Super Bowl advertising
 

USians, as you watch the Super Bowl this year, you'll see two ads bought by the Drug Czar's office.

As you watch those ads, I beg of you to think one thought:

<i>If there was no war on drugs, there would be no illegal drug profits</i>.

It's important that you remember this.

<i>If there was no war on drugs, there would be no illegal drug profits.</i>

It's very obvious, isn't it?

<i>If there was no war on drugs, there would be no illegal drug profits.</i>

Remember those words. And enjoy the game.

Let's Roll
 

How about...

"If there were no war on murder, there would be no illegal murders."

That's quite different. Economics and forced scarcity create the "war" and ridiculous drug costs. This is not really as true for murder.

We should also remember that 1/2 of the anti-drug advertising is free to the Feds since they write the laws they give their message a special rate. Dell would love that deal. (Don't start with that state owned airwaves crap either, I'm in no mood after the Steeler collapse.) ;)

Oh, please..and if "there was no war on cucumbers, there would be no illegal pickles. "
Equating drug use to murder as you have begs the question. Completely.

You know, it's time they put some kind of logic in the engineering curriculum besides boolean. :-)

I personally think that drugs should be legalized, even though I've never used any (illicit) and never will. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The fact of the matter is, however, if drugs were legal, there indeed would be no illegal drug profits... and the same is true with any other crime.

Instead of making an argument on semantics, I think we should present facts as to why drugs should be legalized - such as, for example, the fact that tax payer dollars could go toward more worthy causes (education, etc), less money would be required to run the prisons in the country (less inmates there on stupid charges), and we would virtually eliminate the druglords.

This isn't a war we're going to win with semantics. It's one we're going to win with logic and, honestly, real good fuckin' reasons.

ALL drugs? I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Legalizing marijuana would probably be a good idea. Most pot smokers are pretty harmless... They're lethargic. They're amusing to watch while they stand transfixed in front of the candy rack in the 7-11 at 3:00 in the morning. They're less competition for my kids.

Now, heroin addicts, for example, are a different story. They steal. They're unsightly. They spread disease (albeit mostly to other heroin addicts), and curing them is very expensive. Heroin addicts should be shot on sight.

Well... we won't exactly eliminate them. We'd just allow them to join the ranks of respectable business: Seagrams, Anheuser-Busch, R.J. Reynolds, et. al. Plenty o' loot to be made as a purveyor of recreational pharmaceuticals, you know.

Did anyone actually watch the commercials? The method was ingenious, they connected drug money as spent by users with the funding of terrorism and violent crime (we've been waiting for the two "wars" to combine and now its official). There is more than a little truth in that linking especially in South America and the Balkans. Unfortunately, this bumps into another reallity when we realize that our totalitarian taliban enemies wiped out opium production in Afghanistan (maybe Ashcroft can do the same for us). {sarcasm}. Someone should do a parody commercial with a bunch of Congressman, cops, and soldiers talking about the drug war having driven all this stuff into the underground economy creating a situation where we need to set aside our principles so we can continue to militarize what could be a peaceful if distasteful exchange.

[dhamsaic]
> The fact of the matter is, however, if drugs were legal, there
> indeed would be no illegal drug profits... and the same is true
> with any other crime.

In US society, which is dominated by the profit aspect, making a case for improving society through monetary gains is often the only argument that will cut it. (apart from moral reasoning based on religious principles)

[dhamsaic]
> Instead of making an argument on semantics, I think we should
> present facts as to why drugs should be legalized

Undertoad's argument wasn't semantic. A semantic argument is based on proving that your opponent's use of language was in fact proving your argument, not his, i.e. you are showing that from a language point of view, your argument is more persuasive.
He was merely polemical, but his claim was reasonably accurate. There was little sophistry there.

As for 'facts as to why', since US society is biased against what is broadly labelled 'drugs' through emotional, rather than logical reasons, it's almost hopeless to hope that facts will change the political and social landscape. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people will die from alcohol and tobacco related diseases or accidents.

> such as, for example, the fact that tax payer dollars could go
> toward more worthy causes (education, etc), less money would
> be required to run the prisons in the country (less inmates
> there on stupid charges), and we would virtually eliminate the
> druglords.

That's exactly the 'money' argument Tony was using, although he was emphasizing the fact that no money would go to illegal sources. Taxed properly, a lot of money from marijuana trade would be made by the government. (a *LOT*)

> This isn't a war we're going to win with semantics.

Precisely.

> It's one we're going to win with logic

As I said - since domestic policy is widely based on modulating the public's emotions, not factual senses, this isn't going to work. People react instinctively and violently when they are emotionally manipulated by certain stimuli, and the way the major parties have used the 'war on drugs' to give themselves a 'law and order' image to 'protect the children' and 'reduce crime', which is a fairly obvious ploy to sensationalize the drug issue to create fear and uncertainty.

Whatever happened to the pursuit of happiness, exactly?

X.

Yeah dham, actually you're the one engaging in semantics by dropping the word "profits" which was the key word in my sentence. In fact I could re-word it:

<i>If there was no war on drugs, there would be no profit in drug sales.</i>

As for the ad, it was produced by an outside firm otherwise I'd assume that the point was political, not to convince people to give up drugs. Furthering the attitude that the wars are combined means more support for the drug war. Stupidly the drug war takes enormous resources away from terrorism since FBI agents, local law enforcement, etc are spending their time working the other front.

And you're not supposed to fight a two-front war anyway. Especially when one has been fought for 20 years and is unwinnable.

You don't think the facts could be emotionally loaded?

The war on drugs isn't *all* just a bunch of shit, you know. There are legitimate reasons to not want your citizens consuming certain substances, such as concern for their wellbeing and the fact that some cannot control themselves when under the influence of certain substances, thus putting others in harm's way. All that having been said, you and I both know that if the war on drugs were stopped and a couple of companies were selling drugs at lower prices (they would have to compete with the druglords, you know), the government could tax those sales (by a lot) and put that money toward something useful, such as buying me a new computer (heh). Not only that, but money would be saved from this war on drugs, and that money could go toward detox centers (for those that want to kick the habit), needle exchange programs, etc. This *can* be spun so that it will have an emotional edge, but people will *still* think about it logically and realize that it is a good solution to the current problem.

As for the public's emotional bias against these drugs - that has ALL been woven by the government. Imagine if they came out and said "look, we fucked up, there are some that are definitely *not good* for you, but fighting this is foolish, and we're losing big time. So here's what we're gonna do..." - imagine licensing for pot smokers, etc. (Yes, Hubris, I *am* talking stuff like heroin - what good does it do to make it illegal?) You can get a license at any age, provided you demonstrate that you're emotionally equipped to deal with it and you understand the decision you're making. After that, you can walk down to the corner CVS, flash your pot license and buy an ounce. If it interferes too much in your life and you're under 18, your parents could put in to have it repossessed (but they would have to demonstrate why they want it revoked, of course), and then you can get it back when you're able to demonstrate that you're oh, say, not flunking out of school anymore. I don't have time to type up everything about how I think we should proceed from here, but I think you're getting the idea.

Now, I happen to know that Tony stands for the legalization of at least *something*. I don't know if he uses, and I don't care. I don't either, and you don't need to be a pothead to understand that the war on drugs is, quite honestly, one of the stupidest things the US government has ever embarked on. What matters is that he sees the problem.

All I was saying is that if you want to convince someone of a point, I think you're going to need to reason it out a little more than he did. I'm not sure I know anyone older than 12 that's going to be swayed by that logic. It's a good point, but all it does is reinforce what most of us already know.

The best way to stop the "illegal drug profits" is to end the war on drugs.

Who's got $4 million to help me buy a 1 minute spot for next year's superbowl?

I don't believe that there is any element of the WoD that is not a "bunch of shit". In fact, I believe that the WoD has led to an increase in usage, although I know I'm in the minority in that opinion.

I don't believe that you can protect your citizens by preventing them from harming themselves. I believe that the prohibition is far more harmful. Partly, for example, because it encourages people to think of the Govt as the all-knowing guardians of everyone. I'm not a parent but I hear that letting your kids screw up occasionally is something you do out of love, to show them that there are consequences of their actions. I cannot see the gov't developing the same sense, nor would we ever want it to.

As far as my own usage goes, I disagree that it is irrelevant. I would say that my own usage, which has included both legal and illegal drugs, addictive and non-addictive, psychiatric and non-psychiatric, gives me an excellent understanding of many of the real issues involved. Unfortunately the emotional arguments involved mean that one cannot enter one's own history into the public debate.

Back to the ad, you know, the terrorism that we are familiar with is not funded by drug profits, but redirected oil profits. For my next project I am looking for the full text of the ONDCP ad, to switch out the drug references for oil references. "I didn't know that filling my SUV at the local Exxon would get a firefighter killed."

Our beloved "illegal drug profits" definitely result in the deaths of some people, but I agree that redirected oil profits are much more harmful. Which is why I think about the best thing for this nation would be for gas prices to shoot up to $5 per gallon. Think twice about buying that gas-guzzling piece of shit SUV now, asshole?

Anyway. It's not "harming themselves" that I'm so much worried about, and I guess I didn't make that very clear. Many people have, while under the influence of a "controlled substance", subjected others to pain and suffering - rape, murder, physical abuse, etc. I have a very real problem with that, though I agree that prohibition is not the solution (and really, what is?). However, keeping drugs <b>from those people</b> is probably not a bad idea.

Its not traffic but you'd think...

http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...hew/index.html


Although a definite improvement, dhs liscensing idea would feed another problem we have by reinforcing the centralization of drug production. Pot would be so cheap and easy to produce, I'd hate to see its production limited to politically connected companies. I'd rather find it in an organic farmers market rather than see a Phillip Morris control production and fill it with (more) addictive and toxic substances.

Considering that 100% of the rapists and murderers were heavy users of oxygen, let's keep them all off that drug. :-)

Seriously, if their crime was violence, then punsih them for that. Even that lamer with the 9mm auto at the Taco Bell is is pleading "drugs made me do it".

Bullshit. If you fuck up while you're fucked up, it's *your* fault for getting that fucked up. It's not the fault of what you're fucked up on, which is inanimate and has no volition, be it drugs, guns or alcohol. Speaking of which: dham, isn't it time for your "they only made a small mistake, what a terrible punishment, what if it was your daughter" speech? :-)

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be responsible for their actions. What I <b>am</b> saying is that most recreational drugs serve no useful purpose (i.e., curing disease), and with them come many risks (i.e., the person will freak out and kill someone). We need to be aware of these risks and take steps to prevent them from becoming reality.

As for my personalization of some issues - it is only done when it seems obvious <b>to me</b> that someone is largely apathetic to an issue (or someone's fate) simply because they are so far removed from it. I <b>still</b> don't believe you'd sing the same tone if it happened to your daughter, and I don't believe that verbatim would say "well, it was her fault for dressing like a hussy" if his mother got gang raped. Drug users that murder others (or rape them or whatever) most certainly should be held accountable for their actions, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't think that being drunk and banging on the wrong door does <b>not</b> merit a death sentence, nor do I think that going to get a story means you deserve to be kidnapped, held hostage and possibly murdered.

You always counter with "well, that <b>hasn't</b> happened" - because you're lucky, and because your daughter "knows better". Well what if she didn't? She's still your daughter, and you still love her. You are only removed from one man's fate by the fact that <b>you do not love him more than life itself</b>, as you surely do your daughters. If you did, it would be a different story, period. If your daughter went on a backpacking excursion to Kashmir and got decapitated, I seriously doubt your response would be "well, she deserved it for being so stupid as to go there." No, you would grieve, and you would probably agree with me that going on a backpacking excursion to Kashmir does not merit a death sentence, even though it is one of the places where you most certainly do <b>not</b> want to travel.

No, we don't. That's several unsupported assertions. Perhaps recreational drugs serve no "useful purpose" for *you*, but that doesn't speak for everyone, and doesn't entitle you to start exercising cooercion over others just because *you're* filled with fear you only think is reasonable. Drugs aren't evil. Drugs don't commit crimes. Evil or irresponsible people will continue to commit mahem on others no matter how many different knids of scissors Mommy dham takes away from them. Why aren't you lobbying for alcohol prohibition? Oh...I see...alcohol has a useful purpose....for you.

Being that drunk *does* merit a death sentence when you get behind the wheel of a car, as the dimwit in the example was (only moments before he found an even dumber way to die). That'a a matter of *natural* law, not the product of some legislature...and in the court of the real world such appeals based on your personal set of values don't apply.

Don't confuse apathy with a failure to respond to your hysteria. My analysis of the situation is just different from yours..I frame the issues differently than you do. It irritates and angers me when sombody decides that the way to deal with stupid or evil actions by other people is to try to restict my personal freedom in some pointless, arbitrary way.

That's an irrelevant counterfactual. And I've *never* asserted it was because I was "lucky"; you're making that one up. It's not luck.

You seem to live in a world of magic and luck, where *things* are evil or stupid rather than *people*. Simply because it's easier to make laws about things rather than behaviors doesn't mean it's the best way to regulate society and protect people.

In fact, it's the worst...

No, you very clearly do not.

First, let's define useful, because you are very obviously not using it in the same way I am.

To me, useful is having a beneficial or practical use, or helping to complete a need. For example: cars are useful because they take you from one place to another. Guns are useful because they protect you from those looking to do you and your loved ones harm. Toilets are useful because they remove your bodily waste and therefore reduce the spread of disease.

Alcohol is useful 'cause... oh wait.

Cocaine is useful because... hmmmm...

Heroin is useful because... uhhhhh.....

Psilocybin is useful because... well, dammit...

Marijuana is useful because... hey, doesn't it maybe help with glaucoma? And doesn't it generally give users the munchies, which can help chemotherapy patients who have lost their appetites (and therefore, far too much weight)?

Hence my usage of the word <b>MOST</b>. I didn't claim that none did, and I didn't say that we should ban the ones that I don't feel are particularly useful. I did say something about legalizing all (yes, ALL) of them. Fine point though. Touché. Really.

Now, your astonishingly ignorant comment about alcohol serving a useful purpose to me: <b>WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?</b> How do you figure, Maggie? WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE? Oh yeah, that's right, <b>I DON'T FUCKING DRINK ALCOHOL, and I NEVER WILL</b>. What useful purpose? Or were you just <b>MAKING SHIT UP</b>? 'Cause I seem to remember being, oh, <b>REALLY FUCKING STRONGLY AGAINST ALCOHOL USE</b>. That was a GREAT example. You really nailed me on that one! Never been drunk, only tasted alcohol once when I was about 8 and my dad gave me a taste of his beer. Never done drugs. Have been sober my entire life. <b>Fuck off</b>.

Wow. We agree. But since the executioner didn't know that his neighbor, the executed, had been driving while drunk, it really is <b>WHOLLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT</b>. It doesn't matter if the fucker was a goddamn kiddie rapist, because BANGING ON SOMEONE'S DOOR REALLY LOUD IS NOT (AND SHOULD NOT BE) A CAPITOL CRIME.

Hey, me too. I don't like showing ID when I write a check either. Guess what? <b>IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT</b>. We were talking about repealing some drug laws while considering that maybe letting those with a history of violence while under the influence of cocaine have said drug might be a bad idea. You'll notice that I didn't say <b>what</b> steps we should take to prevent them. Of course, that doesn't stop you from jumping the gun and making statements based upon ignorance and your misinterpretation of what I said.

I didn't say you did. <b>I</b> said you were lucky. Your words are quoted, and always will be. My sincerest apologies for you not understanding what I very simply wrote. I don't blame you though - understanding grammar and writing style requires more thought than a Pepsi commercial.

You seem to be mentally retarded, because I've never said that "things" were evil - simply that some substances, when coupled with the right persons, can produce undesired results. It's not the substance's fault, and I never said it was. But I fail to see how making such substances readily available to said people is beneficial to society as a whole or any person as an individual. Your cloud of bullshit can be awful blinding...

Wow, yeah. I see your point. I also recall never saying that it was, and I think I remember maybe saying something about legalizing drugs while taking steps to prevent <b>behaviors</b>. Of course, you argue my point and then turn around and say the same thing. I'm gratified. I'm also placing you on my ignore list, because you're a waste of my time. Have a good one.

Alcohol is useful 'cause...

...it extends lives. The average moderate drinker survives the average teetotaler by several years. Every single study has proven it. Historically, it has been one of the most-used medications, and saved many entire societies by being the primary beverage when other water sources were contaminated.

But perhaps the most useful function of alcohol is AS A DRUG. It provides what one might call "social lubrication", allowing people to gather and to lower their inhibitions just enough to become outgoing. So common is the human need for this, that in most areas it is hard to find a gathering where there is no alcohol.

Cocaine is useful because... hmmmm...

... I don't know. Never understood this one.

Heroin is useful because... uhhhhh.....

It's part of a family of drugs that provides pain relief. Probably has medicinal use in terminal patients, where you obviously don't care if they develop a dependence.

Psilocybin is useful because... well, dammit...

It probably has use within a structured framework of psychiatry. Otherwise, it is useful because people enjoy it.

Marijuana is useful because...

... it may be the most-used drug in the world by people who are self-medicating for mild clinical depression.

My point being that "useful" is a relative term about which people disagree. Fortunately I don't have to submit everything I do to some bozo for a "usefulness" review. At least not yet.

Sorry I missed that you're an alcohol abstainer. Maybe you should try some; it might loosen you up, and that might be "useful" from some points of view. But failing that, then I suppose you advocate prohibition of alcohol too? Since you imply it's not "useful", along with heroin and psylocybin? But marijuana *is* useful?

Again: attempting to control behavior by creating new classes of contraband has never worked, and always creates another black market, and thus expands the criminal economy. Whether a particular prohibitionist law is already on the books or not has nothing to do with whether having such laws is a good idea...which *is* what we were talking about, I thought.

The naked drunk who was shot while breaking into his neighbors house demonstrated he was a hazard to himself and others. He *almost* managed to make home to bed without killing himself or anybody else. But it was only *almost*.

Anybody who tries to break into somebody else's house is doing something very *dangerous* (even if they're fully clothed), and being too drunk to realize he was doing it doen't make it one whit less dangerous. Breaking and entering *should* be dangerous...and having it *be* dangerous is a much better deterrant than classifying crowbars and glass cutters as "burglar's tools" and taking them off the shelf at Home Depot.

Of course, *nothing* will "deter" someone who's too intoxicated to know he's comitting a crime. And I'm not in favor of making the world safer for drunk drivers...even if they *almost* make it home before they finally screw up permanently.

If a naked, incoherent man tries to break in my back door at 3am, he's in *danger*. Of course, I'm always responsible for restraining my use of deadly force against such a person to the minimum necessary to ensure my own safety...which is something the shooter in this case apparently (based on the published evidence) did not do...the evidence is he was so frightened that he continued firing even after the drunk turned around and fell down.

But if the *first* shot had been a killing shot, while the drunk was still pushing his way into the house, it would have been a righteous shoot in my opinion, and the fault *entirely* with the naked drunk. He's not entitled to rely on the homeowner being a bad shot or recognizng that the naked incoherent man trying to break down his door at 3am doesn't have crminal intent, any more than he's entitled to rely on the other drivers and pedestrians on the road on his way home giving his car a wide berth because they can see he's "driving like a drunk". But even his survivors aren't acknowlegeing his resposibility for the outcome of his actions--not only have they sued the homeowner (and his company) for the shooting, they're also suing the bar where he was drinking, for letting him get that drunk.

Your words were <i>You always counter with "well, that hasn't happened" - because you're lucky, and because your daughter "knows better"...</i>. I guess I mixed up the causes I offered and the silly idea you were inserting in the middle of my words. I'll have to watch for the quote marks next time. It certinaly seemed you were saying that *I* claimed I was lucky. I see now you were trying to sneak your *own* claim that I'm lucky by in the midst of that.

But it's *not* "luck" that my daughter knows better, nor is it "bad luck" that Pearl, the WSJ reporter, was kidnapped by the terrorists he was trying to interview, nor "bad luck" that the wandering drunk happed to pick a armed household to try to break into. These are *all* forseeable consequences of people's actions. Making posession or use of *things* illegal in an attempt to forclose stupidity or malice on the part of *people* is misguided, and always rife with unintended consqences.

speaking in terms of who deserves what, i cannot say that i think a girl who dresses like a "slut" should not be surprised when she gets raped.

i knew a guy named jesse. this guy named jesse had an ex-girlfriend named sarah. sarah was not hard to get into bed, so to speak. sarah had a friend named matt who was in jail for raping someone. matt got out of jail and wanted to visit sarah. sarah, having been good friends with the guy, said "alrighty, come on over!" and when matt got there, he raped her.

now. jesse always told me that this was her own fault for being "such a fucking slut", and this statement always pissed me off beyond almost anything else that ever pissed me off because in my opinion no one deserves to be raped. doesn't matter how much of a slut you are, it doesn't matter if you dress like a cheap whore, it doesn't matter if you walk naked through a horrible city. it doesn't matter if a guy you know is a rapist and you agree to have lunch with him anyway. you do not ask to be raped, and no one has the right to rape you, no matter what.

i'm pretty sure dave was saying that you would definitely think differently about the situation IF (it's a hypothetical situation, take it as one) your daughter was raped.

IF your daughter was walking through a bad part of baltimore wearing skimpy clothing, and she got raped, it is doubtful that you would take her aside in the midst of her crying and tell her that she shouldn't have been wearing skimpy clothing in that part of the city. you'd probably try to console her. if it even crossed your mind that she was an idiot, or that she got what she deserved for dressing how she did, i think you'd be a pretty odd person.

it is very easy to say that someone you don't know deserves something, because you are not emotionally attached to that person. maybe you can look at it more "rationally" than their family because you don't know that person. and you haven't been in their situation. so it's not a close issue to you. maybe someday, though, it will happen to you, and you will understand the other side of the argument.

wow, what a shit storm. take a valium ;)

i think my opinions on the matter should be obvious by now. legalize it all - across the board. prohibition never makes sense. license it, regulate it.. whatever, just open the frickin dialogue on the issue already.

and i could tell you a few good uses for psilocybin, lsd, dmt, 2cb, and other drugs no one seems to understand the purpose of... much like anything in life, its not for everyone.

Legalise all hard drugs anyway.
Sell it far, far cheaper in pharmacies, but still expensive, and by buying it, you start an account and automatically sign up fr social services. You kill a multitrillion dollar illegal industry, and help some of the most vunerable people in society.

Recreational drugs are harder, but things like extacy, for crying out loud, give up, legalise it, and tax it to hell, booze can fuck you up as much as extacy, its just one has been around longer.

In a piece in today's Salon (that I can't link to because it's in their subscriber-only area), Arianna Huffington agrees with me. The ads suck!

Here are select paragraphs from it:
--

In addition to setting new standards for illogic, the ads are also exercises in highly selective finger-pointing. We know, for instance, that bin Laden and al-Qaida used tens of millions of dollars in profits from the diamond industry to fund their operations. So how come we didn't see a commercial with a woman, say, a senator's wife, fingering the diamonds on her sparkling tennis bracelet and admitting: "I helped kids learn how to kill"? And, given the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers, and most of the detainees in Cuba, came from Saudi Arabia -- where the ruling family, glutted with oil profits, has coddled extremists for decades -- why no taxpayer-funded ad showing a soccer mom filling up her SUV and saying: "I helped blow up buildings"?

Simple. Linking diamonds or oil to terror doesn't fit the Bush agenda. Conflating the war on drugs with the war on terrorism does. These ads are nothing more than a lamebrained attempt to give the drug war a desperately needed makeover -- turning it from a dismal, multibillion dollar failure into a vital front in America's war against the Evil Ones. "Just Say No" repackaged as "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." After all, any suggested front in the War on Terrorism can't be questioned without the questioner being labeled unpatriotic.