Minor nitpick: ‘Stoned’ has been used to indicated drunk. In The Americanization of Emily (great film, circa 1964), James Garner and Keenen Wynn discuss the possibilty of thrying to film the 1st American killed in the Invasion of Normandy without any film in the camera. Wynn tells Garner that he and his partner had been drinking for some time, so they were pretty stoned, but weren’t stoned enough to try a stupid stunt like that.
Everything I know, I learned from movies.
I’ve known (and partied with) a bunch of people who used heroin. In the early nineties it was pretty popular…I’m one of the few who never went harder than snorting coke.
Of the dozen or so friends who used heroin, one got addicted and another died from overdose. (I suspect intent was involved in that one.)
All in all, not so bad when compared to crack and freebasing. Of the half dozen or so friends who did either, every single one became an addict.
Then again, most of my pothead friends still smoke on the weekends, and all still drink, so both of those substances could be construed as being just as addictive. The symptoms of chronic weed-smoking and casual drinking do not, however, include stealing cash and prescription drugs from friends’ houses.
neutron star: just FYI, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is the title of a 1990 film starring Richard Dreyfuss, Gary Oldman and Tim Roth, based on Tom Stoppard’s play of the same name. Has bugger all to do with this thread, of course. 
Dictionaries work, too. 
Ah, thank you. I had never heard of that film. I had no idea what the hell Ilsa_Lund meant by that post.
Regarding the “stoned used to mean drunk” issue, people were apparently using that definition until at least the '70s, as a reference can also be found in Billy Joel’s “Piano Man”:
“And the waitress is practicing politics
As the businessmen slowly get stoned
Yes they’re sharing a drink they call loneliness
But it’s better than drinking alone”
Of course, nowadays, it does sound as foreign as “tweaking on Valium” or “trippin’ balls on caffeine” so the commercial obviously was talking about marijuana.
This is almost the exact same argument used against foul language on television. People can, under law, say whatever they like (minus a few situations, of course). When you say spreading fear, it isn’t the same as yelling “bomb” in a crowded theatre. That would be illegal. If propaganda is the choice method, that’s unfortunate. Why don’t you get together with some friends and create a reverse campaign. Maybe the two extremes will balance out in the minds of the viewers.
(No, I’m not really suggesting that you do that: a waste of time. Though, I’d find it very amusing.)
Maybe you should write a letter to the campaign and ask what drug(s) they were trying to condemn. Complain about their methods as well, while you’re at it.
This is what I fail to understand: if this is such a sore issue, why not do something about it? I can’t even vote yet, my opinion doesn’t matter to the government. Write some letters, phone your congressman’s office, start a petition. Call your County Chair and say you’d like him/her to support Kucinich in the primaries. Do something about it if you care so much. This is your country, fix it.
I’m curious: if the commercials weren’t about pot, but were instead about any harder drugs, like coke or crystal meth or whatever, would the derision be any less? Why or why not?
Not trying to make a point, just ask a genuine question…
I don’t think it the derision would be any less, since it’s not the drug that’s the problem, (in the commercials) it’s the scenerios.
Take the “alcohol test.” In any of those commercials, substitute “alcohol” with “weed” and you would get the same result. Therefore, the commercial is pointless, since alcohol is legal and poses the same dangers. Actually, more dangers. So it doesn’t matter what substance you substitute. If you can plug in “alcohol” and have the same results, the commercial is misleading.
It’s not the particular illegal substance that would make those scenerios happen, it’s not paying attention or being intoxicated on, well, anything really.
These commercials really do make me long for the classic “this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs. Any questions?” At least they were honest.
These commercials are pretty much saying “be in any of these scenerios drunk, and it’s okay. Stoned and a catastrophe is bound to happen.” It’s insulting to the intelligence.
I hope that made sense.
No, it’s a rebuttal to your weak excuse “but this fearmongering is OK because there’s already all that other fearmongering out there!”
The differences between fearmongering propaganda and foul language should be obvious. Fearmongering propaganda is dishonest, wastes our time and money, and may convince people who don’t know better to support our failed prohibition–which is a far bigger waste of time and money.
No shit. Nobody is saying the commercials are illegal. They are, however, misleading and a waste of tax dollars.
Are you still pretending the commercial isn’t about pot? This is getting ridiculous.
Part of solving the problem is raising awareness - in this case, griping on the SDMB.
I think it would be slightly less if the commercial were about a physically addictive drug, because addicts are likely to interrupt important activities to get a fix. “Tell her parents you weren’t watching because you’re a crackhead and you couldn’t wait another 5 minutes to light up” is more realistic than “because you were getting stoned”, but still not nearly as realistic as “because you were in the bathroom or on the phone”.
Whoosh. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minor characters from Hamlet. The movie was based on the characters, who of course died in the paly. I saw “Rosencrants” and couldn’t pass up the opportunity.
HeartOfGold, I called you uniformed because you’re trying to offer an opinion on a commercial you’ve admitted you barely remember.
In related news, you’re an idiot.
See, your wording on this is exactly what I’m suggesting they are doing. I highly doubt that the makers would support consumption of alcohol, btw. I also highly doubt that the makers expect people to believe that every death is the direct result of marijuana use. Assuming that everyone who sees this commercial will, without fail, make the ‘death of baby = pot’ connection is insulting to the intelligence. These are just possibilites.
This page was linked earlier in the thread:
http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/television.html
I don’t have the plug-ins to watch most of them (and I think real player is evil and out to get me). But some of them have transcripts.
From looking at the transcripts, the New Parent ones seem to be anti-drug in general.
Flash Forward and Coroner are directed at Ecstasy.
Testimony, Concert, Four Cigarettes, Den, and Drive-Thru are directed at pot and refer to it by name.
The Pool commercial, unfortunately, has no transcript. But, from memory, I don’t remember them refering to marijuana by name. If they had refered to marijuana in other commercials involving death (Den and Drive-Thru), I don’t see why they would avoid it in this one. I think it is anti-drug in general.
I wasn’t suggesting that marijuana was evil at all in my posts, but ok, from now on I’ll avoid saying anything that can even remotely be construed as an attack on the drug.
Marijuana may not, in itself, be deadly. But some of the other drugs are. EEcstasy, for example. I won’t bother citing that ecstasy is deadly, because a) I already have and b) the SD has.
The anti-mj thing is kind of dumb in general, but I don’t think that about the ‘war on drugs’ in general. With one exception, the idea presented in Testimony that mj is a “doorway drug” or “stepping stone.” That seems like a problem and a reason to discourage its use, to me.
I know this guy (he’s an idiot in general, IMO) that has said to me, on two different occasions, that concaine is neither deadly nor addictive. Awareness is key, griping on the sdmb is good I suppose. Maybe that pro-pot commercial wasn’t such a bad idea really. I’m having some nice mental pictures because of it. I think a poster of you would be on every teenager’s wall. I’d tell people that I knew you. I’d tell people that I inspired you!
If I were trying to pick more fights, I’d go with this: Hmm, people on the crapper are much more dangerous than crack-heads in cars or with children. Interesting thought.
I jest.
But I’m not feeling that way. So I guess i’ll agree with you in that the commercial would have better served the public had it addressed the physical affects of cocaine or some other drug. Some of their other commercials do just that.
These commercials wouldn’t disappear if the tax dollars were cut, which might happen. The government supports the campaign in millions were as the media’s matching dollars support it in billions (the sites have already been cited). The commercials aren’t going away for lack of money. Another solution has to be found for those that dislike its presence. Changing the channel is the most likely solution. Voting, writing letters, phone calling, etc. are much more proactive responces.
On preview:
Miller, cite? But really, THANKS BUDDY! I’m glad to hear it.
Any questions regarding this post should be directed at Miller. He knows much. Use his knowledge.
You want a cite that you’re an idiot? Nuthin’ easier:
Yeah, they’ve only FREAKING BEER COMPANIES. Definately big time advocates going cold turky on the booze.
http://www.mediacampaign.org/publications/message99/1_2.html
Have a nice day.
Gosh, the Media Campaign doesn’t want kids to drink alcohol? Why, that absolutely proves that the alcohol companies aren’t giving them any funding at all!
Hahaha! Just kidding. Of course it doesn’t. All the alcohol and tobacco companies make a big show of frowning on kids using their products, because they’re deeply moral organizations and also required to do so by law. As always, you have no idea what you’re talking about, so I did your research for you. No thanks are necessary, I’m always happy to help the handicapped.
Turns out that the Media Campaign gets most of its money from Congress. Now, who was it who was saying that our tax dollars weren’t going to fund this bullshit? Oh, that’s right! It was you! However, that’s not where they get all their funding. They also get “matching funds” from “several high-profile corporations.” Not, however, high-profile enough for them to list more than three of them. Wonder what other high-profile corporations are filling the coffers of this organization?
Oh, and on top of that, on the Media Campaign homepage, the only drug mentioned by name is marijuana. But, of course, the ad in question (you know, the one you barely remember?) isn’t about pot. Heck no! It’s just a PSA about bad babysitters!
“Stoned”, as it is used today, refers to being high on pot. Doesn’t matter if it meant “drunk” decades ago.
The article you linked to was about body temperature in rabbits. The effects of E on human body temperature are well known among users, which is why you’ll find plenty of (overpriced) water at raves.
The “gateway drug” theory has been thoroughly debunked. Marijuana is no more a “gateway drug” than milk is.
See, the problem with commercials like these is they spread misinformation. This is a prime example: You believe the “gateway drug” theory still has merit, and the media reinforces that belief, even though it’s wrong.
Was there a car in the pool commercial? I don’t think so. You wouldn’t just have to be picking a fight to say something that dumb, you’d have to be totally oblivious to the discussion we’ve been having and the context of my statement.
When we’re talking about kids being unsupervised, the bathroom and telephone are far more likely causes than pot or crack. Everyone uses the bathroom, and nearly everyone answers the phone. Very few people, relatively, use illegal drugs. Telephone calls and “nature’s call” are urgent and must be responded to quickly. The desire to smoke pot is not.
My changing the channel won’t help the impressionable folks out there, who seem to believe whatever misinformation the commercials hand out. (Judging from this last post of yours, you have first-hand experience with that.) Nor will it do anything about my money being wasted on propaganda, when it could be spent on something useful like drug treatment or drug policy reform.
I don’t care whether I see the commercial. I hardly ever watch TV, and I could use a laugh anyway.
But then I can’t show off my impressive but totally useless knowledge of film trivia!
What I said was:
Yeah, so I didn’t claim that the government wasn’t giving this campaign any money. Did I?
I did point out this:
neutron star pointed out this:
I was right, both private organizations and the government’s funds supported it.
So lets do some math here. $2billion in 5 years. That’s, wait a minute, don’t tell me…umm 42? no no $400million? Yes, $400million/year. Final answer.
Now, the gov. put out $180million/year. The campaign gets $400million in a year from advertisers and such. Now hold on, 400+180=580. I think, I’m an idiot. Someone please check my math. Now 180/580 is roughly 1/3, right? So congress (who was voted into power by the citizens of the united states, by the way. I know these things might be getting confusing for you, Miller) payed one third of the price, judging from those numbers. The remaining two thirds fell to those horrid beer companies, or if you want a more exhaustive list of supporter than the one yola provided (the one I will soon quote) you can look on the first page (of this thread, if you are getting confused again) where I listed yet more.
The lists:
and
As for the Media Campaign not addressing other drugs, that is just wrong. They address a variety of illegal substances in addition to alcohol and tobacco.
Mr2001: I was just wrong on the gateway drug thing, I suppose. IMHO, your money won’t be “wasted” on the “war on drugs” much longer. I hope the price does get entirely shifted from taxes to private organizations. I’d rather have donations or profits paying than your [unwilling] money. The campaign should be more honest and use more common scenarios. It isn’t going to happen (just like it isn’t going to go away). They are going to pick and choose facts to best support their cause and make an impression. I support their cause (no matter if they put out disagreeable commercials or not), you don’t. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I think most of us have shared our opinions and are firm on them. We’ve ranted and had fun (well maybe not everyone else, but I’m enjoying Miller’s posts like nothing else). And there is that nice thread just like this one… I’m signing off, resigning my post as devils advocate (think of me from time to time. I’ll think of you and hope for some pro-drug commercials; those would really be a hoot).
I guess I don’t have anything to add to the funding argument, since you’ve basically just regurgitated everything I’ve been saying about it all along. It’s funded by our tax money, and it’s funded by alchohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical corporations. Somehow, you’ve managed to go from arguing against both those propositions to arguing for them. Which means… I win… I guess… 
Fuck. At this point, I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. So if nothing else, we’ve got that much in common.