anti-pot commercial....

13

Comments

  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    1970RR wrote:
    I think that any action taken that inhibits anothers freedoms should be addressed, but a person should be allowed to choose whether or not to use drugs under some form of regulatory scheme similar to alcohol.

    I also feel that the assumption that the only thing standing between a societys sobriety and mass addiction is the prohibition of drugs is wrong. Most people have the ability to control themselves and the sudden availabilty of legalized heroin would not cause everyone to run out and become addicted.
    And then there are the issues of official corruption, loss of civil liberties, increased militarization of police, reliance on informants, asset forfeiture, etc, etc.

    In my opinion, the War on Drugs is a complete failure and the money being used to conduct it would be much better used for education and treatment.

    I contend that drug abuse would decrease if all drugs were legal...imagine the powerful message a person would get when they see somebody addicted to heroin or meth...and if somebody wants to take that route, that's up to them, at least they would know the consequences....it would be out in the open...

    I know for me, I pretty much stopped drinking, why, because abuse runs in my family, it makes me feel like shit the next day (or two) and I see the effects of long term abuse on those addicted to booze...
  • Ms. Haiku
    Ms. Haiku Washington DC Posts: 7,390
    I hope pot is legalized. Last time I smoked it was 1994, and I don't want to be around it like I don't want to be around cigarette smoke. However, I don't think there is any proof that continued illegalization of pot smoking will contribute to the overall welfare of the population.
    There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous
    The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Ms. Haiku wrote:
    I hope pot is legalized. Last time I smoked it was 1994, and I don't want to be around it like I don't want to be around cigarette smoke. However, I don't think there is any proof that continued illegalization of pot smoking will contribute to the overall welfare of the population.

    I'm not against it being legalized either. But...I don't see the point why it should be either.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    That's true.

    So I guess what we've determined is that the primary motivation for keeping it illegal is money. No real surprise there.

    I wonder if there's a way to actually find out the funding sources for those ads....?


    http://www.mediacampaign.org/about/index.html

    http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/index.html

    we do...

    I do wonder, which companies may "lobby" for the War on Drugs...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    inmytree wrote:
    http://www.mediacampaign.org/about/index.html

    http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/index.html

    we do...

    I do wonder, which companies may "lobby" for the War on Drugs...

    So it was Clinton, huh?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    inmytree wrote:
    http://www.mediacampaign.org/about/index.html

    http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/index.html

    we do...

    I do wonder, which companies may "lobby" for the War on Drugs...

    Alcohol, Pharmaceutical, law enforcement . . .
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    soulsinging wrote:
    your logic here is so stretched it almost doesn't merit response. by your logic, people should take sleep tests before driving, breathalyzers on all cars, etc. poor driving is not a basis for banning things. we shouldn't sell nyquil either then. that's ridiculous. theft is a drect infringement on another, it is co-opting their property... the legal term is conversion. there is no comparison to pot. none. not one. not that makes any sense.

    however, you do have a point about where to draw the line on other drugs. on the one hand, i kinda feel like they should all be legal cos it's not really the government's business. a crime is a crime. if you commit a crime go down for it. doesn't matter if you were sober or on crack when you did it. on the other hand, i strongly believe the ban on pot makes it much more difficult to control other substances.

    lastly, your talk of enforcement is equally ridiculous. alcohol prohibition is an almost perfect analogy. is it harder to enforce liquor laws now than it was then? maybe there was less drinking, but there was more violence and other things. so which is the better fight? i and many other have acknowledged that it was much, much easier to get pot than alcohol in high school, cos dealers dont give a shit who they're selling to. 7-11 does.

    i don't see my logic being stretched at all. Point is, if you are going to legalize pot, you are going to have to impose at least the same restrictions as are imposed on alcohol. The Bob Marley wannabe cruisin' down the highway in the VW bus at a speedy 15 mph is a hazard and needs a ticket. (BTW so does the guy hopped up on nyquil, it says right on the bottle). To say that legalization would lighten the workload of police is simply innacurate.
    People act as though Pot is a threat to no one, infringes on no one and carries no hazzards. Simply not true. People also argue for the legalization of Pot based on the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, when both have heavy restrictions and cigarettes are moving further and further towards illegal.
    It is ridiculous, and sounds a tad bit so when someone says that something should be legal "because i want to do it, damn it"! Again one's freedom always infringes on someone else's freedom. Such is the nature of freedom. Rules have to be drawn and there is more to this argument than the government simply wanting Pot to be illegal "just because".
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    So it was Clinton, huh?

    yup, with a republican led congress...but that's nether here or there....


    wishes, please oh please don't make this a clinton thread
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    cutback wrote:
    Alcohol, Pharmaceutical, law enforcement . . .

    yeah, that's my thinking, but I don't know where to find proof...
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    inmytree wrote:
    yup, with a republican led congress...but that's nether here or there....


    wishes, please oh please don't make this a clinton thread

    I'm not going to do that. But it didn't really mention anything about the congress. It said it was a "White House Office of National Drug Control Policy".
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • lalalalaaaaaaaa
    lalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    know1 wrote:
    Why do people spend time and energy trying to discourage people from using pot? What is their motivation?

    It depends on who did the commercial, but usually it's one of these types:

    1. A group who encourages increased social control.

    2. A group who is generally concerned about the negative effects pot can have on people.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    know1 wrote:
    I'm not going to do that. But it didn't really mention anything about the congress. It said it was a "White House Office of National Drug Control Policy".

    :p.......
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    inmytree wrote:
    yeah, that's my thinking, but I don't know where to find proof...

    I would love to see the proof as well. It would be pretty interesting to see on the news that the primary funding for those ads came from the pharmaceutical industry and alcohol.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Saturnal wrote:
    It depends on who did the commercial, but usually it's one of these types:

    1. A group who encourages increased social control.

    2. A group who is generally concerned about the negative effects pot can have on people.

    So if someone where generally..and hopefully...genuinely concerned about the negative effect pot could have on people...AND felt strongly enough to financially support an ad campaign, would anyone on here be opposed to them?
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • norm
    norm Posts: 31,146
    know1 wrote:
    So if someone where generally..and hopefully...genuinely concerned about the negative effect pot could have on people...AND felt strongly enough to financially support an ad campaign, would anyone on here be opposed to them?

    Private $$? No problem at all.

    My tax $$? Big problem.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    cutback wrote:
    Private $$? No problem at all.

    My tax $$? Big problem.

    I was talking about private money.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    know1 wrote:
    But if my morality is that it shouldn't be legal, wouldn't society be forcing its own morality on me if they make it legal?



    The same could be said of the pot smokers. Go somewhere else if you want to smoke.

    (and I'm not saying that, just pointing it out)

    good point.....so what's the answer then...we all have different morals...how do we decide who's to inact.

    Only thing I can think is....if it doesn't affect you...none of your business....hence people that want to smoke can....if you want to pray before school..do it at home...seems soooo simple no???
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    callen wrote:
    good point.....so what's the answer then...we all have different morals...how do we decide who's to inact.

    Only thing I can think is....if it doesn't affect you...none of your business....hence people that want to smoke can....if you want to pray before school..do it at home...seems soooo simple no???

    The old "it doesn't affect you" argument is akin to burying your head in the sand. If it's illegal - it affects me. If it's legal - it affects me. Most everything we do has an effect on many other people.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    cornnifer wrote:
    To say that legalization would lighten the workload of police is simply innacurate.
    .

    Decriminilize all drug use......imagine the reduction in prison....reduction in laundered money...drug task forces.....it would be immense. Yes there would be some increase due to use when driving..or sales to minors...but that pales in comparison.

    Hell the taxes this would generate should make you repugs happy..no??? (-: Isn't pot one of the biggest cash crops in the US???
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • MrBrian
    MrBrian Posts: 2,672
    dude, I was looking for a page like that.

    thanks

Categories