White House Superbowl Ads
January 30, 2002 10:43 AM Subscribe
White House Superbowl Ads Forget Britney's "Pepsi Generation" ad, we've got two commercials costing $1.6 million each linking terrorism with the drug trade! You gotta wonder if Rupert called in a favor.
"C'mon kids - don't do drugs. It causes terrorism."
Pretty soon the Office of Health and Human Services will be linking cholesterol, heart disease, and terrorism.
posted by stevis at 10:54 AM on January 30, 2002
Pretty soon the Office of Health and Human Services will be linking cholesterol, heart disease, and terrorism.
posted by stevis at 10:54 AM on January 30, 2002
Unbelievable! The terrorist groups aren't benefiting from drugs; they're benefiting from drug prohibition. If drugs were legal, this money would evaporate overnight.
posted by electro at 10:56 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by electro at 10:56 AM on January 30, 2002
Help Stop Terror: support your local growers.
Legalize everything, and tax the hell out of it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:58 AM on January 30, 2002
Legalize everything, and tax the hell out of it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 10:58 AM on January 30, 2002
I guess this answers the question of whether the War on Terrorism would mean a decrease in effort on the War on Drugs. They've just decided to turn it into one big War on Stuff We Don't Like.
I have a real problem with the implied connection: If you're a drug user, you support terrorists. I mean, it's brilliant propaganda, since it's difficult to refute in a soundbite... but wow.
Odd that they didn't go through the Partnership for a Drug Free America to design the campaign... anybody have any thoughts about the reasoning behind that change?
posted by ook at 11:01 AM on January 30, 2002
I have a real problem with the implied connection: If you're a drug user, you support terrorists. I mean, it's brilliant propaganda, since it's difficult to refute in a soundbite... but wow.
Odd that they didn't go through the Partnership for a Drug Free America to design the campaign... anybody have any thoughts about the reasoning behind that change?
posted by ook at 11:01 AM on January 30, 2002
Of course if you use this same logic, you could say that purchasing diamonds supports terrorists in Africa and that driving a gas-guzzling SUV sponsors terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and other oil producing states that support (or at least staff) terrorist activites.
Guess we don't want to piss off those American constituencies selling diamonds, oil, and SUVs.
posted by Red58 at 11:03 AM on January 30, 2002
Guess we don't want to piss off those American constituencies selling diamonds, oil, and SUVs.
posted by Red58 at 11:03 AM on January 30, 2002
Oh. Never mind (about the Partnership question) -- I think I figured it out.
posted by ook at 11:03 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by ook at 11:03 AM on January 30, 2002
This is smart ad placement. When I think of professional football, the last thing I associate with it is illicit drug use.
posted by Skot at 11:05 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by Skot at 11:05 AM on January 30, 2002
From opensecrets.org:
for the 2000 election cycle, News Corp. gave the Republican Party $527,275 in soft money. It gave $450,000 for the 1998 election cycle
posted by panopticon at 11:08 AM on January 30, 2002
for the 2000 election cycle, News Corp. gave the Republican Party $527,275 in soft money. It gave $450,000 for the 1998 election cycle
posted by panopticon at 11:08 AM on January 30, 2002
Hey you stoners, stay outta the airports.
Bitteroldpunk is correct. Prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will.
The latest propaganda from the Bush Gang.They haven't figured out a way to link sofe-core porn on cable to terrorism yet.
Is Ashcroft going to make the cheerleaders wear pants?
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:12 AM on January 30, 2002
Bitteroldpunk is correct. Prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will.
The latest propaganda from the Bush Gang.They haven't figured out a way to link sofe-core porn on cable to terrorism yet.
Is Ashcroft going to make the cheerleaders wear pants?
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:12 AM on January 30, 2002
Hey you stoners, stay outta the airports.
Bitteroldpunk is correct. Prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will.
The latest propaganda from the Bush Gang.They haven't figured out a way to link sofe-core porn on cable to terrorism yet.
Is Ashcroft going to make the cheerleaders wear pants?
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:14 AM on January 30, 2002
Bitteroldpunk is correct. Prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will.
The latest propaganda from the Bush Gang.They haven't figured out a way to link sofe-core porn on cable to terrorism yet.
Is Ashcroft going to make the cheerleaders wear pants?
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:14 AM on January 30, 2002
Sorry....
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:15 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 11:15 AM on January 30, 2002
"At first, I just spray-painted anti-U.S. slogans on walls ... all the kids were doing it ... I told myself I could stop any time I wanted."
posted by sacre_bleu at 11:25 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by sacre_bleu at 11:25 AM on January 30, 2002
I've read that in Afghanistan they're growing poppies again just like in the good old pre-Taliban days.
Taliban defeated in the War on Terrorism, means more heroin available.
posted by Mondo at 11:28 AM on January 30, 2002
Taliban defeated in the War on Terrorism, means more heroin available.
posted by Mondo at 11:28 AM on January 30, 2002
"C'mon kids - don't do drugs. It causes terrorism."
Taliban defeated in the War on Terrorism, means more heroin available.
I have a headache...
posted by Bearman at 11:41 AM on January 30, 2002
Taliban defeated in the War on Terrorism, means more heroin available.
I have a headache...
posted by Bearman at 11:41 AM on January 30, 2002
so it was the Columbians, Jamacians, and Hawaiians who blew up the Pentagon, then?
posted by tsarfan at 11:43 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by tsarfan at 11:43 AM on January 30, 2002
and dubya's niece will make a cameo: 'that's why, if you're going to abuse drugs, make sure they come from AMERICA'S PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.' [fade to field of flowers]
posted by maura at 11:52 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by maura at 11:52 AM on January 30, 2002
No, tsarfan, I think it was this grungy pacifist college kid who lives down the street. He and a co-worker who smokes pot to deal w/her panic attacks are probably in collusion. Hell, for all any of you know I could be a terrorist too. Better call in the feds.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:52 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:52 AM on January 30, 2002
Maybe it was Bayer behind the war on terrorism and not the oil companies.
posted by srboisvert at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2002
posted by srboisvert at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2002
Didn't the US pay the Taliban $40 million for stopping opium production? Thus saving them the trouble of producing narcotics to fund their terrorism, and allowing them to instead focus their full attention on blowing shit up, using the money we gave them?
posted by donkeymon at 12:05 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by donkeymon at 12:05 PM on January 30, 2002
Remember America, pumping your kids full of Ritalin and Prozac is an A-OK substitute for shoddy parenting, but smoking marijuana is EVIL* and guarantees a victory for terrorists!
*evil of the bare breast and calico cat variety.
posted by thewittyname at 12:17 PM on January 30, 2002
*evil of the bare breast and calico cat variety.
posted by thewittyname at 12:17 PM on January 30, 2002
Hrm. The northern aliance pumped out far more opium in the year or so before the WoT. But far be it for facts to get in the way of moronic story...
Howabout this for a tagline: "When drugs are illegal, only criminals sell drugs!"
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on January 30, 2002
Howabout this for a tagline: "When drugs are illegal, only criminals sell drugs!"
posted by delmoi at 12:19 PM on January 30, 2002
[fade to field of flowers]
This thread may cause irritability, dry mouth, cold sweats and chills. Some users may experience a burning sensation. If this happens, discontinue use. On rare occasions, this thread my induce vomiting, seizures or anal leakage. If these symptoms do not go away for three days, discontinue use and see your doctor.
posted by o2b at 12:41 PM on January 30, 2002
This thread may cause irritability, dry mouth, cold sweats and chills. Some users may experience a burning sensation. If this happens, discontinue use. On rare occasions, this thread my induce vomiting, seizures or anal leakage. If these symptoms do not go away for three days, discontinue use and see your doctor.
posted by o2b at 12:41 PM on January 30, 2002
[fade to field of flowers]
This thread may cause irritability, dry mouth, cold sweats and chills. Some users may experience a burning sensation. If this happens, discontinue use. On rare occasions, this thread my induce vomiting, seizures or anal leakage. If these symptoms do not go away for three days, discontinue use and see your doctor.
posted by o2b at 12:42 PM on January 30, 2002
This thread may cause irritability, dry mouth, cold sweats and chills. Some users may experience a burning sensation. If this happens, discontinue use. On rare occasions, this thread my induce vomiting, seizures or anal leakage. If these symptoms do not go away for three days, discontinue use and see your doctor.
posted by o2b at 12:42 PM on January 30, 2002
Just as $8000 Statue Burqas @ DOJ help drive up fed budget deficits, this is your tax dollars at work under a republican Administration. What a waste, in every sense of the phrase.
No wonder his neice eats Xanax like it it was Pez.
posted by BentPenguin at 1:11 PM on January 30, 2002
No wonder his neice eats Xanax like it it was Pez.
posted by BentPenguin at 1:11 PM on January 30, 2002
The fact that this is going to air during the Superbowl simply shows desperation.
I think its a hidden handout to the ailing Advertising biz. No one in their right mind, not even conservative cheerleaders can see this as anything but a big waste of $$
posted by BentPenguin at 1:15 PM on January 30, 2002
I think its a hidden handout to the ailing Advertising biz. No one in their right mind, not even conservative cheerleaders can see this as anything but a big waste of $$
posted by BentPenguin at 1:15 PM on January 30, 2002
"...Failed War on Drugs (which is its new official name, in case you didn't know)."
Given our love of acronyms, should we just call it "F-WaD" and leave it at that?
"Oh, look, Ashcroft is giving another F-WaD speech.", etc.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:34 PM on January 30, 2002
Given our love of acronyms, should we just call it "F-WaD" and leave it at that?
"Oh, look, Ashcroft is giving another F-WaD speech.", etc.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:34 PM on January 30, 2002
wouldn't have been nearly enough ... RPGs in the hands of the contras
that whole Iran-Contra thing was about Dungeons and Dragons?
posted by tolkhan at 1:51 PM on January 30, 2002
that whole Iran-Contra thing was about Dungeons and Dragons?
posted by tolkhan at 1:51 PM on January 30, 2002
donkeymon: The US gave $43 million in food aid distributed through recognized humanitarian organizations. Although Robert Scheer wrote a story for the LA Times which confused the facts, an dthe Common Dreams / Indymedia cabal have happily continued to spread it without question (a key reason I no longer trust such sources), no money was "given to the Taliban". None.
posted by dhartung at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by dhartung at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2002
How could it be a waste of money seeing as how it sparked this fine discussion on mefi?
posted by jgilliam at 3:52 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by jgilliam at 3:52 PM on January 30, 2002
What happens if the ads run at 4:20?
posted by Salmonberry at 4:01 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by Salmonberry at 4:01 PM on January 30, 2002
That's a cue for the Trenchcoat Mafia to start their next assault. </sarcasm>
posted by tpoh.org at 4:09 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by tpoh.org at 4:09 PM on January 30, 2002
It cannot be denied that terrorist forces do make money from drug sales. Drugs are illegal. Whether or not they should be, they currently are. This means only those willing to break the law have drugs. Terrorist forces, needing to fund arms, bombs, food, travel, etc. will happily deal in contraband. It makes good sense to tie the two together.
Let's face it; only those participating in illegal activity (ie terrorism/drugs) will be hurt by tying the two "wars" together.
posted by Neale at 4:17 PM on January 30, 2002
Let's face it; only those participating in illegal activity (ie terrorism/drugs) will be hurt by tying the two "wars" together.
posted by Neale at 4:17 PM on January 30, 2002
Let's face it; only those participating in illegal activity (ie terrorism/drugs) will be hurt by tying the two "wars" together.
posted by Neale at 4:17 PM PST on January
That is absolutely the problem. for a very large minority of this country, their drug of choice - marijuana - is illegal. Tying the entire drug trade to terrorism is divisive. It gives us enemies at home when we should be concentrating on enemies abroad. I really do need to read "1984".
posted by chris0495 at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by Neale at 4:17 PM PST on January
That is absolutely the problem. for a very large minority of this country, their drug of choice - marijuana - is illegal. Tying the entire drug trade to terrorism is divisive. It gives us enemies at home when we should be concentrating on enemies abroad. I really do need to read "1984".
posted by chris0495 at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2002
That is absolutely the problem. for a very large minority of this country, their drug of choice - marijuana - is illegal.
Then maybe they should stop smoking it.
posted by Neale at 7:43 PM on January 30, 2002
Then maybe they should stop smoking it.
posted by Neale at 7:43 PM on January 30, 2002
>>That is absolutely the problem. for a very large minority of this country, their drug of choice - marijuana - is illegal.
>Then maybe they should stop smoking it.
Maybe you should ask why it is illegal in the first place. Have you ever tried?
(Keep in mind that any reasons you give should be tested by applying them to other examples of harmful drugs -- such as alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.)
posted by Dirjy at 8:54 PM on January 30, 2002
>Then maybe they should stop smoking it.
Maybe you should ask why it is illegal in the first place. Have you ever tried?
(Keep in mind that any reasons you give should be tested by applying them to other examples of harmful drugs -- such as alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.)
posted by Dirjy at 8:54 PM on January 30, 2002
Maybe you should ask why it is illegal in the first place. Have you ever tried?
It is illegal because the Government that the American people voted in declared it so, just as it declared that tomatoes were vegetables and that bestiality was against the law. The US Government is supposed to represent the will of it's people; and just because a minority of people have decided for themselves that smoking pot is A-OK doesn't mean the law should be changed.
You don't want to be arrested? Don't do anything illegal. You don't like the law? Convince the majority to vote against it. Otherwise suffer the consequences of your actions.
posted by Neale at 9:31 PM on January 30, 2002
It is illegal because the Government that the American people voted in declared it so, just as it declared that tomatoes were vegetables and that bestiality was against the law. The US Government is supposed to represent the will of it's people; and just because a minority of people have decided for themselves that smoking pot is A-OK doesn't mean the law should be changed.
You don't want to be arrested? Don't do anything illegal. You don't like the law? Convince the majority to vote against it. Otherwise suffer the consequences of your actions.
posted by Neale at 9:31 PM on January 30, 2002
Neale, in California the voters passed an initiative to allow the use of medicinal marijuana. Years later the federal government is still fighting it tooth and nail. What exactly would you propose? In last twenty years the price of gas, milk. etc. have gone up but the price of cocaine has remained stable? Do you know what the answer is? Pour more money into it. A policy which by anyone’s definition is a complete failure. And every year we spend more on it. I look around. Public schools are in shambles. Students sharing text books and we're paying 30,000 a year to keep a drug addict in prison? As a tax payer, how much longer do I have to "suffer the consequences?"
posted by keithl at 10:06 PM on January 30, 2002
posted by keithl at 10:06 PM on January 30, 2002
in California the voters passed an initiative to allow the use of medicinal marijuana. Years later the federal government is still fighting it tooth and nail. What exactly would you propose?
That drug companies find a legal alternative that provides the same relief as marijuana, and that it is regulated and cheap to provide.
A policy which by anyone’s definition is a complete failure.
A policy that is a complete failure does not mean that a law is wrong, only that the implementation of that law has been carried out incorrectly.
As a tax payer, how much longer do I have to "suffer the consequences?"
To blame poor a poor education environment on the "War on Drugs" seems to me to be narrow minded and blind of the bigger picture. Why not blame it one the Defence budget? Or the recent cut in taxes?
The War on Drugs would end quickly, and cost nothing to the tax-payer, if drug takers decided to obey the law and give up drug taking. Don't blame the Government for cracking down on criminals. They're only trying to protect the society for which they stand.
posted by Neale at 10:16 PM on January 30, 2002
That drug companies find a legal alternative that provides the same relief as marijuana, and that it is regulated and cheap to provide.
A policy which by anyone’s definition is a complete failure.
A policy that is a complete failure does not mean that a law is wrong, only that the implementation of that law has been carried out incorrectly.
As a tax payer, how much longer do I have to "suffer the consequences?"
To blame poor a poor education environment on the "War on Drugs" seems to me to be narrow minded and blind of the bigger picture. Why not blame it one the Defence budget? Or the recent cut in taxes?
The War on Drugs would end quickly, and cost nothing to the tax-payer, if drug takers decided to obey the law and give up drug taking. Don't blame the Government for cracking down on criminals. They're only trying to protect the society for which they stand.
posted by Neale at 10:16 PM on January 30, 2002
"They're only trying to protect the society for which they stand."
yes! cuz goddamnit, this nation needs to be protected from a bunch of slow moving guys with the munchies and a taste for folk music.
posted by jcterminal at 11:49 PM on January 30, 2002
yes! cuz goddamnit, this nation needs to be protected from a bunch of slow moving guys with the munchies and a taste for folk music.
posted by jcterminal at 11:49 PM on January 30, 2002
It is illegal because the Government that the American people voted in declared it so.
That's the same justification used to justify keeping some of our country's other proud policies -- such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and denying women the right to vote.
You still haven't really answered the question -- WHY did the government make certain drugs illegal? "Because the government decided to" is not a true answer.
The US Government is supposed to represent the will of it's people... You don't like the law? Convince the majority to vote against it.
The citizens of Washington, DC, held an initiative on legalizing medical marijuana. Congress responded by making it illegal to count or certify the results of the votes. Read the linked story, then please try to convince me that the "will of the people" have any say in this issue.
The War on Drugs would end quickly, and cost nothing to the tax-payer, if drug takers decided to obey the law and give up drug taking.
Wow, what a realistic solution.
posted by Dirjy at 11:51 PM on January 30, 2002
That's the same justification used to justify keeping some of our country's other proud policies -- such as slavery, Jim Crow laws, and denying women the right to vote.
You still haven't really answered the question -- WHY did the government make certain drugs illegal? "Because the government decided to" is not a true answer.
The US Government is supposed to represent the will of it's people... You don't like the law? Convince the majority to vote against it.
The citizens of Washington, DC, held an initiative on legalizing medical marijuana. Congress responded by making it illegal to count or certify the results of the votes. Read the linked story, then please try to convince me that the "will of the people" have any say in this issue.
The War on Drugs would end quickly, and cost nothing to the tax-payer, if drug takers decided to obey the law and give up drug taking.
Wow, what a realistic solution.
posted by Dirjy at 11:51 PM on January 30, 2002
WHY did the government make certain drugs illegal?
Studies show that someone who smokes five joints a week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.
(And before you ask - yes, cigarettes should be illegal. Damn illegal).
Hanging around users of marijuana often means being exposed not only to other drugs later on, but also to a lifestyle that can include trouble in school, engaging in sexual activity while young, unintended pregnancy, difficulties with the law, and other problems.
Marijuana use can slow down reaction time and distort perceptions. This can interfere with athletic performance, decrease a sense of danger, and increase risk of injury.
Regular marijuana users can lose the ability to concentrate that is needed to master important academic skills, and they can experience short-term memory loss. Habitual marijuana users tend to do worse in school and are much more likely to drop out altogether.
try to convince me that the "will of the people" have any say in this issue.
Yet despite this, when the government banned booze, the people overwhelmingly pushed against the law and the law was changed. Same with slavery. Same with equal voting rights. Why not with pot? Perhaps it will... but right now it remains illegal.
Wow, what a realistic solution.
And expecting a Government not to enforce it's laws it just as naive.
Now tell me - why should pot be legal?
posted by Neale at 12:44 AM on January 31, 2002
Studies show that someone who smokes five joints a week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.
(And before you ask - yes, cigarettes should be illegal. Damn illegal).
Hanging around users of marijuana often means being exposed not only to other drugs later on, but also to a lifestyle that can include trouble in school, engaging in sexual activity while young, unintended pregnancy, difficulties with the law, and other problems.
Marijuana use can slow down reaction time and distort perceptions. This can interfere with athletic performance, decrease a sense of danger, and increase risk of injury.
Regular marijuana users can lose the ability to concentrate that is needed to master important academic skills, and they can experience short-term memory loss. Habitual marijuana users tend to do worse in school and are much more likely to drop out altogether.
try to convince me that the "will of the people" have any say in this issue.
Yet despite this, when the government banned booze, the people overwhelmingly pushed against the law and the law was changed. Same with slavery. Same with equal voting rights. Why not with pot? Perhaps it will... but right now it remains illegal.
Wow, what a realistic solution.
And expecting a Government not to enforce it's laws it just as naive.
Now tell me - why should pot be legal?
posted by Neale at 12:44 AM on January 31, 2002
My initial misreading of the link text was "White Horse Superbowl Ads"... strangely apropos.
posted by majick at 6:13 AM on January 31, 2002
posted by majick at 6:13 AM on January 31, 2002
Now tell me - why should pot be legal?
I. Prohibition creates a black market.
By making certain drugs illegal, the government cedes all control of their production and sales to criminals. Without regulation, the government can only chase the drug markets, rather than prevent drug use in the first place. This causes some major side effects:
1) The price of 'forbidden fruit' gets so high that trafficking becomes a highly lucrative business.
2) Criminal organizations get richer and more powerful.
3) Corruption increases as a large portion of those additional funds are funneled into cops, border guards and other law enforcement officials in return for the occassional blind eye.
4) Drug dealers, not bound by any obligations to rules that would keep them in business (as, say, liquor store owners are), sell to anyone with enough cash in order to maximize revenue in the shortest possible time. The drug itself doesn't enable children and teens to score drugs easily -- the black market is the culprit.
II. Prohibition is ineffective
When you try to outlaw something that people want, you run head-on into the basic economic laws of supply and demand. Guess who always wins (hint: ask a capitalist). Funding and enforcement of prohibition have been steadily increasing with each new administration for over 20 years. Drug use, though, regularly rises and falls in a cyclical pattern over multiple years -- independent of how tough the government cracks down on it.
U.S. drug policy has a huge budget ($60 billion, IIRC) -- 2/3 goes to law enforcement of prohibition, and the other 1/3 is split between prevention (education) and treatment for addiction. If those amounts were flipped (or if all of the budget went toward prevention/treatment), THEN you would see some real reduction in drug use.
I could go on -- I had other points about how arresting and imprisoning drug offenders overtaxes law enforcement resources that could be better spent on violent crimes -- but this post is already too long.
My reasons are based on practical ways of reducing drug use, or at least minimizing the potential harm involved. It looks like your reasons are based on establishing a Nanny State. But, hey, I respect the fact that at least you're consistent on the cigarettes issue.
posted by Dirjy at 7:28 AM on January 31, 2002
I. Prohibition creates a black market.
By making certain drugs illegal, the government cedes all control of their production and sales to criminals. Without regulation, the government can only chase the drug markets, rather than prevent drug use in the first place. This causes some major side effects:
1) The price of 'forbidden fruit' gets so high that trafficking becomes a highly lucrative business.
2) Criminal organizations get richer and more powerful.
3) Corruption increases as a large portion of those additional funds are funneled into cops, border guards and other law enforcement officials in return for the occassional blind eye.
4) Drug dealers, not bound by any obligations to rules that would keep them in business (as, say, liquor store owners are), sell to anyone with enough cash in order to maximize revenue in the shortest possible time. The drug itself doesn't enable children and teens to score drugs easily -- the black market is the culprit.
II. Prohibition is ineffective
When you try to outlaw something that people want, you run head-on into the basic economic laws of supply and demand. Guess who always wins (hint: ask a capitalist). Funding and enforcement of prohibition have been steadily increasing with each new administration for over 20 years. Drug use, though, regularly rises and falls in a cyclical pattern over multiple years -- independent of how tough the government cracks down on it.
U.S. drug policy has a huge budget ($60 billion, IIRC) -- 2/3 goes to law enforcement of prohibition, and the other 1/3 is split between prevention (education) and treatment for addiction. If those amounts were flipped (or if all of the budget went toward prevention/treatment), THEN you would see some real reduction in drug use.
I could go on -- I had other points about how arresting and imprisoning drug offenders overtaxes law enforcement resources that could be better spent on violent crimes -- but this post is already too long.
My reasons are based on practical ways of reducing drug use, or at least minimizing the potential harm involved. It looks like your reasons are based on establishing a Nanny State. But, hey, I respect the fact that at least you're consistent on the cigarettes issue.
posted by Dirjy at 7:28 AM on January 31, 2002
Hanging around users of marijuana often means being exposed not only to other drugs later on, but also to a lifestyle that can include trouble in school, engaging in sexual activity while young, unintended pregnancy, difficulties with the law, and other problems
Everyone who ate tomatoes in the year 1850 is dead now. If you replace the water in a goldfish bowl with tomatoes, the fish will die. Many criminals in our nation's prisons are known to have eaten tomatoes prior to engaging in criminal activity. Tomatoes are often sold to children in the form of "ketchup", a sweetened, palatable tomato paste commonly used as a condiment. But it isn't long before these kids get a hankering for the real thing -- diced tomatoes, sliced tomatoes, tomato soup, even fried green tomatoes.
Please. Help us ban those pernicious tomatoes. Think of the children.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:14 AM on January 31, 2002
Everyone who ate tomatoes in the year 1850 is dead now. If you replace the water in a goldfish bowl with tomatoes, the fish will die. Many criminals in our nation's prisons are known to have eaten tomatoes prior to engaging in criminal activity. Tomatoes are often sold to children in the form of "ketchup", a sweetened, palatable tomato paste commonly used as a condiment. But it isn't long before these kids get a hankering for the real thing -- diced tomatoes, sliced tomatoes, tomato soup, even fried green tomatoes.
Please. Help us ban those pernicious tomatoes. Think of the children.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:14 AM on January 31, 2002
my anti-drug is tomatoes.
posted by jcterminal at 8:46 AM on January 31, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 8:46 AM on January 31, 2002
The War on Drugs would end quickly, and cost nothing to the tax-payer, if drug takers decided to obey the law and give up drug taking. Or they could all just go back to wherever it is they came from -- no true American would ever use drugs (besides alcohol, tobacco, coffee, prescription, tv, etc.)
posted by fellorwaspushed at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2002
I think Neale is a figment of someone's stoned imagination, who else would believe that It is illegal because the Government that the American people voted in declared it so . As old uncle Bill Burroughs once said, The war on drugs is a folly and a menace. Racist too. Help keep America free!
posted by fellorwaspushed at 9:17 AM on January 31, 2002
« Older Lileks doesn't like us anymore. | Is the Internet Suffering from Acute 'Englishitis'... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Who can argue with that? Oliver North and the other Reaganites know that without cocaine there wouldn't have been nearly enough Kalashnikovs and RPGs in the hands of the contras.
posted by sacre_bleu at 10:52 AM on January 30, 2002