Super Bowl advertising

[Undertoad]

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.

[Nic Name]

How about...

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

[juju]

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

[Griff]

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.)

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
How about...

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

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.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
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.

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.

&lt;snip&gt; and we would virtually eliminate the druglords. &lt;/snip&gt;

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.

[Griff]

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.

[Xugumad]

[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.

[Undertoad]

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?

[Undertoad]

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.

[Griff]

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.