Anyone find the anti-drug propaganda ridiculous?

[TylerP]

Originally posted by: magomago
People who don't learn it is bad mess themselves up, and people who do learn stay awa from it

I have to take a minor issue with this kind of thought.

For many, including myself, you can't just simply 'stay away' from it. As much as I try, it is impossible not to be negitively affected by someone smoking....even while driving down the highway.

Non-smoking sections in a resturaunt are jokes. They could put in a 11nty billion dollar air filtration system and it still wouldn't do the job.

Smokers don't realize how bad it effects the non-smokers.

 

[Train]

I'm not anti smoker by any means. And 2nd hand smoke really doesnt bother me, Its expected if I go to a bar.

But the Truth.com commercials are all but useless. They should give me the money they spent on those retarted commercials and I'd come up with something to scare the living daylights out of teenagers who might smoke.

Seriously, how many times have they had some stupid commercial like "Hey we found this internal document from a tobacco company from 1975 that says this....." and its like, WTF cares, like your telling us something anything they (the smokers) don't already know. Ya cigs are bad, they are addictive, like its a big F'in surprise.

And the stupid "The Marlboro man should be on a cow!" commercial that ran during the superbowl. Wow, how creative, like a single smoker out there saw that and decided to quit. Thats a few million dollars down the drain.

It seems like whoever is putting these commercials on is just trying to rag on the tobacco companies, not address the real issue. Some loser has a hard on for Phillip Morris and Camel, so they wasted millions of dollars, all the while those execs are probably sitting in thier offices laughing thier asses off.

And to think all the money Truth.com spends on these commercials was actually obtained through lawsuits against tobacco companies.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Train
I'm not anti smoker by any means. And 2nd hand smoke really doesnt bother me, Its expected if I go to a bar.

But the Truth.com commercials are all but useless. They should give me the money they spent on those retarted commercials and I'd come up with something to scare the living daylights out of teenagers who might smoke.

Seriously, how many times have they had some stupid commercial like "Hey we found this internal document from a tobacco company from 1975 that says this....." and its like, WTF cares, like your telling us something anything they (the smokers) don't already know. Ya cigs are bad, they are addictive, like its a big F'in surprise.

And the stupid "The Marlboro man should be on a cow!" commercial that ran during the superbowl. Wow, how creative, like a single smoker out there saw that and decided to quit. Thats a few million dollars down the drain.

It seems like whoever is putting these commercials on is just trying to rag on the tobacco companies, not address the real issue. Some loser has a hard on for Phillip Morris and Camel, so they wasted millions of dollars, all the while those execs are probably sitting in thier offices laughing thier asses off.

And to think all the money Truth.com spends on these commercials was actually obtained through lawsuits against tobacco companies.

Actually commercials that were effective were not allowed and stopped by the tobacco companies. I posted this in several other threads about this subject with links.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Train
I'm not anti smoker by any means. And 2nd hand smoke really doesnt bother me, Its expected if I go to a bar.

But the Truth.com commercials are all but useless. They should give me the money they spent on those retarted commercials and I'd come up with something to scare the living daylights out of teenagers who might smoke.

Seriously, how many times have they had some stupid commercial like "Hey we found this internal document from a tobacco company from 1975 that says this....." and its like, WTF cares, like your telling us something anything they (the smokers) don't already know. Ya cigs are bad, they are addictive, like its a big F'in surprise.

And the stupid "The Marlboro man should be on a cow!" commercial that ran during the superbowl. Wow, how creative, like a single smoker out there saw that and decided to quit. Thats a few million dollars down the drain.

It seems like whoever is putting these commercials on is just trying to rag on the tobacco companies, not address the real issue. Some loser has a hard on for Phillip Morris and Camel, so they wasted millions of dollars, all the while those execs are probably sitting in thier offices laughing thier asses off.

And to think all the money Truth.com spends on these commercials was actually obtained through lawsuits against tobacco companies.

Actually commercials that were effective were not allowed and stopped by the tobacco companies. I posted this in several other threads about this subject with links.

That's great that you posted them in other threads but how about you post them in this one?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Train
I'm not anti smoker by any means. And 2nd hand smoke really doesnt bother me, Its expected if I go to a bar.

But the Truth.com commercials are all but useless. They should give me the money they spent on those retarted commercials and I'd come up with something to scare the living daylights out of teenagers who might smoke.

Seriously, how many times have they had some stupid commercial like "Hey we found this internal document from a tobacco company from 1975 that says this....." and its like, WTF cares, like your telling us something anything they (the smokers) don't already know. Ya cigs are bad, they are addictive, like its a big F'in surprise.

And the stupid "The Marlboro man should be on a cow!" commercial that ran during the superbowl. Wow, how creative, like a single smoker out there saw that and decided to quit. Thats a few million dollars down the drain.

It seems like whoever is putting these commercials on is just trying to rag on the tobacco companies, not address the real issue. Some loser has a hard on for Phillip Morris and Camel, so they wasted millions of dollars, all the while those execs are probably sitting in thier offices laughing thier asses off.

And to think all the money Truth.com spends on these commercials was actually obtained through lawsuits against tobacco companies.

Actually commercials that were effective were not allowed and stopped by the tobacco companies. I posted this in several other threads about this subject with links.

That's great that you posted them in other threads but how about you post them in this one?

Here you go.

 

[Moonbeam]

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.

This drug can't be taken by those who don't deserve it and can't be kept from those who do. The yellow brick road will lead you through the poppies. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'd imagine that papaver somniferum would be classified as 'the less damaging crowd' and that leaves the path from opium to heroin open forever. Not like I care, I have enough carfetanyl to give everyone in Washington an opiate overdose. Perhaps you should read through the Santo Daime articles.

Who cares about what illicit/demonized chemicals people choose to ingest when bullfuckingshit like this is happening?

 

[HombrePequeno]

I really can't stand the smell of smoke. My hatred of smoke and smoking, however, does not give me the right to tell others that they can't smoke in private establishments. Whether people can smoke or not in a building should be decided by the owner of the building, not the tyrannical majority.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: 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.

You just got yourself in a catch-22.

It's exactly this thinking that a libertarian doesn't have a chance, short of a revolution.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: 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.

You just got yourself in a catch-22.

It's exactly this thinking that a libertarian doesn't have a chance, short of a revolution.

Well, there really haven't been any good libertarian canadiates nor is there a solid libertarian party that even exsists, until then it seems I'll have to vote whosever closest to a libertarian.