The most ridiculous Ant-Drug/tobacco message in media.

No, but it does sort of turn you in to a cave man… you know [Animal Voice]WOMAAAAN!!! WOOOOMANNN!!![/AV]. Included in the cave man thing is that you are really stupid, and could never be smooth enough to actually interest someone you weren’t already dating or something. They should use THAT in a commercial!

I’m thinking of lots of real-life examples from the time when I was smoking pot that would work better than the commercials I’ve seen. Hell, they’d probably have more success just talking about how much weight you gain when you smoke a lot of pot. But then the skinny little guys might get interested… hmm.

LC

This one. it looks like it was made by Salvador Dali.

There is a ghetto. A black one. The entire commercial is black. Black hands playing games of chance. black, grim, hellish music. A vaguely disturbing robotic voice is chanting in the background.

How, may I ask, would this say don’t do drugs?

Where are all the anti-alcohol ads?

Booze might not fuel terrorism, but it is responible for more deaths and violent crimes in a year than all the terrorist attacks of the last 20.

I thought that too.

No one would believe it, because everybody knows that Shaggy from Scooby Doo was a pot-head, and Shaggy was built like a bean pole.

Originally posted by Avalonian

Wow, talk about an uninformed, gross generalization. Have you ever used on a regular basis?

The stereotype of the average pot smoker being a pimple-faced teenager, giggling uncontrollably while stuffing their face with deep-fried potato products is, while not unheard of, just that: a stereotype.

I looked up cites about the effects of driving high, but the results are so mixed, and all obviously biased one way or the other, that I won’t bother posting any that I found.

All I can speak out of, therefore, is personal experience. In my “experimental phase”, I drove under conditions that now I cringe when I think about. I fully admit that the fact that I never killed or hurt anyone (or even had a minor accident for that matter) to be nothing short of miraculous. However, of all the conditions I ever drove under, driving under the influence of marijuana was the only one that I did not feel imparied under.

Of course I was impaired, I was under the influence of a controlled substance. I do not argue that my level of impairment was any better or worse than any other substance (that is another argument altogether), but that of them all, it was the only drug whose influence was not necessarily harmful.

Occasional use of marijuana will impair you beyond the ability to drive, or in fact function at all, and I believe that many of the studies presented that show obvious impairment use test subjects that are not regular users. For the purpose of this discussion, I refer to those that use regularly or heavily.

If you’ve ever smoked pot, you understand the unique sensation of being able focus more intently than otherwise possible. One does get a sort of tunnel experience (not vision, just a concentrated focus, to the point that other outside cues do not exist), enabling the user to focus more clearly on one object or event than normally possible.

When it comes to driving, being able to tune out things other than the act of driving can be harmful, as it could mean blocking out sirens or events taking place on the periphery of vision (not to mention the proven delay in reaction time attributed to the influence). However, these negative aspects are comparable to driving while talking on the cell phone, or changing radio stations, or dropping a lit cigarette, etc.

Unlike those examples though, there is the benefit of being so focused on your driving. I cannot effectively explain the effect, particularly to one that has never experienced it before, but while focused on the act of driving, you do actually drive better because you are so centered on the act, in all of its aspects. You read traffic patterns better, time lights better, understand the ebb and flow of pedestrian traffic better, anticipate other drivers actions better, and so on and so forth.

Now, with all of that said, (and assuming anyone is still reading), I in no way advocate driving under the influence–of any drug, legal or not. But if, hypothetically, I were forced to make the decision of who was going to drive me and my child home, between people under various influences, I’d pick the stoner anyday.

I didn’t see it mentioned in this thread, but how about the (what seems to be) new Truth add? One of the usual teens in these commercials introduces his “friend”, some old, apparently homeless black man reading off of a sheet of paper saying that saying that tobacco companies specifically targeted homeless and gays in something called ‘Project S.C.U.M.’ First of all, if he was this kids friend, why do you think he would exploit him in such a manner? Second, and more seriously, how and why exactly do you target homeless people for cigarette sales? Certainly doesn’t seem that there’s a whole bunch of money to be made in said market.

Ah, but if there’s no money to be made in the Homelessness Racket, then why do all the homeless people have territorial arguments over who gets the best freeway entrances and intersections to set up their “will work for food” signs at?

The lamest anti-smoking commercial is the one where this guy is in line in some bureaucratic office (holding a box for some reason). When he gets to the front of the line, he says, “I’m a smoker, so I was expecting lung cancer, but instead I got a heart attack.”

My first thought was he was supposed to be in hell, because we all know that smokers go to hell. But the lady responds to him with some statistics and says, “if you want lung cancer, just keep smoking.”

Okay, I get the message: Smoking can cause health problems other than lung cancer (already knew that), but the commercial is frigging stupid and doesn’t make any sense!

Neither do most anti-pot/tobacco ads when you really think about them. Those ads are about taking facts out of context to present them in the scariest context possible, even if doing so skews the truth so badly it practically isn’t even the truth any more.

Scare Tactics: The Anti-Drug.

I agree completely. Every time I see one of those ads I want to scream at the T.V. that it’s U.S. drug policy that is financing terrorism, if anything. I’m also angry and suspicious that some of my tax dollar is supporting these disingenous messages.

Heh. These disingenuous messages remind me of some of the World War 2 and Cold War propaganda I se on vintage posters from time to time.

I can just imagine the kind of anti-drug poster we might have gotten at the height of the Red Scare: "Only communists smoke weed!"