Comments on: Finally! A drug ad worth watching

Finally! A drug ad worth watching

i_am_a_Jedi — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:19:09 -0800

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:31:33 -0800

Stop before you make my libertarian panties all wet.

By: Orb2069

Orb2069 — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:37:19 -0800

Very well done, and a great catch, Jedi. And a pointer to Ain't nobody's business if you do, so I can squeak out of doing a pure 'attaboy' post. :)

By: spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints

spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:41:01 -0800

brilliant

By: pax digita

pax digita — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:55:22 -0800

Nicely done parody of drug ads. Actually, I can see some problems with casual drug abuse, but I'd rather see them addressed as behavioral and public-health issues than law-enforcement ones.

By: basicchannel

basicchannel — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:58:27 -0800

"Brilliant!" - Sting

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:13:41 -0800

Ha, well done.

By: Skorgu

Skorgu — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:27:59 -0800

Yeah, a co-worker sent me this earlier today. Finally, a pro-drug message that doesn't look like it was conceived, designed and implemented by a roomfull of stoners.

By: noahpoah

noahpoah — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:54:11 -0800

...I'd rather see them addressed as behavioral and public-health issues... A behavioral issue, maybe, but not a public health issue. Finally, a pro-drug message... It's not a pro-drug message, it's an anti-drug-war message.

By: noahpoah

noahpoah — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:55:17 -0800

Just to head off any silly objections to my previous post, I should have written "but, like obesity, not a public health issue" with that there Cato link.

By: BlackLeotardFront

BlackLeotardFront — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:41:45 -0800

Nice, I was thinking of submitting this. A good little video, too bad they can't afford to get it on network tv...

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:06:51 -0800

I'll stick with Tequila.

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:58:07 -0800

Funny, excepting the apparently now obligatory penis joke...

By: MarshallPoe

MarshallPoe — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:16:31 -0800

Very nicely done. But it leaves me asking this: What should we be doing about (as the links calls it) 'the drug problem'?

By: pax digita

pax digita — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:39:02 -0800

but not a public health issue Yeah, point taken.

By: Skorgu

Skorgu — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 05:42:13 -0800

It's not a pro-drug message, it's an anti-drug-war message. True. I should have said "Finally an anti-drug-war message that doesn't look like a pro-drug message." Which is what I meant really.

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:12:29 -0800

but not a public health issue No knock warrants can be extremely unhealthy for the public. Just ask Kathryn Johnston. Oh, wait...

By: Orb2069

Orb2069 — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:40:31 -0800

Yay! CATO! Always thought it would be more honest if they called it the GMFY* institute. I think that drug problems are more of a public issue than obesity - I mean, I don't think that too many people pound down six cheeseburgers, get behind the wheel of a car and run a bus full of schoolchildren and nuns off the road. (*'Got Mine, F--- You', of course.)

By: chlorus

chlorus — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:49:28 -0800

Orb: people with narcolepsy or ischemia might indeed run people down with their car. We should raid their homes and throw them in jail.

By: wierdo

wierdo — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:08:48 -0800

That parody had exceptionally high production values. More than the ads I've seen the ODCP produce recently. BTW, the last time a bus full of schoolchildren got run off the road around here, it was due to a truck with faulty brakes, not some drug-addled moron. ;)

By: noahpoah

noahpoah — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:33:56 -0800

No knock warrants can be extremely unhealthy for the public. No knock warrants aren't a drug problem (or a public health problem in the sense of the Cato essay), they're a policy and law enforcement problem.

By: EatTheWeak

EatTheWeak — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:21:06 -0800

Legalize it!! Orb - ?? Come to think about it, folks driving while eating cause me all kinds of headaches - they've got but one hand on the wheel, and their bellies slowing its turn speed. Maneuverability and awareness take huge dings when drivers dine on the road. I've never heard tell of a stoner running a bus off the road. And I've been in a stoner car wreck. At three miles an hour.

By: EatTheWeak

EatTheWeak — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:21:50 -0800

Orb - That's a much more accurate acronym for CATO, btw

By: clevershark

clevershark — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:05:51 -0800

"I think that drug problems are more of a public issue than obesity - I mean, I don't think that too many people pound down six cheeseburgers, get behind the wheel of a car and run a bus full of schoolchildren and nuns off the road." A bit early to be hitting the old bong, isn't it?

By: BitterOldPunk

BitterOldPunk — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:15:59 -0800

This ad is clever, but isn't it preaching to the choir? Those of us who've experienced a significantly less cartoony version of the state-sponsored home invasion will nod sagely in agreement, and the folks who think that reefer is the work of Satan won't get it. I kinda like the new anti-pot ads with the alien-love-triangle theme. They make me giggle when I'm baked. Baked on LIFE, that is.

By: i_am_a_Jedi

i_am_a_Jedi — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:14:12 -0800

I think that if we need to box the drug problem into a nice tiny package and give it a name, the best one is a 'public health' issue. It certainly should not be a criminal issue. The simplest argument that I've seen is: answer every pro-prohibition debater's points with the word alcohol. 1. Drugs are dangerous and can lead to serious health problems: alcohol 2. Drugs are addictive and can lead to behavior that destroys families: alcohol 3. What if someone drives under the influence of drugs: alcohol etc. etc. ad infinitum I know that this is preaching to the choir. The American citizenry is just waiting for their elected federal and state representatives to catch up to them on drug reform -- the majority agree with the DPA's position, at least on marijuana. We already have plenty of laws in place regarding driving under the influence of alcohol. The exact same laws and penalities should apply for driving under the influence of drugs. The same is true for any other crime committed under the influence of drugs -- treat the perpetrator exactly the same as you would if they were drunk.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:38:36 -0800

MarshallPoe : What should we be doing about (as the links calls it) 'the drug problem'? This is a very good question. The obvious answer is to start taking certain kinds of drugs, legalizing them, taxing them, and using the resultant cash flow to fund rehab clinics. But this will be met with enormous opposition. Firstly because we have almost a century of brainwashing telling the public that The Reefer is Evil! Individually they know this is bullshit, but as a group there still seems to be some fear. And this doesn't even speak to harder drugs which can be seriously vilified. Politicians know that it's an easy plank in any platform. They are gonna get 'Tough on crime' and the simplest way to do that is to continue any policy that produces a steady stream of criminals that they can use as metrics. And there is the more conspiratorial theories that the current drug war is a simple and effective way to keep the poor and the minority communities disenfranchised. In order to really solve the drug problems in this country, we are going to need to provide the population with a serious education in what is and isn't a dangerous drug, we then need to convince politicians to stop using scare tactics as a campaign platform, and we need to, as a nation, stop blaming the poor and minorities for all of the countries problems. And since none of that is ever really going to happen, I say we go with my first suggestion which is to just accept that we will always have problems with drugs, so we should legalize the ones that aren't really harmful, clear the prisions of non-violent drug offenders, and start making some money on letting people get high. It seems a more reasonable solution.

By: chuckdarwin

chuckdarwin — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:28:02 -0800

quin's sensible plan will never be implemented: The US is such a religious country, and the people in charge are either also religious or very aware of that fact. Of course, the Bible doesn't mention drugs... but don't confuse the issue.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:22:51 -0800

Chuck, it's not really a "religious thing", so much as it's a puritan thing. (Gods forbid that someone should be having fun. ) I know plenty of religious people who think the war on drugs is the most insane bit of policy the Republicans ever thrust upon the world. If you think about it, the Puritan ideology and Drug War rhetoric are almost identical. In both cases, things are viewed in the absolutes of black and white, good vs evil. In this mindset; evildoers deserve nothing less than god's wrath, and the "righteous" man will help god fulfill that wrath. It's the logic that allowed for the Witch Trials. The Drug Warrior's logic is: If drugs are evil, then drug users are evil doers, and therefore, nothing short of draconian punishment is acceptable. The issue of course is that the argument's logical structure is a deductive argument based on false propositions, and there doesn't seem to be any way to change their minds on the "drugs not produced by the pharmaceutical industry are evil" thing. Then again, I'm all hopped up on vicoden after breaking my foot in two places, so...I could just be stoned and babbling.

By: Orb2069

Orb2069 — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:06:37 -0800

I was honestly thinking more in the vein of 'Man on six-day amphetamine bender pulls over busload of nuns and starts shooting whilest raving about pope' sort of thing, but I was trying to be less graphic/nasty and more cute. THC, on the scale of mind-alterers is pretty benign (Hell, back when I used to do that sort of thing*, it mainly made me want to eat/take a nap.) Can't say the same for what I've personally seen of Amp/meth/crack/coke users. EatTheWeak: I've been in that car, too*. And the one piloted by the tail-end of an acid buzz*("I'm not, you know, glowing too much, am I? It's still dark out and I don't want anybody outside the car to notice.") Both piloted with ridiculous care. :S Ah, to be young and immortal again. Orb: people with narcolepsy or ischemia might indeed run people down with their car. We should raid their homes and throw them in jail. ...Or just revoke their licence(#8), which seems more reasonable to me, but hey... *(10+ years ago, officer, honest!)

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:30:02 -0800

Yes, Orb's solution is best. A first offence for extremely reckless behavior, like drunk driving, should merely be revocation of the licence for said behavior, no more, no less. And punishments should be serious for continuing without said licence. I don't see any reason why mind altering drugs are inherently bad. It's simply rong to forbid victimless activities. The governments job is to make sure that said activities remain victimless. In particular those who sell dangerous drug much be well regulated. If your selling PCP for example, you should be at least a registered nusrse, and be able to lock the customer in a padded room.