The New Anti-Drug Commercial

[Berzerker]

DanS -

Not at all a pack full of lies. It's a very direct connection. If somebody buys crack, for instance, they are responsible for all of the acts down the line that got them that crack. Same too with oil, although the responsibility is scrubbed somewhat by the blind-buyer, blind-seller commodity market.

These "acts" were committed because of the illegality of drugs, that means the users are not to blame, but the people who created the black market with their laws. Am I also responsible for terrorism if I pay taxes and the politicians give that money to the Taliban? OBL and Al Qaeda have been in Afghanistan for quite a while after the embassy(s) and Cole attacks, yet the Congress was giving the Taliban our money after those attacks. It is a lie to accuse someone of funding terrorism when it is "government" policies that created the black market being used as a source of revenue. It's also the worst kind of hypocrisy, the kind used to hurt the innocent. Btw, where is the proof buying heroin will fund OBL now?

Only a tenuous responsibility in that instance. By buying a pack of cigarettes, you are enabling further tobacco advertising.

"Tenuous"? C'mon! If no one bought cigarettes, millions would not have died from tobacco-related diseases, so buying cigarettes enabled more than just advertising. Of course, I don't think like you, people are responsible for their own actions so this "responsibility" you try to impose on the innocent is illusory IMO.

But in the instance of drugs, the responsibility is much clearer. If you buy cocaine or crack cocaine, you directly trigger a long list of actions to supply you that cocaine, all of which are necessarily on the other side of the law.

"Necessarily"? The first "step" in this chain of events was making cocaine illegal in the first place thereby creating both the incentive of enormous profits and farmers growing the crop to seek out "protection" from people outside of the "government" attacking the farmers.

Yes, it's illegal.

Clem didn't say it wasn't illegal or criminal, he said you're assuming it is inherently criminal. It isn't and nothing you said proves otherwise.

Because of the ill effects of using it on a personal and societal basis, and the reasons for which it's used, I don't contemplate it ever being legal.

And that's where we get down to the immorality of the drug war. That because some people use a drug and hurt others - "society" - ALL people who use it are being punished (or would be if caught). Apply this logic to cars, guns, and so on, and we'd all either be in cages or guarding them.

-"The reponsibility lies equally with the criminalizers."

That sounds like a BS whitewash of drug use to me, clem.

No BS there! You are the one making arguments based on a "step by step" chain of events to indict drug users, but you ignored the first step that created the situation - criminalization!

The representatives of the people have merely codified the people's wishes.

Irrelevant! Then those who "wished" for the results of codifying the laws they like - the black market and all it's nasty effects - should acknowledge what they've done instead of blaming people for exercising their freedom.

These wishes seem reasonable because of the ill effects of drug use. Nobody wants crack heads taking over the neighborhood.

You mean like "crackheads" do now? When was the last time we had "speakeasies" in this country? Alcohol prohibition! How can you be surprised to see crackhouses under prohibition? It is immoral to put people in cages for using drugs because SOME drug users hurt others. I think you'd understand this if you were put in a cage because I murdered someone, true?

Imran -

So, if you buy a pack of cigarettes then you are responsible for the deaths of those that die of lung cancer from cigs?

How far do you go?

Far enough to "justify" incarcerating millions of people for using drugs not popular enough to be kept legal while trying to ignore the same "logic" when it comes to other potentially dangerous products like alcohol and tobacco.

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

[Asher]

I thought the commercial was very effective!

I'm going to stop all drug use now, because I know how much weed funds Osama Bin Laden's operations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, even if you buy your weed from people growing it in their backyards, you are helping Bin Laden, because that was his plan. Getting Americans to do drugs because their trade towers are gone.

[Berzerker]

DanS -

Imran: You can continue to paint a utopia where drug use it totally legal, but you ignore the fact that in no instance would drugs like crack cocaine be safe.

I tried it a few times with no noticable effect so I quit.

Therefore, distribution for recreational use would be illegal in any event.

Then don't blame the users for the effects of it's criminalization.

Re making sales of alcohol illegal, there's nothing stopping you. It is prohibited in many jurisdictions. I see nothing wrong with that.

And that's the problem with supporters of the drug war - they can't see the hypocrisy and immorality of putting millions of people in cages for what others do.

Clem: You fall under the same spell as Imran. You can't get it through your thick skulls that this stuff can only be sold through illegal channels on a mass basis.

You're the one using circular arguments. Make drugs illegal and then blame the people who use the drugs for the results of the black market created by your action - making drugs illegal.

Dinodoc -

For the most part, OBL himself and his connections in Saudia Arabia as you stated. He is a multi-millionaire from the Arab equivilant to the Rockefellers after all.

OBL, Al Qaeda and the Taliban got money from the US, the Saudis and Pakistan - and much of it was from oil proceeds. Does that mean oil users are responsible for the attacks? That is the logical implication of the ads, but one ignored by the ad's producers...

Of course it has. That still doesn't change the truth value of the statement that the drug trade funds both criminal & terrorist organizations though. The only difference is the conclusions you draw from such a statement. The commercial drew the wrong one.

Where was the proof that buying pot or speed funded the terrorists? There is none, therefore the ad was dishonest.

[mactbone]

Fine, let's all take a jaunt to happy-happy land. Where drug users don't hallucinate, don't OD, don't have their senses impaired, don't have an addiction far worse than addictions to other products, don't harm others while in an altered state of mind. Sure, then maybe we can legalize drugs, but until then, no.

Alcohol probably shouldn't technically be legal too. Tobbacco on the other hand, AFAIK only seriously hurts the user, and does not alter the mind, in which case I say one less idiot.

[Bas]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Fine, let's all take a jaunt to happy-happy land. Where drug users don't hallucinate, don't OD, don't have their senses impaired, don't have an addiction far worse than addictions to other products, don't harm others while in an altered state of mind. Sure, then maybe we can legalize drugs, but until then, no.

The vast majority of drug users don't OD, don't hallucinate when driving or doing other things where being high is dangerous, don't harm others because of their highness, and most people who get killed by drugs are killed because of impurities or because they don't get the stuff they think they get. Seriously, most drugs I know of are no more harmful in any way than alcohol. I have my doubts about heroine and several other seriously addictive hard drugs, but tobacco and alcohol seem to be more addictive than speed, xtc, mushrooms or cocaine. Sure, all of them are harmful, especially when used very frequently, but that's no reason to outlaw them, just to tax them heavily in order to compensate for the costs they make on society. Good regulation anyway will decrease most of the problems you mentioned above, BTW. Just look at the Dutch marijuana policy as a good example of why you're wrong.

Alcohol probably shouldn't technically be legal too. Tobbacco on the other hand, AFAIK only seriously hurts the user, and does not alter the mind, in which case I say one less idiot.

Good that you realise that alcohol is no better, but why do you think that alcohol should be outlawed too? Afraid of people deciding for themselves what they want to do with their body? And I'd appreciate it if you'd have a bit more respect for smokers, thank you.

BTW, Blue Monday is by New Order.

[klesh]

I am glad to see people talking about these commercials. They are perfect Americana. I mean c'mon, they played them during the most watched show on the tele in the US. All these rural white dads and moms who have no clue about the global scene now are gonna go after little johnny j-bar smoker like he was in the taliban. Perfect. They now are trying to fan the flames of hatred and ignorance by capitalizing on our newfound cruisade vibrations and trying to carry these go get 'em sentiments into the ever-struggling war on drugs. Next comes the war on music and art, then perhaps a war on the homeless or two. Go America, Go Patriots, We're #1. You're son or daughter is a pothead, so crack down on them or they'll be the next John Lind. Gee, look at that Martha, the TV says drugs are the taliban....let's go get 'em!!! Wait for the big game to be over and for me to finish my beer first. *belch*

Ahhhh... america

-FMK.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
I am glad to see people talking about these commercials. They are perfect Americana. I mean c'mon, they played them during the most watched show on the tele in the US. All these rural white dads and moms who have no clue about the global scene now are gonna go after little johnny j-bar smoker like he was in the taliban. Perfect. They now are trying to fan the flames of hatred and ignorance by capitalizing on our newfound cruisade vibrations and trying to carry these go get 'em sentiments into the ever-struggling war on drugs. Next comes the war on music and art, then perhaps a war on the homeless or two. Go America, Go Patriots, We're #1. You're son or daughter is a pothead, so crack down on them or they'll be the next John Lind. Gee, look at that Martha, the TV says drugs are the taliban....let's go get 'em!!! Wait for the big game to be over and for me to finish my beer first. *belch*

Ahhhh... america

-FMK.

Regardless of whether this commerical is true or not, I do agree with you - I forsee this "war on terrorism" to become something of a witchhunt, like how communism was treated during the coldwar.

[DanS]

Berzerker, nothing is "inherently" criminal. Laws are made by lawmakers and in our country the lawmakers are voted into office by securing a majority of votes. There is no power from on high that deems criminality, except perhaps through common law.

Y'all seek to make this an individuals versus government argument, but you can't hide from the fact that the lawmakers and police are just carrying out the wishes of the majority. The majority hates drug use and is well within its rights to tell you that you can't use whatever it sees fit that you can't use--whether in your home or otherwise. If you use drugs, despite the fact that you know it's illegal, the "I don't think it's inherently illegal" defense will get you nowhere in any court that I know of and doesn't expiate your responsibility one iota.

The burden is on you to make the case that the minority should be protected from the will of the majority. Where will you find the reasoning to thwart the will of the majority?

The argument then goes on to the practical aspects of criminalization of various substances. This is the strongest argument for legalization and for some substances seems compelling. MJ, for instance, is used by a wide swath of society and seems on the lower end of nastiness. I think it highly unlikely that a going concern could survive the lawsuits that would result, but it's worth a look.

But for most other drugs, if you follow the practicalities down the line, you will see that this is just nasty sh!t--inherently unsafe products. Nobody, including the gov't, is going to make the bargain you're asking and sell these inherently unsafe products. It's just a fantasy "what if" of drug users! Certainly nothing to base a broad policy on.

[Jac de Molay]

Actually, the war on terrorism and war on drug run along a similiar vein, and that is the deluded belief that a TRULY free society can also be a TRULY safe one. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, if you believe that then you deserve neither.

I for one am sick and tired of my country turning into a nanny-state that bolsters a huge prison-industrial complex just so we can send the 'right message' to our youth. The Bill of Rights has been slowly eroded with law after law that is meant to save us from ourselves.

And the overall effect? Third-world destablization. Mass Imprisonments of the most disenfranchised in the US, with harsh sentences instead of treatment for those who truly want to help themselves. And from a public health perspective, a problem of pandemic proportions stemming DIRECTLY from Criminalization.

You can never be truly free and truly safe.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The burden is on you to make the case that the minority should be protected from the will of the majority.

Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about .

inherently unsafe products.

You mean like tobacco and alcohol? Can you start being consistent? If you make the case that marijuana and lsd should be illegal because they are unherantly unsafe, you should also be crusading for Prohibition again and an end to cigarettes.

[DanS]

"You mean like tobacco and alcohol?"

I am being consistent. Practically speaking (since we're talking practicalities here), these are another class of substances. They are ingrained in our society. Tobacco has been embedded in our culture for about 500 years, alcohol for time immemorial. But even with a 500 year head start, tobacco is quickly coming to be a business conducted on the other side of the law.

"Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about"

Quite so. And those protections stand. But the constitution doesn't say anything about recreational drug use and distribution, as far as I know.

Look, it makes you feel good to be on the side of individual rights. But the argument is weak in this instance.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DanS
"Funny, I thought protecting the rights of the minority from the mob rule of the majority was what the Constitution was about"

Quite so. And those protections stand. But the constitution doesn't say anything about recreational drug use and distribution, as far as I know.

Exactly. It says nothing. So where the hell does the power to outlaw substances YOU put into YOUR OWN BODY come from?

And how, exactly, do alcohol and tobacco constitute a "different class" of substances, apart from they being legal? They are every bit as deadly (or worse) as illegal drugs. People have been using illegal drugs (in various forms) for just as long as they've been using legal drugs.

[WhiteElephants]

Legal/Illegal aside, I found the commercials interesting in that there was a distinct shift in the message that the drug "war" had originally/previously been pushing. Originally it the approach was "don't do drugs because it really hurts you," to this new approach being "don't do drugs because it hurts other people." Certainly this new campaign has a much healthier dose of guilt injected into it than previous commericals.

[DanS]

"Exactly. It says nothing. So where the hell does the power to outlaw substances YOU put into YOUR OWN BODY come from?"

Congress. Duly elected by the people.

"And how, exactly, do alcohol and tobacco constitute a "different class" of substances, apart from they being legal?"

A much greater %-age of our population use alcohol and tobacco than they do illegal drugs. MJ is more borderline. I would be willing to discuss it.