and will continue to maintain this so called "free pass" you speak of even while we maintain the status quo. As much as I'd like to posit the opposite, I know it would not be any more accurate than your original statement. Nothing can change people, but there are certain catalysts that are more productive than others.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:06:27 -0800

if grass got legalized tomorrow, America by and large would give W & Co. a total pass on Iraq, the GWoT As opposed to...?

By: Durhey

Durhey — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:20:55 -0800

Giving them a pass while totally sober, I suppose.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:36:33 -0800

but what about the children? I've given up any hope that the WOD will end. There's way to much money involved. Police departments, drug-testing firms, DEA, CIA, private prisons... you name it and the these fat-cats all have a grubby hand in that action. Not to mention the fact that it is the most wildly successful method of subjugating and disenfranchising entire swathes of the minority populations.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:36:34 -0800

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:36:36 -0800

melixxa600 writes "I found the anti-marijauna TV spots quite compelling (the girl sexually assaluted by POT at the teen party! the one with 'the youngest new grandmother in town' because POT got her 13-by-the-looks-of-it daughter pregnant! I could have watched these ad nauseam!)." I've always thought the "don't smoke pot or you'll end up having sex" ads were actually pro pot ads. All those teen age guys being told that the way to get their reluctant girlfriends to put out is to get them high. I just wasn't sure if it was accidental or it was the writers sliding one past the suits.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:37:10 -0800

stupid trigger finger

By: pax digita

pax digita — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:51:57 -0800

Well, okay, point taken. Maybe a ~34% approval rate isn't quite "giving a free pass," but it's hardly torchlight processions and burning in effigy, either.

By: melixxa600

melixxa600 — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:55:45 -0800

It's true that many people will get high and sit around doing pretty much nothing. However, many people sit around doing nothing while sober too. They may as well have a war on laziness.

Now THIS is a war I can get on board with - on the other side.

By: uncle harold

uncle harold — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:53:31 -0800

Doesn't the US have it's very own precedent that outlawing drugs just does not work? Or was the prohibition such a huge success?

By: uncle harold

uncle harold — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:58:39 -0800

There's way to much money involved. Police departments, drug-testing firms, DEA, CIA, private prisons... you name it and the these fat-cats all have a grubby hand in that action. Not to forget the logging and fuel industries. Hemp is one of the fastest growing plants, which makes it ideal as an environmentally friendly resource. It actually makes for higher quality paper then wood, with less toxins involved in production, and no flattening of forests.

By: uncle harold

uncle harold — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 00:59:14 -0800

... *than* wood ...

By: Amy Phillips

Amy Phillips — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:46:54 -0800

Harold, apparently the DEA believes that Prohibition did work (scroll to the bottom of the page), or so they tell kids. If they believe that, it's only natural that they should believe that the Drug War will be equally a smashing success.

By: Big Mike

Big Mike — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 13:40:10 -0800

Of course it anti-drug ads don't work. The ads are made by adults for adults. In most cases this allows a politician the ability to say that they are doing something to fight drugs so they can get elected. In actuality they are really just using it to put a check off on a list because they know they can't really stop drug use. It makes non-users feel better because they believe something is being done.