The anti-drug campaign

[xenxander]

I can remember about the 'don't smoke' but it wasn't as popular until the mid 90's. I remember "Don't create a smog screen between you and your friends."

 

that was all around my High School.

 

And smoking any type of drug, illegal or cigs is just expensive. Much cheaper to buy that cheap whiskey and have a ball for about three weekends straight *smirks*

 

drinking has it's problems too, and there's just as much negativity about it as there are about everything else that has two faces ^_^

 

I did however think that all of those "winners don't do drugs" and "just say no" insulted my intelligence.

 

that's why I posted the link to that retro review about the trutles and the drug thing - it really was a "well duh" and so cliche with well-defined boarders of "good" vs "bad" when real life is never so clear cut.

[ninja_lord666]

I did however think that all of those "winners don't do drugs" and "just say no" insulted my intelligence.

Ironically, 'winners' do more drugs than anybody! :P

[hoots7]

I agree the fact that some drugs are illegal makes it more profitable for the criminal drug pushers.

The classic comparison is to Prohibition & the Tommy gun toting gangs.

 

So is the answer to throw our hands up in the air & legalize everything that criminals make money at? That's ridiculous.

Unlike alcohol that has been abused & caused all kinds of harms (won't get into all that) some drugs continued to affect people long after they stop using them. A person that has taken these powerful drugs can be walking down the street & WHAM, have a trip, or worse yet be driving & WHAM kill somebody. Alcohol can do serious damage to people (liver) but the affects do wear off in time, so please don't try to compare the two.

 

As far as Penn & Teller go I don't even want to give them any ligament recognition, quoting them is laughable, these guys are ex- stage performers, ex- magicians, ex- actors now I guess they have their own talk show, that's just toooo funny.

 

The real difference will come only when the demand decreases & that will only happed when there is a change in people's hearts, kind of like what Kungfubellydancer said, we have lost our moral compass.

[Duskrider]

So is the answer to throw our hands up in the air & legalize everything that criminals make money at?

 

Nice false dillema there. Just because you legalize drugs doesn't mean you have to legalize all criminal activities. Drugs are an exception to the rule because the current laws are utterly ineffective at actually stopping people from getting access to them. If you want drugs, you have no problem getting them. You just get them in a way that causes massive social harm as a side effect. On the other hand, if you legalize them, you have the exact same rates of drug use, but you've taken the criminal motivation out of it. I would much rather eliminate the associated crime and have the ability to go to a normal legal store and buy drugs that have passed quality inspections than have rival dealers shooting each other over territory and selling whatever dangerous fake drugs they can get away with.

 

 

Unlike alcohol that has been abused & caused all kinds of harms (won't get into all that) some drugs continued to affect people long after they stop using them. A person that has taken these powerful drugs can be walking down the street & WHAM, have a trip, or worse yet be driving & WHAM kill somebody. Alcohol can do serious damage to people (liver) but the affects do wear off in time, so please don't try to compare the two.

 

 

Uh, got a source for this claim? This really doesn't make any sense, given what we know about biology... there's no way a drug can still have effects after it's been cleaned out of your body. Unless you're talking about purely psychological effects, bad memories coming back at the wrong time? But then in that case, there are many things that can do the same thing... alcohol could easily have the same effects. And should we also ban anyone who's been in a traumatic situation because they might have flashbacks at the wrong time? Good luck with that plan...

 

As far as Penn & Teller go I don't even want to give them any ligament recognition, quoting them is laughable, these guys are ex- stage performers, ex- magicians, ex- actors now I guess they have their own talk show, that's just toooo funny.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

Maybe instead of using textbook fallacies, you would like to say why the Penn & Teller claim is false?

 

The real difference will come only when the demand decreases & that will only happed when there is a change in people's hearts, kind of like what Kungfubellydancer said, we have lost our moral compass.

 

Now tell me, what "moral compass" is involved in drug use? Assuming drugs were legal and the associated crime was removed, why is it morally wrong to use them? Because of the risk of harm to others? Then why do we assume that alcohol is acceptable and people can use it responsibly without harm to others?

 

The simple answer for why we have "war on drugs" is political infulence and racism. Drugs with massive industries, lobbyists, and campaign donations are good. Drugs without anyone to pay the bribes are bad. Drugs that rich white people use are good. Drugs that minorities use are bad. Just look at the history of drug laws... they're almost never based on an objective analysis of the harm caused.

[hoots7]

Too many quot blocks to reply the way I'd like.

 

 

quote name='hoots7

So is the answer to throw our hands up in the air & legalize everything that criminals make money at?

 

quote name='Duskrider

Nice false dillema there. Just because you legalize drugs doesn't mean you have to legalize all criminal activities. Drugs are an exception to the rule because the current laws are utterly ineffective at actually stopping people from getting access to them. If you want drugs, you have no problem getting them. You just get them in a way that causes massive social harm as a side effect. On the other hand, if you legalize them, you have the exact same rates of drug use, but you've taken the criminal motivation out of it. I would much rather eliminate the associated crime and have the ability to go to a normal legal store and buy drugs that have passed quality inspections than have rival dealers shooting each other over territory and selling whatever dangerous fake drugs they can get away with.

 

 

Hoots7

I've already said the only benefit would be to remove the criminal element, your other statement is just not logical, you don't think drug abuse would go up, come on, get real.

People already abuse alcohol & over the counter drugs, but you think they will treat these drugs differently, they will use these stronger, more powerful ones responsibly, yea...right.

 

 

quote name='hoots7

Unlike alcohol that has been abused & caused all kinds of harms (won't get into all that) some drugs continued to affect people long after they stop using them. A person that has taken these powerful drugs can be walking down the street & WHAM, have a trip, or worse yet be driving & WHAM kill somebody. Alcohol can do serious damage to people (liver) but the affects do wear off in time, so please don't try to compare the two.

 

quote name='Duskrider

Uh, got a source for this claim? This really doesn't make any sense, given what we know about biology... there's no way a drug can still have effects after it's been cleaned out of your body. Unless you're talking about purely psychological effects, bad memories coming back at the wrong time? But then in that case, there are many things that can do the same thing... alcohol could easily have the same effects. And should we also ban anyone who's been in a traumatic situation because they might have flashbacks at the wrong time? Good luck with that plan...

 

 

Hoots7

Happy to oblige, easily; http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/LSD

Let me know if you want more & while I'm at it, I worked out of town with guys that tripped out at least weeks after taking stuff. A guy named Paul, climbed up on a house, worked for 3 hours & tripped out, fell down almost on a saw. He was not the first either, I know what I'm talking about man, I don't need a link to the subject matter.

 

 

 

quote name='hoots7

As far as Penn & Teller go I don't even want to give them any ligament recognition, quoting them is laughable, these guys are ex- stage performers, ex- magicians, ex- actors now I guess they have their own talk show, that's just toooo funny.

 

quote name='Duskrider

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Maybe instead of using textbook fallacies, you would like to say why the Penn & Teller claim is false?

 

 

Hoots7

Good for you, you learned what an ad hominem is, Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man”.

It is always wise to consider the source. If you are having back pains & Bozo the Clown says you need a lobotomy, you would say “OK, lets do it”, NO, of course not. Not all opinions carry the same weight & theirs carries none. They may have made a point that big drug companies are influencing politicians, that's no revelation.

 

 

quote name='hoots7

The real difference will come only when the demand decreases & that will only happed when there is a change in people's hearts, kind of like what Kungfubellydancer said, we have lost our moral compass.

 

quote name='Duskrider

Now tell me, what "moral compass" is involved in drug use? Assuming drugs were legal and the associated crime was removed, why is it morally wrong to use them? Because of the risk of harm to others? Then why do we assume that alcohol is acceptable and people can use it responsibly without harm to others?

 

The simple answer for why we have "war on drugs" is political infulence and racism. Drugs with massive industries, lobbyists, and campaign donations are good. Drugs without anyone to pay the bribes are bad. Drugs that rich white people use are good. Drugs that minorities use are bad. Just look at the history of drug laws... they're almost never based on an objective analysis of the harm caused.

 

 

Hoots7

The moral compass I'm referring to is the drug abuse, not drug use, drugs are wonderful & help many patients, I would never suggest getting rid of them.

Let me try to give you a better grasp on this; did you know some drugs do the opposite to children than they do to adults? Think about that (just one aspect of it), we start selling to people any drug they want & you don't think it would be bad? That's why we have doctors & pharmacist, drugs are powerful & any Bozo should not be able to get them without a prescription.

[Duskrider]

I've already said the only benefit would be to remove the criminal element, your other statement is just not logical, you don't think drug abuse would go up, come on, get real.

People already abuse alcohol & over the counter drugs, but you think they will treat these drugs differently, they will use these stronger, more powerful ones responsibly, yea...right.

 

 

Nice strawman there. Please go back and read what I actually wrote, instead of replying to what you think I wrote.

 

Notice I did not say "legalize drugs, and drug abuse will go away".

 

What I said was "legalize drugs, and the associated crime will go away, meanwhile drug abuse will not increase." Failure to increase is not the same thing as decreasing.

 

The simple fact is that right now, access to illegal drugs is trivially easy. Most of the people who actually want to use them already do so (and I'm talking about fellow university students, not hopeless drug-addicted failures), regardless of the current laws. Very few people avoid drugs just because they are illegal, so making them legal should have essentially zero effect on the overall rate of use.

 

Meanwhile the fact that there are considerable benefits to legalizing drugs, the conclusion is obvious. I think I'd be happy to accept a very small increase in drug use if it meant getting rid of all the associated crime. Go take a look at the percentage of people in prison for drug-related crimes, and tell me you still disagree.

 

 

Hoots7

Happy to oblige, easily; http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/LSD

Let me know if you want more & while I'm at it, I worked out of town with guys that tripped out at least weeks after taking stuff. A guy named Paul, climbed up on a house, worked for 3 hours & tripped out, fell down almost on a saw. He was not the first either, I know what I'm talking about man, I don't need a link to the subject matter.

 

Point conceded, that some drugs may have lasting effects. What this means is we should adapt a rational set of drug laws that actually consider the harm caused, not just irrational fear or who gives the most campaign bribes.

 

Of course by this standard, we should put similar limits on anyone vulnerable to flashbacks. Since it sounds like we're talking about a purely psycholocial effect (in other words, "whoa, that was just so weird I can't get it out of my mind!", not lasting chemical traces), what about people with other traumatic experiences? Should we ban soldiers who have been in combat from driving? After all, they could have a flashback of their near-death and crash.

 

 

Good for you, you learned what an ad hominem is, Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man”.

It is always wise to consider the source. If you are having back pains & Bozo the Clown says you need a lobotomy, you would say “OK, lets do it”, NO, of course not. Not all opinions carry the same weight & theirs carries none. They may have made a point that big drug companies are influencing politicians, that's no revelation.

 

Here's a hint: simply repeating the ad hominem doesn't make it any more of a legitimate argument.

 

 

If you feel that the arguments presented by Penn & Teller are wrong, address the arguments. If they have as little knowledge of the subject as you claim they do, this should be a very easy task.

 

 

 

The moral compass I'm referring to is the drug abuse, not drug use, drugs are wonderful & help many patients, I would never suggest getting rid of them.

 

Nice bait and switch. We all know we're talking about recreational drug use, not whether to make medical drugs legal or not.

 

Let me try to give you a better grasp on this; did you know some drugs do the opposite to children than they do to adults? Think about that (just one aspect of it), we start selling to people any drug they want & you don't think it would be bad? That's why we have doctors & pharmacist, drugs are powerful & any Bozo should not be able to get them without a prescription.

 

Two problems:

 

1) I asked for an answer to your claim of a moral issue. Claiming different physical effects completely dodges this question. Please do not do this.

 

2) You again present a false dillema here. Legalizing drugs does not mean we have to make any and all drugs available to anyone who wants them without limits. Maybe this is true for some drugs (marijuana, for example). Maybe others are just too dangerous and harmful to allow. Maybe some fall in the middle, where we should treat them like alcohol and just have them limited to adults. Maybe some should be a minor crime, the equivalent of being drunk in public (subject to a fine, but not prison).

 

The point here is that our current drug laws are fundamentally broken. Besides being essentially useless and supporting a vast problem of associated crime, they just don't make any sense. Currently, if you are caught growing a single pot plant for personal use, you are treated the same as a gang-member crack dealer with 100lbs in his truck and a mile-long list of felony convictions. Both of you get sent to prison with the exact same sentence, despite vastly different "crimes".

 

This is a problem.

[Landsknecht]

Anti-drug campaigns have the opposite effect. They encourage drug use.

 

By the government saying "you should not use drugs," it makes them more desirable under the logic "if I can't have it, it must be good." I see my dog use that logic when I give her the "leave it" command, and I assume the average American uses the same logic, since my dog is at least as smart as the average American.

 

Of course IMO (since I am a quasi-conspiracy theorist), the government wants people to use illegal drugs to throw people in privatized prisons, militarize the police force, and bully Latin American countries. I'll save the whole rant for the "Is the War on Drugs Worth it" thread.

 

As far as legalization of drugs goes, I am for it. If drugs are legal, they lose their taboo status, they can be regulated by the government, and it is better for the taxpayers (less people in prison and legalized drugs can be taxed like alcohol and tobacco).

[hoots7]

I've already said the only benefit would be to remove the criminal element, your other statement is just not logical, you don't think drug abuse would go up, come on, get real.

People already abuse alcohol & over the counter drugs, but you think they will treat these drugs differently, they will use these stronger, more powerful ones responsibly, yea...right.

 

 

Nice strawman there. Please go back and read what I actually wrote, instead of replying to what you think I wrote.

 

Notice I did not say "legalize drugs, and drug abuse will go away".

 

What I said was "legalize drugs, and the associated crime will go away, meanwhile drug abuse will not increase." Failure to increase is not the same thing as decreasing.

 

The simple fact is that right now, access to illegal drugs is trivially easy. Most of the people who actually want to use them already do so (and I'm talking about fellow university students, not hopeless drug-addicted failures), regardless of the current laws. Very few people avoid drugs just because they are illegal, so making them legal should have essentially zero effect on the overall rate of use.

 

Meanwhile the fact that there are considerable benefits to legalizing drugs, the conclusion is obvious. I think I'd be happy to accept a very small increase in drug use if it meant getting rid of all the associated crime. Go take a look at the percentage of people in prison for drug-related crimes, and tell me you still disagree.

 

 

Hoots7

Happy to oblige, easily; http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/LSD

Let me know if you want more & while I'm at it, I worked out of town with guys that tripped out at least weeks after taking stuff. A guy named Paul, climbed up on a house, worked for 3 hours & tripped out, fell down almost on a saw. He was not the first either, I know what I'm talking about man, I don't need a link to the subject matter.

 

Point conceded, that some drugs may have lasting effects. What this means is we should adapt a rational set of drug laws that actually consider the harm caused, not just irrational fear or who gives the most campaign bribes.

 

Of course by this standard, we should put similar limits on anyone vulnerable to flashbacks. Since it sounds like we're talking about a purely psycholocial effect (in other words, "whoa, that was just so weird I can't get it out of my mind!", not lasting chemical traces), what about people with other traumatic experiences? Should we ban soldiers who have been in combat from driving? After all, they could have a flashback of their near-death and crash.

 

 

Good for you, you learned what an ad hominem is, Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man”.

It is always wise to consider the source. If you are having back pains & Bozo the Clown says you need a lobotomy, you would say “OK, lets do it”, NO, of course not. Not all opinions carry the same weight & theirs carries none. They may have made a point that big drug companies are influencing politicians, that's no revelation.

 

Here's a hint: simply repeating the ad hominem doesn't make it any more of a legitimate argument.

 

 

If you feel that the arguments presented by Penn & Teller are wrong, address the arguments. If they have as little knowledge of the subject as you claim they do, this should be a very easy task.

 

 

 

The moral compass I'm referring to is the drug abuse, not drug use, drugs are wonderful & help many patients, I would never suggest getting rid of them.

 

Nice bait and switch. We all know we're talking about recreational drug use, not whether to make medical drugs legal or not.

 

Let me try to give you a better grasp on this; did you know some drugs do the opposite to children than they do to adults? Think about that (just one aspect of it), we start selling to people any drug they want & you don't think it would be bad? That's why we have doctors & pharmacist, drugs are powerful & any Bozo should not be able to get them without a prescription.

 

Two problems:

 

1) I asked for an answer to your claim of a moral issue. Claiming different physical effects completely dodges this question. Please do not do this.

 

2) You again present a false dillema here. Legalizing drugs does not mean we have to make any and all drugs available to anyone who wants them without limits. Maybe this is true for some drugs (marijuana, for example). Maybe others are just too dangerous and harmful to allow. Maybe some fall in the middle, where we should treat them like alcohol and just have them limited to adults. Maybe some should be a minor crime, the equivalent of being drunk in public (subject to a fine, but not prison).

 

The point here is that our current drug laws are fundamentally broken. Besides being essentially useless and supporting a vast problem of associated crime, they just don't make any sense. Currently, if you are caught growing a single pot plant for personal use, you are treated the same as a gang-member crack dealer with 100lbs in his truck and a mile-long list of felony convictions. Both of you get sent to prison with the exact same sentence, despite vastly different "crimes".

 

This is a problem.

 

 

 

 

Guess what Duskrider if nothing is illegal than you don't have any criminals at all do you?

But where does that logic get you?

You can keep lowering the standard to get your desired results of not having criminals if you want but I would rather make & enforce laws that are in the best interest of society & I don't think anarchy is the answer.

 

We both agree (I've said it before) YES, you would get rid of the criminal element.

We also agree this would not lower drug abuse (“Notice I did not say "legalize drugs, and drug abuse will go away"”).

 

 

“Point conceded, that some drugs may have lasting effects.”

 

Thanks

I do not claim to be an expert, but from what I've learned some drugs get stored in a person's fat cells, that's why they trip-out later on.

It would be bad news for you if you took hard drugs while you were fat, got clean then went on a diet.

 

“What this means is we should adapt a rational set of drug laws that actually consider the harm caused, not just irrational fear or who gives the most campaign bribes.”

 

Hey I completely agree with you here also.

I will go further & say most politicians are not really concerned about the public or they would concentrating more heavily on areas were the law is not enforced instead of getting their picture taken for endorsing yet another law that will not be enforced either.

 

“Of course by this standard, we should put similar limits on anyone vulnerable to flashbacks. Since it sounds like we're talking about a purely psycholocial effect (in other words, "whoa, that was just so weird I can't get it out of my mind!", not lasting chemical traces), what about people with other traumatic experiences? Should we ban soldiers who have been in combat from driving? After all, they could have a flashback of their near-death and crash.”

 

 

As stated above, they do have chemical traces, but you made a good point & certainly even if a person had a mental problem that should be taken into consideration.

 

 

As far as Penn & Teller go if you want to document what they think I'll address (I'll just pretend it's from you) it but I'm not going to visit their site.

 

 

“Nice bait and switch. We all know we're talking about recreational drug use, not whether to make medical drugs legal “

 

Sorry, didn't mean to switch anything; I guess I took xenxander's question at face value.

almost every cartoon I watched always had an anti-drug sentiment at the end, and it was always reiterated in stand-alone commercials.

 

So my question is:

Did such compaigns like these really have a positive effect? Or is the reason we don't see them any longer, thrown blatantly over the networks, is becasue someone realized they were quite .... ah.... stupid?

 

To me drug abuse is using any drug improperly, including the ones you call “recreational”.

 

 

“1) I asked for an answer to your claim of a moral issue. Claiming different physical effects completely dodges this question. Please do not do this.”

 

I don't think I can explain the moral issue any further & have you understand it.

I've written about the abuse of drugs & how children may be affected by parents thinking they are helping their children when a particular drug could have an opposite effect.

 

You really don't see a connection here do you? (I'm not trying to be funny, I'm asking honestly)

 

 

“2)...”

You made good points Duskrider about the punishment not fitting the crime & I agree with you they should.

[Jhaerlyn]

:)

 

I have a few moments before the server goes down again while on my lunch ...

 

...returning to the original subject tag line ... did the ads work ... i think we should look at the statistics of the time ...

 

... and I"ll do just that now and come back with harder evidence ...

 

as for me and my "peeps" .... we made it through all of Jr. High and High School thinking the people who did drugs were idiots ... I hung out with the Surfers, and the Band kids, and many of those band kids were also in the Rock Ensemble ... and ifound that none of the surfers abused anything but sugar and alcohol ... but since the anti-drug ads didn't address alchohol .. you can't say the ads didnt' work ... as for the band people ... there definitely was a split, even in the rock ensemble people ... between those who felt recreational drug use was useful and beneficial ... and those who thought it was a stupid waste of time ... Most of the first group were guys ...most of the second group were girls ...

 

 

I do remember having a crush on a girl who was a "pot-head" ... and everyone knew who those people were and basically shied away from them ... she thought I was cute and "innoncent" so made sure not to draw me into their circle ... funny how life is ...

 

 

anyway... my drug experimentation didn't come until well in my college degree and the Clinton years and I was actually indirectly influenced by Coleridge and the "romantics" ...as well as the new crop of freshmen ... kids that went through high school in the early to mid 90's .... by which time the Just say No campaign had grown dry and unimaginative.... and had spread to every corner of a students life so that everywhere you went they made such a big deal about it that I guess kids just started saying .." yeah, right."

 

 

so ... I'd say that it suffered the same fate as most attempts by adults to indoctrinate children into a certain mindset .... especially when, in some ways it is so insincere ... ... like American History classes ... its all about do as way say, not as we do. That usually fails with kids..

 

 

 

 

then there's the conspiracy theory that says that the sudden and widespread proliferation of 'recreational' drugs in the US was a Communist conspiracy to debilitate american culture by enslaving its youth to substances that would also pay for their rebel efforts world wide. ... (bolivia, colombia,etc )

[Jhaerlyn]

... ok, a good website to go to for statistics is Study by University of Michigan it's got a lot of good stuff on there...

 

 

more specifically, I was suprised to find that the over all illicit drug use rate reflected what I remember from school... I'm in the Class of 1990 group ... in this link:

LongTerm Data

 

 

there is an increase towards the 80's that then drops off and then begins to climb again with the class of 92 ...

 

my theory is that ... by 1990, the class of 1980-83 were in their Late 20's being "role models" ...actors, politicians, sports people, musicians ..etc ... people that were looked upto by kids who were in jr. high and early highschool :D

 

add that to the fact that, by 1990, the Just say No program had been functioning for 4 or 5 years at the jr high level ... and you'll see that it was probably getting stale and old ... to the younger teens who'd seen some of their older brothers and sisters and cousins and friends who were part of the 40% who were doing drugs at the time but DIDN't die before finishing highschool ... and SO the youngin's decided it was safe .