# What is with these anti-drug commercials? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2003, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649 "2003-11-17T05:00:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2003, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/61 "2003-11-17T18:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > **The ads are _supposed_ to shock people; to get them to think.** They certainly make me think. They make me think “wow, what a stupid, condecending ad.” ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/62 "2003-11-17T19:44:58Z")
> [@](#): > > (Rosencrantz, 1983). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead. ---
**Author:** ![threeorange](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@threeorange](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threeorange)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2003, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/63 "2003-11-17T20:29:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by aurelian \* > \*\*I agree with \*\*spooje[b/]. What unnerves me about those commercials is that by focusing on marijuana, they are making other drugs, like alcohol in particular, seem less dangerous. > There is one commercial with two crash test dummies in a car, and the voice over says (something like): ‘In a roadside study, more than 1/3 of people that had accidents were found to have marijuana in there system’. What they **don’t** mention is how many of those people (also) had alcohol in their systems, or who participated in the study. > Of course pot is dangerous; as is any drug. It’s possible that I could take too much of my prescribed drug for medication and be so wiry that I have an accident. The commercials aren’t effective because they’re _so_ hyperbolic - they focus on severe, sensational possible outcomes, and by ignoring other drugs(often more dangerous, especially as far as drivers are concerned) the point is lost. \*\* Actually what the commercial says is that 1/3 of people involved in accidents who were _tested_ for drugs were found to have marijuana in their systems. Assuming that only those people whow were suspected of being under the influence were tested, it makes the implied message that “marijuana causes one-third of auto accidents” even more of a logical non-sequitur. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2003, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/64 "2003-11-17T21:32:38Z")
I just saw that commercial for the first time last night. What a load of shit. The first thing I thought of, and as someone already said, you could replace pot with anything. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_of\_the\_CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/58956e/32.png) [@Earl\_of\_the\_CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_of_the_CC)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2003, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/65 "2003-11-17T21:38:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CrazyCatLady \* > \*\*I don’t know about humans but it _is_ possible for a dog to eat enough pot to be fatal. Their hearts slow down and their blood pressure drops until they just…die. It takes an awful lot of the stuff, even for a smallish dog. You’d be surprised how much even a small dog can eat, though; sometimes the only thing that saves them is the fact that it was a pretty small stash. > > If dogs can eat enough to kill themselves, it stands to reason that we could, too. \*\* This is a very disturbing post. You make it sound like you tested it yourself. Heh heh. Maybe you’re a bit too protective of your cats… ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/66 "2003-11-18T00:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by HeartOfGold_ > The current opinion within the United States government is that the risk to society [posed by the illegal drugs] is too great to be outweighed by the loss of freedom by those who wish to indulge themselves in those drugs. If you think this is wrong, vote accordingly. Vote for _who_? This ridiculous anti-drug hysteria, which is constantly being fueled by these dishonest and manipulative ads, has made it political suicide for any candidate to come out against the War on Some Drugs. People on my side of the debate have virtually no representation. Especially when you consider that the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and prison lobbies are more than happy to lean hard on any politician who doesn’t toe the line. What have we got to match that? Woody Harrelson? If we want politicians to listen to us, we’ve got to speak up. And part of that is pointing out what utter bullshit the Paternership for a Drug Free America is peddling. ---
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/67 "2003-11-18T00:16:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HeartOfGold \* > **If you think this is wrong, vote accordingly** I do when I have the chance. Considering that official polls show that 37% of Americans favor decrim, you’d think there would be more candidates that support it, too. There aren’t. > [@](#): > > If a person wants to do drugs safely at home, with no chance of harming me, more power to them. But, this isn’t how it always happens. Hence the current laws. You know, I’ve been around people that have been on plenty of illegal drugs. The only time I was actually afraid for my safety was with violent DRUNK people. The only time in my adulthood that I ever have been physically attacked, it was a drunk person (and for absolutely no reason). Luckily, he was drunk enough that most of his punches missed wildly and I was able to get away. Yes, some illegal drugs can make people act more violent just like alcohol. However, much of the violence associated with illegal drugs is due simply to the fact that they are illegal. When big money can be made from illegal activity, violence tends to accompany it. You think the St. Valentine’s Day massacre would have happened if there were no prohibition? Of course not. > [@](#): > > The commercial, no matter who paid for it, was making the point that one is subject to the consequences for one’s own actions. But the problem here is that drug users who aren’t a detriment to society are subject to the same punishment as those who are. This isn’t the case with alcohol. How is this fair? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ilsa Lund \* > **Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.** Your point being… ? I’m assuming what you’re trying to say is that the research is old. Yes, it is. In fact, the other study is even older. If you can find a newer study, by all means, look it up. I couldn’t find one online. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/68 "2003-11-18T00:26:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by neutron star \* > \*\*That’s a good question. I’ve heard anecdotal evidence of casual heroin use. I know plenty of people who casually use less-poweful opiate-based pills without getting addicted. I doubt that there are many people who casually inject heroin, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that there are some who snort it or lace a bowl of weed with it occasionally. Good point: I was thinking heroin=intravenous. Like I said, “probably” no. I haven’t researched heroin more than enough to know its not something I ever want to try. If legalizing it were more than just an academic exercise, I’d make an effort to be better informed about it. > [@](#): > > Does that mean you think alcohol should be illegal? Violent drunks are pretty common. And cocaine has certainly been known to give people itchy trigger fingers. Theoretically, alcohol ought to be more illegal than weed or acid. In the real world, we know from experience that banning alcohol is a dumb idea. Additionally, violent drunks may be common, but drinking itself is so entirely pervasive, that I suspect the number of violent drunks must be a vanishingly small percentage of the total number of people that use alcohol at all. But certainly, when judged by the standards that keep other drugs illegal, there’s absolutely no rational argument for not banning alcohol, too. Which is why those standards ought to be significantly relaxed. > [@](#): > > I knew one guy who tried PCP a couple of times. He said it was pretty bizarre, but didn’t make him feel violent. So, like alcohol and cocaine, it apparently doesn’t have that effect on everyone. Again, it’s another drug that I only know enough about to know I want to avoid it, so I could be totally wrong in my assessment of it. If someone wants to argue for legalizing PCP, I’m more than willing to listen. ---
**Author:** ![HeartOfGold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7ab992/32.png) [@HeartOfGold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeartOfGold)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/69 "2003-11-18T00:50:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > \*\*Vote for _who_? This ridiculous anti-drug hysteria, which is constantly being fueled by these dishonest and manipulative ads, has made it political suicide for any candidate to come out against the War on Some Drugs. People on my side of the debate have virtually no representation. Especially when you consider that the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and prison lobbies are more than happy to lean hard on any politician who doesn’t toe the line. What have we got to match that? Woody Harrelson? > > If we want politicians to listen to us, we’ve got to speak up. And part of that is pointing out what utter bullshit the Paternership for a Drug Free America is peddling. \*\* Actually, from what he said on the Rock the Vote debate on cnn, Dennis Kucinich supports “decriminalization” of pot. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by neutron star_ > But the problem here is that drug users who aren’t a detriment to society are subject to the same punishment as those who are. This isn’t the case with alcohol. How is this fair? That isn’t fair. But, as I said before, I think it will be a long, long time before that is ever changed. I haven’t tried drugs and I don’t plan on it. That doesn’t mean that I think mostly harmless drugs should be banned or are evil or anything like that. But, most people don’t see it that way (at least in the thumper zone). As is, drugs are illegal; users are subject to punishment (for the use and for their possible actions while under the influences). And so, I view this commercial (and all like it) in the same light as the underage drinking commercials. Repetitive, yes. Preacherish, yes. But not inappropriate. ---
**Author:** ![neutron\_star](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/51bf81/32.png) [@neutron\_star](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neutron_star)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/70 "2003-11-18T01:20:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HeartOfGold \* > **Actually, from what he said on the Rock the Vote debate on cnn, Dennis Kucinich supports “decriminalization” of pot.** Wow. Thanks for the heads-up on that one. I had never checked out his site before, but now that I [do](http://www.kucinich.us/issues/issue_drugwar.htm): > [@](#): > > A safe, free and just America is undermined, not bolstered, by the costly and ineffective War on Drugs. While well-intentioned, this misguided policy – which emphasizes criminalization over treatment – has led to increased violent crime, misdirected resources of law enforcement and restricted Constitutional liberties. > > Despite billions spent yearly on the drug war, addiction is up. Our country must rethink a policy that produces many casualties, but benefits only the prison-industrial complex. Non-violent drug offenders often receive Draconian sentences, tearing apart families. Nice. He’s also in favor of legislation at the federal level in support of gay marriage, and also wants to allow open homosexuals in the military. Plus campaign finance reform and universal health care. Seems like a candidate worth supporting. ---
**Author:** ![lezlers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@lezlers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lezlers)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/71 "2003-11-18T01:45:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HeartOfGold \* > **[ I hate those political posters that go in people’s yards; I’m not going to try to get rid of them (even though they are paid for by your tax dollars).** Minor nitpick: campaign yard signs are not paid for with tax payer money. They’re paid for by…wait for it…the candidates campaign funds. > [@](#): > > **\ > On a slight hijack (sorry) when you meet people on ecstasy, does it just seem like they aren’t ever happy? No laughing, not smiling? Like their endorphins are just gone. If I understand how ecstasy works, their endorphins _are_ really diluted. > \** Um, esctasy makes people _very_ happy. Hence the name. I find it increadibly odd that you’ve seen even a single person on esctacy that wasn’t laughing and/or smiling. Excuse me if that was a woosh. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/72 "2003-11-18T01:56:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HeartOfGold \* > **If a person wants to do drugs safely at home, with no chance of harming me, more power to them. But, this isn’t how it always happens. Hence the current laws.** If a person wants to drink alcohol safely at home, with no chance of harming me, more power to them. But, this isn’t how it always happens. Hence the current… oh, wait. :dubious: It seems people can use _that_ dangerous drug responsibly most of the time, and we only need laws against irresponsible use like drunk driving. Why assume it’s any different with marijuana, a far less dangerous drug? > [@](#): > > **The commercial, no matter who paid for it, was making the point that one is subject to the consequences for one’s own actions.** If that’s true, why did they even mention getting high? Why not just say, “If you’re babysitting, you better be out there watching the kid, dude.” Consider how much more common is is for people to use the bathroom and the telephone than to smoke pot. You don’t really think more kids are harmed while their babysitters are smoking pot than are harmed while their babysitters are in the john, or on the phone, do you? > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by lezlers_ > **Um, esctasy makes people very happy. Hence the name. I find it increadibly odd that you’ve seen even a single person on esctacy that wasn’t laughing and/or smiling. Excuse me if that was a woosh.** Perhaps he was talking about people coming down off of ecstasy. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/73 "2003-11-18T01:58:38Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by HeartOfGold_ > I haven’t tried drugs and I don’t plan on it. That doesn’t mean that I think mostly harmless drugs should be banned or are evil or anything like that. But, most people don’t see it that way (at least in the thumper zone). As is, drugs are illegal; users are subject to punishment (for the use and for their possible actions while under the influences). And so, I view this commercial (and all like it) in the same light as the underage drinking commercials. Repetitive, yes. Preacherish, yes. But not inappropriate. Lovely appeal to the majority, there. Very nicely done. Of course, the point that you’re missing is that most people feel that way about drugs because they believe the lies told to them by the PDA, the various political lobbies that have a vested interest in the continued persecution of drug-users, and the spineless pols who aren’t shy about playing on the public’s fear and ignorance to get them re-elected. These commercials are “inappropriate” because they are _dishonest,_ they are a waste of money (some of which happens to be _my_ money), and they serve only to exacerbate the problem, not solve it. The fact that the majority of Americans believe their lies doesn’t make that “okay,” it makes them _even less_ appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![HeartOfGold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7ab992/32.png) [@HeartOfGold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeartOfGold)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/74 "2003-11-18T02:05:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lezlers \* > Minor nitpick: campaign yard signs are not paid for with tax payer money. They’re paid for by…wait for it…the candidates campaign funds. Some of those funds are from the government. Like the federal matching funds that Dean and Kerry just turned down. > [@](#): > > Um, esctasy makes people _very_ happy. Hence the name. I find it increadibly odd that you’ve seen even a single person on esctacy that wasn’t laughing and/or smiling. Excuse me if that was a woosh. Nah. You weren’t being wooshed. The loss of serotonin (not endorphins, I goofed there) must cause something. I was asking what they are like when they aren’t on esctacy. From my understanding, the damage to serotonin terminals would cause some damage. Serotonin affects moods and emotions. I figure most hard core esctacy users would suffer some major downs while not on the drug. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/75 "2003-11-18T02:29:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Your point being… ? > > I’m assuming what you’re trying to say is that the research is old. Yes, it is. In fact, the other study is even older. If you can find a newer study, by all means, look it up. I couldn’t find one online. No point, just being asinine. ---
**Author:** ![HeartOfGold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7ab992/32.png) [@HeartOfGold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeartOfGold)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/76 "2003-11-18T02:30:15Z")
**Miller** , drug use _is_ harmful (although it depends on the drug). I have only seen the commercial in passing, and only remember vague parts of it. But, I don’t remember it mentioning weed specifically at all. I remember it said “stoned.” Maybe it did say something about marijuana, but I don’t remember and what it did say about weed (if anything) hasn’t (as far as I’ve seen) been specified in the thread. This is the only commercial I have seen of the campaign. Maybe some clearly wrong assertions that they have stated is what I’m looking for. I don’t think that the message was that every pot smoker is also a baby killer. It was, in my opinion, giving a possible scenario that could (or maybe has) taken place if the person is irresponsible. This whole thing is over responsibility in my eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/77 "2003-11-18T03:31:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HeartOfGold \* > **Miller** , drug use _is_ harmful (although it depends on the drug). I have only seen the commercial in passing, and only remember vague parts of it. But, I don’t remember it mentioning weed specifically at all. I remember it said “stoned.” Well, thanks for dropping by to share your almost entirely uninformed opinion with us. You’ve been a hoot. Incidentally, “stoned” means “high on marijuana.” You don’t get stoned on beer, and you don’t get drunk on LSD, and you don’t trip on marijuana. > [@](#): > > Maybe it did say something about marijuana, but I don’t remember and what it did say about weed (if anything) hasn’t (as far as I’ve seen) been specified in the thread. > This is the only commercial I have seen of the campaign. Maybe some clearly wrong assertions that they have stated is what I’m looking for. Well, let’s see. Other allegations of the “dangers” of marijuana use include: vehicular manslaughter (despite studies showing that people driving under the influence of marijuana are _less_ likely to get in an accident), accidental shootings (specifically, two stoned teenagers find they’re dad’s gun in an unlocked desk drawer and one of them gets shot. Works as an anti-gun commercial, really stupid as an anti-drug commercial), date rape (WTF?), and the destruction of the World Trade Center. (WTF x 10[sup]10[/sup]) > [@](#): > > I don’t think that the message was that every pot smoker is also a baby killer. It was, in my opinion, giving a possible scenario that could (or maybe has) taken place if the person is irresponsible. Then why mention drug use at all? Where’re the commercials saying, “Just tell her parents you weren’t watching her because you were watching TV.” How about, “Just tell her parents you weren’t watching her because you were talking to your friend on the phone.” How about, “Just tell her parents you weren’t watching her because you were giving your boyfriend a blowjob?” Of all the reasons for someone to not be watching a kid, why single out marijuana? > [@](#): > > This whole thing is over responsibility in my eyes. Well, since you only vaguely remember the commercial in the first place, your interpretation ain’t worth much, is it? ---
**Author:** ![HeartOfGold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/7ab992/32.png) [@HeartOfGold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeartOfGold)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/78 "2003-11-18T03:51:19Z")
**Miller** are drugs harmless? Am I also uninformed because I have heard “stoned” used to refer to other highs? I don’t know why marijuana was singled out. Write them and ask if you are that curious. I am glad to see that you are so narrow-minded in this. Differing opinions don’t matter. Good outlook on life, really. When I said it was over responsibility, I figured you would read what I was saying as “responsible drug use” or “extra responsibilities that are incurred by the user.” But, again, I’m glad to see that my opinion isn’t worth jack shit. ---
**Author:** ![emacularius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@emacularius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacularius)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/79 "2003-11-18T04:06:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by HeartOfGold \* > \*\*I didn’t assume you were any specific age, **emacularius**. I know several, if not many, people my age that have children/are pregnant. > > I see your logic insofar as not being overly obsessed about one thing or another. But you can’t deny that drugs can and will cause accidents (automotive for a personal–not meaning myself-- example). One accident could very well affect your daughter; just by living she is in danger. But that is no reason to ignore a problem completely. You may need no help worrying about your child, but I’d bet most other people don’t really care when they are out having fun. They aren’t thinking of you. > > You say legalize pot but restrict it from underage/driving/etc. persons? I know people my age (extending to several years younger) that use alcohol, weed, and some heavier drugs without giving a rats ass about the legality of it. I personally, though, don’t have a problem with it being legalized. But legalizing it won’t improve responsiblity on anyone’s part. > > If this same commercial had been directed at underage drinking, would you have had a problem with it? \*\* I was hoping you weren’t going to tell me that you’re a parent at 17. Being alive poses risks, that’s a given… the issue is any person who is already responsible doesn’t need that kind of paranoia waved under their nose. The ones that aren’t responsible and don’t give a shit aren’t going to respond. As you’ve already said… you know lots of people who don’t give a rats ass about the legality of what they are doing… what makes you think they give a rats ass about how it may or may not affect anyone else? Legalizing marijuana won’t improve anyone’s responsibility… but what it will do is save this country a lot of money, prevent alot of people from going to jail who have no business there, and cut off funding for alot of illegal activity associated with the drug trade. I’ve taken issue with this particular commercial because it’s alarmist and paranoid… so if it were about underaged drinking, I’d probably find it just as offensive. It just wouldn’t stir up my feelings on the issue of pot. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2003, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649/80 "2003-11-18T04:08:33Z")
It’s not differing opinions that don’t matter, it’s _uninformed_ opinions. And excuse me for not reading the text you didn’t include. Thoughtless of me, really. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-with-these-anti-drug-commercials/213649.md?page=5)