anti-pot commercial....
inmytree
Posts: 4,741
Has anyone seen the cartoon one where the guy offers his female friend a puff, she says something like, "not again"...and ends up falling in love with alien/martian...
so, if you don't some pot, you'll fall in love with an alien/martian....at least that's what I get from it....
you can find it here: http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/television.html
it's the one called "not again"....
thoughts...
so, if you don't some pot, you'll fall in love with an alien/martian....at least that's what I get from it....
you can find it here: http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/television.html
it's the one called "not again"....
thoughts...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
that's what my girlfriend said...:D honestly, that commercial is one of the worst ones I've seen...
well, the one where the girl is all squished and blob looking is pretty bad, too...
my theory, there are two industies that benefit from pot prohibition...one would be the alcohol industry and the other would be gov't/law enforcement...therefore, I think it would be in their best interest to bo anti-pot...
I disagree that the government/law enforcement has motivation or benefit in ending pot use, but just for the sake of argument, these commercials are being funded by those entities?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm pretty sure our tax dollars fund the commercials...
but let me expand on why I think law enforcement has a vested interest in keeping pot illegal...
busted, then, fines/jail which = money in the coffers of the gov't
if pot were legal, that money stream would dry up...
Yeah - I can see that. I hadn't considered it that way.
By the same toke(n), if they just made it legal, they wouldn't have to SPEND as much money on enforcement, either. So it kind of goes both ways.
And isn't government supposedly non-profit? The fact that they are bringing more money in just means they don't have to tax as much to run their operations, but in the end it's the same for them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
he he, toke(n), nicely done...!!!
I see your point, however, I'd be willing to bet the fines, and court costs add up to more than the police spend on busting people...also, I would not be suprised if there were federal funds given to the police to "fight" this crime...a round-about example: I remember years ago, the New York State drinking age was 19, the last state to not move it to 21. The NY did not want to change it, but the feds squeezed the state by telling them if they did not raise the drinking age to 21, they would lose Millions in Highway funds...
I edited my comment and added that since the government is supposedly non-profit, that it really shouldn't matter to them.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The only time they appreciated pot laws was when they had a chance to utilize the pot laws (and when nothing else could be proven because of a lack of evidence) to arrest or raid known criminals who they knew were guitly of true crimes (in only rare cases and circumstances). But more often than not, they had something else to hit those criminals with, rather than resorting to pot laws.
Criminalization of marijane while tobacco and alcohol are legal makes no sense. Alcohol is much worse,, marijane is somewhere b/w cigs and booze imo.
Also.... If they legalized it, it would break factions of the black market and give organized crime one less thing to profit from...
Think about it.. The mofia was in their hayday and most powerful when alcohol was illegal.
The mofia has done nothing but shrink since alcohol was made legal.
The only criminal thing about pot smoking is the fact that "they" made it so.
I'm sick of some of these stupid rules. Let me live my own life/make my own mistakes if they be......
Meanwhile in this people farm of a society the 'psych profession' passes all kinds of these brand new drugs (some of them horribly debilitating) out like m&ms.... Pfft,, whatever.
....And i think the jury is still out on many of those psych meds.. Long term affects etc....
I've seen some lifelong pot heads who are aok and doing just fine.
I've seen some people strung out on psych meds who never get any better... Only worse.. Although i think drugless cognitive therapies are super good.....And i do acknowledge that 'some' psych meds do help 'some' people.
I hate it when people with suits, guns and authority make and enforce rules that defy logic and ignore obvious hypocracy.
whatever
sick of this shit
i want to smoke a joint without feeling like a criminal
Goddamned piss test society.. pfft.
FUCK YOU to DUMB authority for trying to control my destiny where pot is concerned..
It's my life!
-Outs
But I'm not about to give thanks, or apologize"
The other day the above lyrics hit me like they never had before.......Almost dizzying....So true, feelings i long recognise summed up in words so beautifully/perfectly.....
I second the thumbs up for "toke(n)".
Not only would they not have to spend on the law enforcement (hopefully helping a bit with, oh, I don't know, real criminals), but sales tax baby. They could put a big ol' sin tax--much more than a toke(n)* tax--on that shit. Free revenue.
* just wanted to steal your "toke(n)" creation.
But is there motivation there to fund the anti-pot ads since government technically can't profit from tax?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Now that I can see. So the motivation for creating these ads is to keep cops and prison guards employed? If so, wouldn't it make sense for the ads to be funded by cops and prison guards?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
becos there is a significant percentage of americans who feel it is their moral duty to ensure that everyone else lives by their morals.
That's the one for me... it's about shaping society to how those in power want it, simple as...
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
the trouble is politics. pot was outlawed in california first (surprised? i was). it was a combination of 2 things: racist fear of mexicans who used it and the potential for competition from a hemp paper industry that the logging industry did not want (i think it was hearst who helped inflate their cause). since then, it simply became part of the way things are done. the puritans who lost on alcohol prohibition were very careful to draw a big line so that such liberties did not extend and hurt the temperance movement. then it became part of the culture wars. the conservatives pointed to it as a huge part of that commie hippy movement in the 60s that was destroying their children. then reagan came and the war on drugs really kicked into high gear. any sign of softening on pot was portrayed as being soft on drugs and essentially wanting to hand heroin to pre-schoolers. that's where we stand now. it's a political football.
i think the tide is turning though and people are realizing this war on drugs isn't working, esp not with pot. im reasonably sure it will become decriminalized before long cos it's not as taboo to talk about it as it once was.
That's the reason that I would expect, as well.
But, by legalizing it, wouldn't we be forcing those people who oppose legalization to live by other morals then? I'm not saying they would be forced to use, but forced to live in a society where it was legal - which is apparently against their morals.
Every single law on the books is about forcing people to live at a certain standard of morality.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no, it's simply not using the police power of the state to control it any longer. The government does not own morality. They aren't forcing anyone to use drugs therefore the morality is not forced.
laws don't determine morality they simply determine how the police powers of the state will be used to treat a particular behavior.
Example:
You can be morally against drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco whilst they remain legal for public use should one so choose.
It's a liberty issue really.
But can you be morally against LEGAL marijuana? That was my point. Maybe someone's morality is that it simply shouldn't be legal.
Morality is a slippery thing with tons of grey areas. Simply implying that people are trying to impose or control other's morality isn't a very good argument for legalization, since morality is imposed or controlled all the time in many other areas. In fact, it's impossible to escape.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
o.k. But surely you understand that the same thing could be said of crack, for example. Understand i'm simply playing the devils advocate here. i have no strong opinion either way (Actually, if pressed, i tend to agree, at least somewhat, with the legalization crowd). Legalizing crack would lighten the load on the legal system to an even higher degree. Right? Alcohol is legal, yes, but there are some strict regulations. What would be your proposed age restriction on weed? It would actually tie up the police a bit more with all the tickets they'd be writing tp guys driving ten miles per hour on the interstate or minor in possession of ganja. What about lost productivity in the workplace? As far as cigarettes, one might argue that they shouldn't be legal either, and as a matter of fact, its becoming harder and harder for a cigarette smoker. One is almost restricted to one dark damp closet in the corner of their own basement. As far as health risks, its kind of hard to argue. Pot, alcohol and cigarettes are all considered gateway drugs, none of which are without their own respective health implications.
Furthermore, by your own line of logic, nothing is criminal about, shoplifting, for example, except for the fact "they" made it so, and i'm somewhat sure Wynona Ryder doesn't want people in suits infringing on her right to take shit she hasn't paid for. For any society to function, there MUST be rules and all of are freedoms insist upon the removal of freedoms from someone else. Your right to smoke a joint, for example, just may infringe on my right to drive regulation speed on the highway without being held up by someone crawling along in a pot induced state of oblivion, or my right to not have to carry the extra weight at work of my stoner coworker who doesn't quite carry his own for the same reason.
Again, just playing the devil's advocate. Not trying to start a cyber-fight.
it's true that with pot being legal, they wouldn't have to spend so much on enforcement. that's the whole point, they're creating jobs, it's a business, think of how many ppl relly on the the prison system, the ppl making uniforms, the guards, the food suppliers, etc, weed being illegal is good for the economic health of the community, make weed legal, and you take away jobs, imagine the outcry 'you let those hippie bums wander around like clowns, and you turn your backs on us hard working folk, taking away our jobs, i have 3 kids....'
so while your logic is perfect, the government is not a non-profit, and the gov doesn't think logically
Albert Einstein
perhaps in an abstract sense. but in a practical one, no. besides, it could be treated like alcohol and dealt with on a state by state or county by county basis. there are dry counties all over the country and those counties could zone to keep weed out without too much trouble. shit, you know how hard it is to get liquor in PA? in any case, the moral argument is not enough to support a nationwide ban on pot and maintain schedule 1 status. just becos there is not a national plan for pot doesn't mean you'd have to live in a community that allows it. that is why we have plenty of counties that keep porn and alcohol, etc out.
nobody has marijuana so high on their list of moral issues. the only people who feel so strongly about keeping pot illegal are either the paranoids, or temperance folks... and they already accept alcohol, tobacco, and porn. so this is a very weak argument.
make all drugs legal...lots less law enforcement officers.....no doubt law enforcement industry would take the biggest hit...never thought about booze...thats a good one.
buying alcohol in PA is wierd as hell. I thought Georgia was bad with no sales on Sunday etc except in restaurants. In PA if you want beer, you can't get it at the grocery store, you have to go to the state store, say you want liquor on the same trip....nope all alcohol isn't the same so you have to go to another store to pick up that liquor and or wine. It's annoying.
The "moral" issue here is probably about recreational drug use altoegther not just pot.
I personally have no moral issue with anyone getting high or drunk what have you. It's a choice, As long as that person does not get in a car and or risk the lives of me or other people I could care less what they do on their free time and I don't think the state should care either. Imprisoning people for non violent drug offenses is simply a waste of tax money.
I would think perscription drug manufacturers would be all for keeping pot illicit because people would "self medicate" even more than they do now.
So the Houston Press....Free weekly publication that advertises music/resturants etc in Houstons....Headline on front cover....distributed in every street corner in downtown houston, grocery stores, restaurants etc.......big font, covering the whole front page.... "How to hide your Weed" laughed my arsch off this morning. Haven't read the article to support it...but will on way home. Then the Saturday Night Live skit on NFL player getting busted for attemtpting to smuggle weed onto a flight..funny stuff......