Okay, I'm going to try to be objective while I describe this commercial, but somehow I think it's going to fail. I just saw this on ABC, in the States, and it's a "Drug-Free America" commercial.
A young-ish couple is looking at a pregnancy test. We don't see what the result is on the test, but words come across the screen.
"They will be the youngest grandparents in town," reads one of the captions. I didn't catch the others, as I wasn't paying too much attention - I thought it was a pregnancy test commercial at first. That line made me pay attention.
The camera pans to a teen, probably about 15, sitting in the bathroom on the toilet. She looks up with a tear-smeared face, and the announcer says something like, "Marijuana impairs your judgment, it's more dangerous than we all thought," blah blah.
Okay. So it does.
However, the commercial - funded by the government, of course - implies that this is the end of the world for this young girl and her parents. Her life is over at fifteen, there are no other choices for her but to have the baby and she'll fail out of school and this is The End. She wrecked her life.
This is a slap in the face to thousands of young mothers who have done just fine, including some who are my friends around the boards.
Not only that, it implies that there is no way this young girl could get an abortion, medical or surgical, or that she could give the child up for adoption - that there are no choices for her but to have this baby.
Argh. I don't know what there is to discuss, I was just so horrified and disgusted by this commercial I needed a rant. </rant>
I agree with lemming, I find this commercial degrading to young mothers. And just because you have sex before your married doesn't mean that your judgment is impaired.
Posts: 87 | From: TX | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Oh I definately agree that marijuana impairs judgement, I was just saying that it really is a misleading commercial suggesting that since she had sex and she was unmarried that she must be out of her mind.
Posts: 87 | From: TX | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Those anti-marijuana commercials annoy me as well. They seem to be taking drastic and ridiculous premises to get their point across. Example: This one commercial I saw has two kids smoking pot in one of their father's study. They get high, the kid pulls out a gun from his dad's desk drawer and accidentally shoots himself in the head. HMM? So marijuana is at fault here? No I think the parents who would keep a gun in the house are. Sure Marijuana impairs judgement, many things do, but the fact that they target a drug responsible when it really should be the parents who own a gun, or the NRA for that matter, simply astonishes me.
[This message has been edited by herecomestheson (edited 01-26-2003).]
I've only seen one anti-marijuana commercial, and I'm not sure if it was Canadian or American, but I thought it was very well done.
There's a bunch of guys in a car that keep going through a drive through at a restaurant just acting kinda of silly and mellow. It shows them doing this a few times then it shows the car about to pull out onto the street when some people cross the road and it implies they're hit. Then across the screen it says "Marijuana reduces reaction time"(I think). I thought this was a good way of getting it across, in more of a way they get the point of drinking across.
These ads you guys are talking about seem like a really unfair way to try and get the message across.
------------------ 'You've got the eyes of ten women. Not in a jar! I wasn't accusing you. I just mean your eyes are really nice'-coupling
And those "buy marijuana, support terrorism" ads make me shout at the computer/TV, "grow your own!"
Not that I think drug use is a good idea - I don't, for me, in any form - but that sorta takes the point out of the commercial real fast, huh?
[Edited to add a note: I'm not suggesting that you grow marijuana. I'm just trying to say that these commercials are stupid from the outset because they imply that ALL drug money supports terrorism and other bad things, and that there's no way to obtain drugs that doesn't involve terrorism. These are fallacies, and short-sighted, and again, they breed this attitude of, "They lied about pot, what else are they lying about?" Young people pick up on hypocrisy very quickly. Philip Morris, anyone? Jeez. Ick.]
[This message has been edited by lemming (edited 01-27-2003).]
Guess I'm the square on this one, but if Huey Lewis was right then I'm on the right track anyway.
I've seen all of the aforementioned anti-marijuana commercials and found nothing wrong with them at all. For point of reference, I do not smoke marijuana and do not have any interest in starting. It simply isn't my thing.
But as far as the commercials go, I've got no problem with them whatsoever. Advertising is advertising, no matter who is doing it. If you want to pay for an ad that says "Bush stinks," you can do so. If you want to pay for an ad that says "marijuana impairs judgment" (and obliquely reminds viewers that regulations prohibiting its use are the Law of the Land), then more power to ye.
In specific regard to the ad with the pregnant teenager, I saw it a different way entirely. I do not see this as a slap in anyone's face as much as I see it portraying the consequences of doing something while your judgment is impaired. As we've seen all over the boards here from time to time, unintended things happen when people act with poor (or impaired) judgment. Unintended pregnancies can certainly be a part of that.
And I don't see this ad as going too overboard in its portrayal of that unintended consequence of illegal activity. The commercial doesn't flash forward fifteen years and show the mother living in abject poverty with a teenaged child, nor does it flash forward eight months to depict a high-school dropout who is writhing in misery. The commercial leaves it open-ended as to what could potentially happen to this young woman, and leaves open for interpretation the possibility that she may yet be the world's greatest mom.
Is it possible? Sure! Stranger things have happened. But I think the commercial does a good job of showing how this young woman's life is momentarily disrupted by an action she undertook while her judgment was impaired. And it also does a darned good job of provoking thought, as is becoming evident right here in this thread.
Danny, you always hafta step in, don't you? ;]
I see your points. However, the thing is - these commercials are going to get played, no matter what. Some commercials, like the "Bush Stinks" one, aren't going to get played no matter how much money you have. And that sucks.
I guess it just rubs me the wrong way because it seems so stupid, and because maybe I'm too easily offended. The gun commercial bugs the heck out of me no matter what, though - if your kids are stoned and they find your loaded gun lying around your house, at least half of that scenario is your fault.
Argh. Too tired to form coherent arguments. More tomorrow.
Who, though, is going to interpret the commercial as having a positive ending for the girl? Who out there, honestly, has never looked at a pregnant teenager and thought, "What a waste?" Who out there thinks teenage pregnancy is a positive situation? I know I have in the past, and I was a teenage mom myself. It's all a part of our conditioned response due to commercials like this one.
You, Danny, may not have seen the ad as a slap in the face for anyone, but really, and I mean this in the best possible way, how can someone who's never been in that situation sit back and say it's not a slap in the face? Equating unintended teenage pregnancy with substance abuse, especially when the substance abuse is portrayed over and over in commercials as a mindless and stupid and life-shattering act, is an insult, pure and simple. Sure, I messed up, sure, things didn't happen like they ideally should have, but do I, as a young mother, and do other young mothers really need our situation to be exploited for the agendas of antidrug agencies? Do we need yet another government agency or yet another form of mainstream media shedding light on just how "terrible" our situation is?
On a related note, studies were apparently recently release showing that programs like DARE, and this sort of scare propaganda, have had no results in decreasing rates of drug use.
In fact (and I'll have to track it down somewhere), a police chief making a comment on the studies stated that some young users had stated that DARE was the first place they heard about certain drugs. Oy.
Sounds to me like this ad is a head on collision of 2 wrongly held cultural assumptions:
1. Drugs (well illegal ones anyway) are bad, ALWAYS.
2. Young motherhood is bad, ALWAYS.
Still you do have to admire the clever linkage of this propaganda campaign: before long, teenage mothers can be blamed for terrorism! http://www.freevibe.com/mj/teenpregnancy.shtml is another outlet for this particular brand of morality, using some cleverly constructed statistics to prove their case. It even has a link to an abstinence only sex-ed page. Its a universal "Just say No" campaign.
------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
I have to agree with Aria here. How insulting is that? Not ONLY was it stupid of them to get pregnant, now theyre moral devients because they smoked weed before they had sex. I think anti-drug ads need to stop mixing and matching social problems.
Also, the parents looked so disgusted with the daughter on the commercial! And the comments "they'll be the talk of town" and "the youngest grandparents on the block" like the BIGGEST problem was the parents' embarrassment here. In the end, I dont think it stopped anyone from smoking this weekend, and I think it just made a couple pregnant teenagers want to jump out some windows...
i'm gonna jump in and say that i favor the ad campaign. why? because i really hate drug use. personal bias? absolutely. i have very little patience for stoners and tweekers.
with that said, i also have a hard time sympathizing with people who get into bad situations that could have easily been prevented by using good judgement or just keeping one's wits about him/herself. This includes getting intoxicated on alcohol and then ramming cars into telephone poles. Or walking through bad neighborhoods alone at night when the option of calling a cab or getting an escort was an available option.
I'm pretty much in favor of any ad that points out that actions have conseqeunces and that people have to face them at a certain point. While i don't think demonizing teenage parents is a good thing necessarily, I think the point made is a potent one (whether you liked it or not -- after all, there wouldn't be so many pissed off people in this thread if it wasn't a potent message of some sort).
------------------ According to the experts, I am some species of badass.
Posts: 12677 | From: Los Angeles, CA ... somewhere off the 10 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Canadians like to complain about how during the Super Bowl, a Canadian broadcaster intercepts the American networks at the border, and replaces the U.S. commercials with lame Canadian ones. Thus, we don't get to see all the cool Super Bowl ads.
For once, I'm happy about it.
I just visited the link that you provided, Confused boy, and from there, I went to a page with a number of the anti-drug ads that you're all talking about here. Yeah, the teen pregnancy one is no good, but I can't find one that agrees with me. But then, the whole United States War on Drugs doesn't agree with me either, so I suppose that was unlikely.
Watching that propaganda makes me look forward to the day that's soon coming, when Canada decriminalizes the stuff. Marijuana isn't really my thing either - I just don't think the government has any right to tell me whether it is or not. That, and, oh, I can't wait to see the government finally take a stand on something that the U.S. really cares about.
Incidentally, it's worth noting that in Western Europe, the CBC has informed me, there are only two countries that haven't yet either stopped enforcing their pot laws, or decriminalized the stuff. If memory serves me correctly, it's only Britain and Sweden that are holding out.
------------------ "And when I'm gone, she'll never leave me. No, no she'll never, be untrue. And buddy if you do not believe me, you don't believe the sky is blue." -Joel Plaskett, Down at the Khyber
[This message has been edited by Dzuunmod (edited 01-28-2003).]
I saw this commercial yesterday, and I'm actually kind of excited to see it up for discussion here. This ad is combining two completely seperate issues and trying to pass them off as related. Sure, I don't doubt that a few girls out there have carried babies that were concieved during not-so-sober intercourse. I can probably put money on the fact that many teen pregnancies happen under the influence of alcohol rather than marijuana, but that's a whole seperate issue.
I'm not even a teen mother, but it's still a random slap in the face as a female. When I lost my virginity, the "heat of the moment" was drug enough to cloud my judgement.
But, whoever mentioned their lack of bringing up OTHER options besides having it/keeping it, I agree with you.
Posts: 11 | From: Albuquerque, NM, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gumdrop you say "I have very little patience for stoners and tweekers." While you did preface your comments carefully that they involved personal bias, I do feel you are mis-representing a great number of recreational drug users with those somewhat emotive terms you are using. A widely held, and even encouraged, misconception is that all drug users are lazy, detached individuals who become nothing but a burden on society. In fact, that Freevibe website at one point makes the amazing claim that cannabis use makes you "boring."
While I am not about to deny that there are of course many cases of drug use causing tremendous damage to individuals, though naturally alcohol causes far more damage statistically, I have found that that many of the hardest working, very intelligent, most community orientated students I know are on the weekends the ones who are indulging in illegal drugs. Also, while able to enjoy rubbish jokes far more easily, their judgement is not impaired to a great extent. I dont think they would make the kind of mistakes that would risk an unplanned pregnancy.
In the rush to condemn drugs entirely, the resulting propaganda alienating rather than educating teenagers, the REAL risks about drug use is lost and so everyone is left ignorant. Those who dont use drugs consider them to be immoral and disgusting, those who do not know exactly what they are getting into. In fact, the parallels with sex education is tremendous. They are both about "just say NO!"
------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
[This message has been edited by Confused boy (edited 01-31-2003).]
I'd like to just mention that I don't think we can measure the potency of an ad because it makes people angry.
After all, we see sexist and racist propaganda or advertising daily, and I don't think many of us would be prone to say that if it inflames people, it is simply because it is effective or potent. We would say it is because it is sexist or racist, or as some users are saying regarding this campaign, demoralizing to young parents (and potentially to reproductive choice).
That said, and with what we know in terms of the INeffectiveness of this sort of approach, as well as what has been said in some posts here, I just want to issue a couple reminders.
Talking about drug use here is a delicate issue. Because where this site is hosted some drugs are illegal, we cannot get deep in discussions of them, nor can we endorse said use (and that fact that they're illegal, honestly, is why -- above all else -- I'd encourage all our users to stray from them, and that includes booze for those for whom it is illegal). It's impossible, flatly, for the staff or volunteers to even be candid about how we may or may not feel about certain forms of drug use unless it is simply as resounding no for the whole lot. That's unfortunate, especially given the fact that informed folks know full well many legal drugs are far more dangerous than some illegal ones and that's about profit, not health, but it's safest for all of us, staff and users alike.
But. We do know that there are LEGAL recreational drugs which are just as harmful if not more so as some ILlegal ones. So. Tread lightly, and please avoid character judgements, as we would at any other part of the boards.
Somewhere I was reading, a guy said that they should stick to the Truth commercials because they present the facts, not a fictional story. But I don't recall seeing those for drugs, only cigarettes.
------------------ Smiles,everyone,smiles! You are the Kama to my Sutra.
Posts: 4 | From: Port Huron, Michigan | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was just thinking something like that... I wouldn't think it was so bad if it was a real story... I am not impressed by them making up a story like that. It would be a lot more effective and a lot less offensive if it was some teenager telling her story. I don't doubt that a girl can get pregnant when she has sex that she might not have had if she wasn't smoking, but it seems like a cheap shot if you can't back it up.
Also, about DARE programs. I remember DARE programs, and I thought they really made a difference, but it was very short term. Every day we had DARE, I was drug free. The day after, however...
Ever wonder wtf happened to marijuana being a great plant? Here you go: 1898 Hearst newspapers denounce Spaniards, Mexican-Americans, and Latinos after the seizure of 800,000 acres of Hearst-owned prime Mexican timber land by the 'marijuana smoking army of Pancho Villa.'
Vigorous slander of the Mexican people continues in Hearst and other publications for three decades. Because of Hearst's personal prejudices against African-Americans and Hispanics and Hearst's covert motivations to link them with the proliferation of an 'evil drug', the term 'marijuana' --- a word totally unfamiliar to the average hemp-using American --- is used exclusively to identify hemp throughout this public disinformation campaign. 1910 - 1920 Southern "officials" are alarmed because "pot smoking darkie jazz musicians" are beginning to "think that they are as good as whites."
1910 South Africa begins outlawing marijuana (for the same "Jim Crow" reasons cited by U.S. bigots: to stop the insolence of Blacks) and lobbies the League of Nations to have cannabis outlawed world-wide.
Many Southern U.S. states are influenced by South Africa and follow suit with prohibitions. Black mine workers in South Africa were, however, permitted to continue smoking the herb because it increased their productivity. 1915 As a result of Hearst-incited hysteria over "disrespectful darkies" and "lazy Chicanos", California and Utah pass state laws outlawing the recreational use of marijuana.
1916 - 1935 The Hearst newspapers build and initiate a campaign to outlaw "marijuana." Reporting is slanted to generate reader bias.
Readers were never told that "hemp" and "marijuana" are exactly the same plant. Nor were they told that the active ingredients of the tonic they gave their baby to ease colic came from the marijuana/hemp plant, nor that the smoke they inhaled in their ever popular hashish parlors was a derivative of marijuana. News stories were manipulated to aggrandize and exaggerate the supposed "horrors" of recreational marijuana use. The story of an auto accident where one marijuana cigarette was found would dominate front page headlines for weeks while alcohol related accidents --- which outnumbered marijuana 1000 to 1 --- were briefly mentioned and buried in the back pages. The rape of a white woman by a "Negro," previously attributed by Hearst publications to cocaine use was, by these same publications, suddenly attributed to the use of marijuana. 1930's Mechanical hemp-fiber stripping and pulp conserving machines are invented and developed to state-of-the-art.
Timber-based paper manufacturing industries recognize the combined technological advances of the hemp industry as a potential threat to their prosperity. DuPont patents two new chemically intense processes; one to make plastics from oil and coal and another to make paper from pulp-wood. 1930 U.S. Government sponsors the Siler Commission study on the effects of off-duty smoking of "marijuana" (hemp buds & leaves) by American servicemen in Panama. The report concludes that such recreational smoking is not a problem and recommends that no criminal penalties apply to its use.
1930 Louis Armstrong is arrested and jailed for 10 days for smoking marijuana cigarettes.
1931 Andrew Mellon (of the powerful Mellon Bank of Pittsburgh, financier of many DuPont projects, and long-time supporter of Hearst), serving as President Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury, appoints his future nephew-in-law, Harry J. Anslinger to be head of the newly reorganized Federal Narcotics Bureau.
Anslinger begins to compile a dossier of tabloid articles which sensationalize disinformation about marijuana use and the crimes committed while supposedly under the influence of the drug. This collection of newspaper clippings (most from Hearst newspapers) becomes known as the "Gore Files". 1935 - 1937 DuPont assures Congress, during secret testimony, that synthetic petro-chemical oils can replace hemp seed oil in paints, varnishes, and other products.
1936 - 1938 Hearst newspapers step-up the anti-marijuana campaign and newsreel clips at the local movie bear headlines like "Reefer Madness" and "Marijuana --- Assassin of Youth."
1937 Walter Treadway, Assistant U.S. Surgeon General, tells the Cannabis Advisory Subcommittee of the League of Nations that extended use of cannabis derivatives is benign, both socially and emotionally, and that marijuana is habit forming...in the same sense...as sugar or coffee.
The DuPont Company issues its Annual Report to stockholders which anticipates "radical changes" and the conversion of the Federal government's revenue raising power 'into an instrument for forcing acceptance of sudden new ideas of industrial and social reorganization.' In other words, government would no longer tax citizens solely to raise money but to enforce the adoption (or extinction) of selected social 'norms'. April 14, 1937 The Marijuana Tax Law is introduced to the House Ways and Means Committee of Congress, chaired by Robert L. Doughton, a key DuPont ally.
In subsequent committee hearings, Dr. James Woodward, speaking for the American Medical Association (AMA), testifies against the proposed legislation stating that the plant Congress intends to outlaw is a perfectly safe substance used to treat scores of illnesses for over 100 years in America and that the ignorance of the proposed prohibition will deny the world access to potential medical breakthroughs. Dr Wodward is denounced by Anslinger and the congressional committee, then curtly excused. Ralph Lorenz, head of the general council of the National Oil Seeds Institute (which represents the interests of high quality machine lubrication producers and paint manufacturers) also lobbies against the proposed legislation, eloquently citing the key importance of the hemp plant to American industry and reviewing the thousands of years of benign use of hemp by millions of people world-wide. After receiving testimony from Anslinger who cites marijuana as "the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind," reviewing Anslinger's "Gore Files" (which were later debunked by evidentiary scholars), and hearing a false, dishonest and intentionally misleading report from the Ways and Means Committee that the AMA is in "complete agreement" with the proposed marijuana legislation, the Marijuana Tax Act is adopted by Congress. The legislation is carefully worded so that the great majority of American people, including many of the members of congress who voted to pass the law, have no idea that the agricultural hemp industry is being legislated into extinction. Popularity of DuPont's "plastic fibers" (like nylon) begins to dramatically increase. 1944 The "LaGuardia Marijuana Report," compiled between 1938 and 1944 by the New York Academy of Medicine at the request of Mayor Fiorella LaGuardia, is released to refute Anslinger's negative claims about marijuana. It reports that marijuana use has caused no violence at all and cites numerous instances of beneficial effects.
Anslinger denounces the Mayor, the report, and the Academy, proclaiming that the involved doctors will never again do marijuana research without his personal permission, or they will be sent to jail. 1945 With Anslinger's coercive manipulation the AMA conducted what has since been labeled a "gutter science" study to refute the LaGuardia Report. Using biased techniques which predetermined the outcome of the research, this prejudicial study, conducted with enlisted Army men, concluded that 34 Negro males who smoked marijuana were "disrespectful" of white soldiers and officers.
1948 - 1950 Anslinger has a sudden change of heart about the violence inducing properties of marijuana and, in a complete about-face from his previous position, testifies before a strongly anti-Communist Congress that marijuana causes users to become so peaceful and pacifistic that use of the herb by soldiers will weaken their will to fight 'The Great Red Communist Plague.'
1950's - 1960's The U.S. Army sponsors numerous tests to determine the effects of cannabis smoking on soldiers. The first study showed no loss of motivation or performance after two years of continual "heavy" smoking. This study is replicated six more times by independent universities, always with the same basic findings.
1961 - 1962 Anslinger is forced to retire as head of the Federal Narcotics Bureau (now the DEA) by President Kennedy after trying to censor the publications and blackmail and harass the publishers of Professor Alfred Lindsmith of Indiana University who wrote, among other works, "The Addict and the Law" (Washington Post, 1961).
U.S. Medical research in to the beneficial properties of cannabis resumes after nearly 3 decades of Anslinger's prohibition. Credible sources report that President Kennedy routinely uses marijuana to relieve his back pain and plans to have the drug legalized. These plans are terminated by his assassination. 1964 The Himalayan region of Bangladesh (from "bhang" cannabis, "la" land, and "desh" people) signs an anti-drug pact with the U.S., agreeing not to grow hemp.
Since that time there has been only light moss covering the steep slopes of this flash-flood region which once were lush with hardy hemp. Millions of acres of topsoil have been washed away and native peoples of the country have suffered disease, starvation, and decimation due to unrestrained flooding.
Posts: 3 | From: Stockton, Ca, USA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
And their time-line is rather basic, if not confused:
"1910 South Africa begins outlawing marijuana (for the same "Jim Crow" reasons cited by U.S. bigots: to stop the insolence of Blacks) and lobbies the League of Nations to have cannabis outlawed world-wide."
The League of Nations didn't exist till after WW1. Just a little point, but demonstrates this particular history has been somewhat simplified.
------------------ 'An Anarchist is a Liberal with a bomb' Trotsky
The anti-marijuana commercials I really hate are the ones that make no sense at all... such as the one that compares a joint to cigarettes, saying that one joint has as much (I think it was "cancer-causing agents") as four cigarettes. They speak in such an ominous, dark voice, and they show a kid cutting open four cigarettes and rolling all the contents up into a large joint.
Right... now, that sounds more like it should be an anti-cigarette commercial to me. Do they even mention in the commercial that most people who smoke cigarettes smoke a pack or so a day? Considerably more than four, yes? Especially when you think that casual marijuana users, that I've known anyway, only use it on the weekends. Maybe one a week. So... yeah, they could at least *try* to make sense. Oh well...
[This message has been edited by pisces (edited 03-19-2003).]
ok, let me get a piece of this criticism action... I agree with the majority of you that say these commercials suck. My opinion? POINTLESS!! I had to do a study on this at school (I go to a university in northern California.) What did we find, you may ask? Well, we found that there was absolutely no correlation between the new line of marjuana commercials deterring the any fellow student's desire to smoke weed. We talked to people that smoke, people that do not smoke, and people that smoke only occasionally. The government, who I believe sponsors this program, is wasting their money, or should I say our money. People are going to smoke no matter what. You can tell them they support terrorism, they don't care, they'll just continue going to San Francisco for peace marches. Nobody can change their minds. On a personal note, I used to smoke a lot of weed. I quit a year and a half ago (Thanks you for the pats on the back and applause) because I didn't like who I was. I understand the effects thoroughly, and I still don't think these commercials do any good. If the point is to prevent teenage pregnancies, random shootings, and fatal car accidents, focus on anti-drunk driving commercials, hiding guns from children, and using protection during sex. The majority of the people that do these things are people who are trying to find and express themselves. Let's allow them to do that in an atmosphere where they do not feel threatened. Because the truth is, they're gonna do it anyway. I'm fully prepared to back up what I have just argued, if anyone has a problem, please, let's hear what you have to say... PS, BruinDan, quick question, you're from SoCal, I noticed, do you go to UCLA (hence "Bruin")?
Posts: 1 | From: San Jose, California, Wonderful USA | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Might it be better to cancel the commercials and concentrate on prosecuting those found to possess the drug? Marijuana use and possession isn't legal, and while we can have countless commercials emphasising that, they really don't change anything.
(BruinDan graduated UCLA in 2001, but is too lazy to post his own message saying so.)
------------------ Milke, with an L, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP
A woman I worked with at a resource center once was asked to attend a meeting for a drug and alcohol group in the community. They were making a commercial anti-alcohol for kids. It showed a man coming home from work, grabbing a beer from the fridge, and whacking his wife a good one before going to watch tv.
Now - there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who come home and have a beer, even addicts - certified alcoholics - who drink constantly, and don't come home to beat their wives. This commercial, they claimed to her, was intended to show the consequences of drinking to kids. DRINKING DOES NOT MAKE YOU ABUSIVE. If you're abusive, you're abusive. Alcohol might make it easier to come out, but you were abusive before that. You dont have a drink and decide it's a good idea to beat up your girlfriend. I know plenty of people who drink more than necessary and are perfectly nice drunks.
Same thing with commercials where 15 year olds get pregnant and kids shoot each other because of pot. It makes you stupid, yes, I used to do it all the time - but there are other circumstances here you can't blame on the drug. If you're 15 year old gets pregnant because she got high, maybe you should have identified who she was hanging out with, or even better - taught her how to use judgement when making friends. Or possibly dont leave a loaded gun in a drawer - or teach your kids not to smoke pot in the house. COMMUNICATE with your children, and we won't have these problems.
well i just wanted to say that i dont agree with these commercials at all because i feel like some of the others around here that they are putting down young mothers. not to mention when i got pregnant (at 14) i was not on any kind of drug not even alcohol. same goes for when i got pregnant at 17. i know a few people that smoke weed every day and they dont do anything stupid. i dont condone it and i dont do it but people are who they are if they are going to do something they are going to do it. it might slow you down but i think that they are leaving out alot and focusing on the wrong things in these ads. and as for alcohol (which you dont see as many ads against anymore) it makes you do more stupid stuff than some drugs because if you drink too much you wont know anything you are doing, and you can make worse choices than if you were on drugs. and just so you know just because someone hangs out with people that do drugs doesnt mean that they will do them too. i have always been around drugs but i dont do any of them (not counting alcohol).
Posts: 118 | From: dayton ohio usa | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Since we're on the topic on anti-marijuana commercials-- I was wondering if you guys saw the one where a young man goes to visit a tree on a road or something and theres gifts and pictures by the tree as a grave site. Then it says something like "His younger brother was killed by a drive under the influence.- Of marijuana. He was the driver. Marijuana impairs your judgement." Something like that..
I was just wondering what your opinions and comments of this commercial are if you've seen it because I found it quite interesting.
------------------ .*gENnA*. "Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train"
My problem with all of these anti-pot ads that seem to be related, is that there are other products on the market, legally in the U.S. that impair judgement, too.
The people responsible for the ads (not to mention the laws) just like to pick and choose, is all. From my point of view, it's an issue of freedom. The U.S. talks a big game about freedom, but when you get down to the nitty-gritty, freedom is restricted in so many ways there.
------------------ ...and we raise the white flag, so they can paint it red and blue! -Joel Plaskett, True Patriot Love
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.