Anyone find the anti-drug propaganda ridiculous?

[Tab]

Does any of the material put out by any of these organizations have any affect? To me, a lot of it seems is just plain bad and devoid of any actual substance - example "Just say no."

With the amount of time and money spent on drug education, I'd expect to see real-world results. The results are incredibly slim or non-existent DARE - See Criticism. For my general education health requirement at NDSU, I have to take a basic health class. Today, we had a lecture on tobacco. We had a local government offical talk about the recent ban of smoking in restaurants and bars - her reasoning for the support of the ban. Her reasons behind it just seemed poor... She mentioned that a lot of people consider "smoking" in bars/restaurants to be a "rights" issue, her response to this was it's a "public health issue" - this just leaves me thinking in my head "Yea, okay?"

Are drugs as really bad as they're made out to be? When does a business owner lose control of what goes on in his business?

I believe Vic commented on the ban of smoking in public and how it resulted in the "tryanny of the majority"... Does anyone remember what he said, or maybe Vic can respond in my thread.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

ill say that their targeted group (high school students), their efforts fail miserably.

but then again i live in the bad parts of my city

 

[magomago]

I think that smoking as a "public health issue" is nonsense. It is a personal right's issue to mess yourself up as much as possible. People who don't learn it is bad mess themselves up, and people who do learn stay awa from it
I agree with you that a lot of these programs are not effective. To me all those campaigns to not do drugs or to not smoke were not effective. Junk like "This is your brain" (smash egg) "This is your brain on drugs, any questions?" Had little to absolutely no meaning just because it wasn't anything that could be understood. It was always extremely vague and I coould not connect it to real life. But when they brought in Lungs and I saw the fluffy white "healthy" lung and then they bring in the dark black "smokers" lung...those TANGIBLE things caused me to realize how bad it was. Mix that in with the stupid age old argument of breathing through a straw and after that I knew that while I never tried it before I would never entertain the NOTION of it now.
Same thing with drugs. While I haven't tried any, after I learn what happens in your brain chemically and later on I understand what they mean by "overstimulating" and watching the body build a tolerance it because COMMON SENSE as to why taking drugs is not a good thing.
So personally and after speaking to some friends (Before I posted this), most of us agreed that it is better to teach kids exactly WHAT happens when you take a drug and WHY that isn't desirable. Pictures are GREAT when desirable. For stuff like chewing tobacco it is easy because when you pictures of UGLY gums and people missing their jaws you realize there is a problem.
After seeing what smoking does to my lungs, if a restaurant allows smoking, or if the smoking and non smoking sections are close enough to where I'm uncomfortable I just won't eat there. I won't shop in a store that lets people smoke because I don't want to be exposed to it. If enough people take this mindset we don't need stupid laws to dictate where you can or can't smoke. The places that allow smoking will experience less cusomters thus GIVING them an incentive to say, "Hey on my property you can't light a ciggarette" and that is infintely better than having the government issue a blanket ban.

 

[tommywishbone]

We say "Don't do drugs" and then we go out and destroy all authority & control in the worlds biggest heroin producer, which results in the highest quality & lowest price smack to hit the USA in 30 years. White Pony for everybody!

 

[cubby1223]

Recently had the anti-smoking ads around Chicago as they signed a law banning smoking in public places. The propaganda the anti-smoking groups put out was ridiculous, but must have been effective enough. They made many ads depicting the situation as faceless tobacco corporations wanting to deprive our rights to healthy living. But in reality it was restaurant / bar / nightclub owners and every hard working tax paying citizen who enjoys smoking versus the anti-smoking groups. (I'm a non-smoker, but can you tell which side I favor concerning smoking bans?)

So to anyone who knows anything about the world, the propaganda is worthless, wasted efforts. But I guess there's enough ignorant people out there, because they seem to be getting their way...

 

[Todd33]

Boo hoo, poor smokers.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Boo hoo, poor smokers.

This is exactly the additude I am talking about and it's not just smokers. It's a group guys chillling in garage smoking a joint or some gay guys getting it on in their own bedroom... Who cares about them and their rights?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Tab
Does any of the material put out by any of these organizations have any affect? To me, a lot of it seems is just plain bad and devoid of any actual substance - example "Just say no."

With the amount of time and money spent on drug education, I'd expect to see real-world results. The results are incredibly slim or non-existent DARE - See Criticism. For my general education health requirement at NDSU, I have to take a basic health class. Today, we had a lecture on tobacco. We had a local government offical talk about the recent ban of smoking in restaurants and bars - her reasoning for the support of the ban. Her reasons behind it just seemed poor... She mentioned that a lot of people consider "smoking" in bars/restaurants to be a "rights" issue, her response to this was it's a "public health issue" - this just leaves me thinking in my head "Yea, okay?"

Are drugs as really bad as they're made out to be? When does a business owner lose control of what goes on in his business?

I believe Vic commented on the ban of smoking in public and how it resulted in the "tryanny of the majority"... Does anyone remember what he said, or maybe Vic can respond in my thread.

Vote libertarian.


Did she have a fat butt?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Tab
Does any of the material put out by any of these organizations have any affect? To me, a lot of it seems is just plain bad and devoid of any actual substance - example "Just say no."

With the amount of time and money spent on drug education, I'd expect to see real-world results. The results are incredibly slim or non-existent DARE - See Criticism. For my general education health requirement at NDSU, I have to take a basic health class. Today, we had a lecture on tobacco. We had a local government offical talk about the recent ban of smoking in restaurants and bars - her reasoning for the support of the ban. Her reasons behind it just seemed poor... She mentioned that a lot of people consider "smoking" in bars/restaurants to be a "rights" issue, her response to this was it's a "public health issue" - this just leaves me thinking in my head "Yea, okay?"

Are drugs as really bad as they're made out to be? When does a business owner lose control of what goes on in his business?

I believe Vic commented on the ban of smoking in public and how it resulted in the "tryanny of the majority"... Does anyone remember what he said, or maybe Vic can respond in my thread.

Vote libertarian.


Did she have a fat butt?

Find me a libertarian canadiate that actually has a chance of winning.

 

[Polish3d]

True... more at the local level...besides your vote doesn't affect the outcome of pres elections anyway..

 

[Cerb]

Smoking cigarettes is a public health issue, due to typical use by those addicted to it (I know no one who has as much trouble with pipe tobacco or cigars as cigarettes). If you could keep the smoke from getting to me, it would not be an issue. Unfortunately, most smokers are inconsiderate, and do things like smoke right outside of doors to buildings. Wow. Might as well smoke inside.

Alcohol is similarly problematic, and occasionlly deadly, but not worrisome for anyone's long-term health, and not bad in small quantities.

OTOH, everyone involved in any of those anti-drug PSAs, which all seem to be about marijuana, needs a joint. Now.

For harder things...you can't stop people from being stupid. Like cigarettes, there should be importance put on keeping their stupidity within their sphere of influence, and away from mine. As long as what someone else does is not harming me, I see no problem.

 

[Genx87]

Catchy phrases are a horrible way to show the issues. The problem is marketing people trying to solve a society issue like they try to sell a product.

The best commercials I have seen are the ones that dont use catchy phrases and just show the results of drug abuse.

"Crack is Whack"
"Just Say No"

These are lame and made fun of by everybody and the true msg is drowned by the idiocy of the phrase.

Are drugs as bad as they are made out to be? Depends or not on where you look. People who cant get through a few hours without their fix of heorine are a great example of what drugs can do to a person.

Opiates in general lead to the drug laws we have today. In the late 1800s you could purchase morphine shots through the sears robuck catalog. But what happened was they had a lot of people in the cities drugged out of their minds and farm housewives drugged out of their mind due to boredom of being on a farm.

China had a major issue with opiates destroying generations of people.

I think people underestimate the problems drugs can bring on a society because a lot of them never see first hand the results. Once you have a sibling, parent, or other relative who cant survive without shooting themselves up, your opinion may change.

Edit: btw I think the DARE program's failure has been due to the age of the kids who are in it. In highschool as a senior we went to talk to the kids in 7th grade. 99% of them didnt have a clue about drugs or what they could do. But once you started talking to them about drugs, the kids fascination started to run wild. This also happens with sex education. Kids in that age group for the most part are starting to get to know each other and themselves. Suddenly you start talking to them about sex and they decide it looks like something fun to do and they do it.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Todd33
Boo hoo, poor smokers.

This is exactly the additude I am talking about and it's not just smokers. It's a group guys chillling in garage smoking a joint or some gay guys getting it on in their own bedroom... Who cares about them and their rights?

Smoke anything you want in your garage (not in public view). Smoke pot, crack, I don't care. Don't smoke anything harmful in public - streets, bars, etc. If my kids or wife have to walk through it and breath it, it's now my problem and soon to yours.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99
ill say that their targeted group (high school students), their efforts fail miserably.

but then again i live in the bad parts of my city

Umm, DARE isn't targetting high school.. I had DARE in elementary school... and I've never done any drugs, including pot. When they told me that drugs aren;t good for your health, that was enough for me. Not my fault everyone else is dumb.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: magomago
I think that smoking as a "public health issue" is nonsense. It is a personal right's issue to mess yourself up as much as possible. People who don't learn it is bad mess themselves up, and people who do learn stay awa from it

That would be true if the gov't (that's you and me) didn't offer to pick up the health care tab of a lot of smokers, which means it costs us money, even if we don't do it.

 

[dwcal]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: magomago
I think that smoking as a "public health issue" is nonsense. It is a personal right's issue to mess yourself up as much as possible. People who don't learn it is bad mess themselves up, and people who do learn stay awa from it

That would be true if the gov't (that's you and me) didn't offer to pick up the health care tab of a lot of smokers, which means it costs us money, even if we don't do it.

That's a double-edged sword. Medicare does pay to treat retirees with health problems from smoking, but those people also die earlier and receive less social security. For everyone else who's not on Medicare or Medicaid, the costs are either written off as bad debt by the hospital (which might reduce taxable income and indirectly cost the govenmnet money) or paid by private insurance (which included the risks of smoking in their premiums).

Going back to the original question. Drugs aren't good for you, but they're also not nearly as dangerous as the propaganda says. So what happens is, some kids experiment and finds out it doesn't turn you insane or fry your brain, and they know they've been lied to.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Tab
Does any of the material put out by any of these organizations have any affect? To me, a lot of it seems is just plain bad and devoid of any actual substance - example "Just say no."

With the amount of time and money spent on drug education, I'd expect to see real-world results. The results are incredibly slim or non-existent DARE - See Criticism. For my general education health requirement at NDSU, I have to take a basic health class. Today, we had a lecture on tobacco. We had a local government offical talk about the recent ban of smoking in restaurants and bars - her reasoning for the support of the ban. Her reasons behind it just seemed poor... She mentioned that a lot of people consider "smoking" in bars/restaurants to be a "rights" issue, her response to this was it's a "public health issue" - this just leaves me thinking in my head "Yea, okay?"

Are drugs as really bad as they're made out to be? When does a business owner lose control of what goes on in his business?

I believe Vic commented on the ban of smoking in public and how it resulted in the "tryanny of the majority"... Does anyone remember what he said, or maybe Vic can respond in my thread.

Conservatives give money to these campaigns... the campaign staff gets paid... the campaign organizers skim 50% off the top... and the rest gets wasted. Bureaucracy in action.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think people take drugs because they aren't happy with who they are. I think most people who don't take them are afraid that the unhappiness they feel would likely get worse.

Note that both these mental states produce different forms of drug addiction.

Therefore, if it were up to me to do something about drugs, I would seek to know and to implement the kind of society that would maximize human self respect.

 

[1EZduzit]

:music:Sometimes I think it's a shame that I get feeling better when I'm feeling no pain.:music:

 

[eilute]

I think the DARE program failed because it presumed that most drug use is a result of peer pressure.

Does anyone think a business owner could just declare their bar is a tobacco bar that happens to sell a lot of alcohol? I don't really mind smokey bars so much. I probably would though if I was an alcoholic. I think the main issue is that it is an unsafe work environment for the bar tenders.

 

[shira]

Someday, someone is going to invent a wonder drug that is non-addictive and does not induce tolerance; is cheap; has no negative effects on physical or mental health even at extremely high doses; and does not impair judgement, the senses, or reaction time. The drug will not be a treatment for any known ailment, but it will cause profound feelings of pleasure, well-being, and happiness.

Naturally, the drug will be stringently controlled, if not outright banned.

 

[sdifox]

That is all fine and dandy until such time you get cancer from smoking and you go to the hospital, then it becomes public health issue. Second Hand Smoke is also a public health issue. Sadly, government are dependant upon cig tax. So I can't see them doing much about cigarettes.

Originally posted by: magomago
I think that smoking as a "public health issue" is nonsense. It is a personal right's issue to mess yourself up as much as possible. People who don't learn it is bad mess themselves up, and people who do learn stay awa from it
I agree with you that a lot of these programs are not effective. To me all those campaigns to not do drugs or to not smoke were not effective. Junk like "This is your brain" (smash egg) "This is your brain on drugs, any questions?" Had little to absolutely no meaning just because it wasn't anything that could be understood. It was always extremely vague and I coould not connect it to real life. But when they brought in Lungs and I saw the fluffy white "healthy" lung and then they bring in the dark black "smokers" lung...those TANGIBLE things caused me to realize how bad it was. Mix that in with the stupid age old argument of breathing through a straw and after that I knew that while I never tried it before I would never entertain the NOTION of it now.
Same thing with drugs. While I haven't tried any, after I learn what happens in your brain chemically and later on I understand what they mean by "overstimulating" and watching the body build a tolerance it because COMMON SENSE as to why taking drugs is not a good thing.
So personally and after speaking to some friends (Before I posted this), most of us agreed that it is better to teach kids exactly WHAT happens when you take a drug and WHY that isn't desirable. Pictures are GREAT when desirable. For stuff like chewing tobacco it is easy because when you pictures of UGLY gums and people missing their jaws you realize there is a problem.
After seeing what smoking does to my lungs, if a restaurant allows smoking, or if the smoking and non smoking sections are close enough to where I'm uncomfortable I just won't eat there. I won't shop in a store that lets people smoke because I don't want to be exposed to it. If enough people take this mindset we don't need stupid laws to dictate where you can or can't smoke. The places that allow smoking will experience less cusomters thus GIVING them an incentive to say, "Hey on my property you can't light a ciggarette" and that is infintely better than having the government issue a blanket ban.

 

[xeemzor]

What all of these drugs ads fail to do is to differentiate between drugs. They treat this "Drug" as one force, when the effects of drugs vary wildly. I doubt that the less damaging drugs(shrooms, cannabis, etc) seriously damage society. Now, I would definatly be against legalizing potentially devistating drugs like heroin, but what is the harm is the less addicting drugs? If anything, these campaigns just spread missinformation IMO.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: shira
Someday, someone is going to invent a wonder drug that is non-addictive and does not induce tolerance; is cheap; has no negative effects on physical or mental health even at extremely high doses; and does not impair judgement, the senses, or reaction time. The drug will not be a treatment for any known ailment, but it will cause profound feelings of pleasure, well-being, and happiness.

Naturally, the drug will be stringently controlled, if not outright banned.

You mean Soma? A gram is a better than a damn...

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Anyon eelse have the Scientologists show up at there high school? the stuff the narconon people were spouting was just plain silly. aparently every drug you ever take stays in your body forever until your put under a sun lamp for 12 hours a day every day for a month. the hallucinations you experince while locked in a tanning booth for extended periods are a result of the UV rays re-activating and then clensing all the drugs from your body at once.

i don't know whats more pathetic, the people who believe this stuff or the school administrators that force kids to sit around and listen to it.