| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2006 03:00:58 PM · #1 |
I wanted to gather some opinions on a subject that has been debated forever...marijuana.
I am sure many people have seen the older anti marijuana campaign on TV. It had a series of commercials that showed...
friend shooting his buddy while high
two guys running down a little girl on a bike at a drive thru
a babysitter who let the child drown because she was high
etc...
The most recent campaign on TV shows two kids on a couch smoking weed. The voiceover says that its more dangerous to go ice skating, skiing, biking, essentially anything active than smoking. The catch phrase at the end says, "I will take my chances in the real world".
This is a complete change of thinking for the anti drug campaign. They are no longer spreading old propaganda about weed like they did in the past, ie Refer Madness. It seems to be a much more mature method of approaching young people. To me it letting kids make a decision rather than saying if they do smoke, they will shoot their friend or run over a little kid.
Also, it leads them on a much more appropriate line of thinking. The previous campaign to me was counterproductive. Before it could be logical for a young person to say, "I smoked weed and I liked it and I didn't kill someone or get killed, they say cocaine is bad, maybe they are wrong about that too." To me the previous campain leads to curiosity and a complete disregard to the message because it was false.
So my questions are, are we finally on a path to approach kids about weed in a real way in which we promote good decision making rather than spread propaganda that is unfounded at best. Will this lead to a generation that looks at current drug laws and asks why? Will this eventually lead to the much needed legalization of marijuana? |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:14:06 PM · #2 |
Afraid I am anti drugs full stop,I have friends and relatives who's personalities have changed radically due to smoking dope, and not for the better I may add, psychotic,paranoid and the dependency that came with it.I have even lost contact with my eldest daughter through the drug crazed pisshead she lives with, we don't see eye to eye, more like fist to fist, she walks on glass every day through his behaviour.
So in answer, my view is no drugs, even alcohol abuse amongst teenagers is far worse than when I was young.
typo edit
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 15:14:44. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:16:18 PM · #3 |
The new ads are no doubt a result of the utter failure of the first round of ads you mentioned...
From the GAO:
"A $1.4 billion anti-drug advertising campaign conducted by the U.S. government since 1998 does not appear to have helped reduce drug use and instead might have convinced some youths that taking illegal drugs is normal, the Government Accountability Office says."
It's also interesting to note a ballot initiative in Nevada that is being backed by "at least 33 members of the clergy" to legalize it and regulate state-taxed stores.
Story Here
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
"So my questions are, are we finally on a path to approach kids about weed in a real way in which we promote good decision making ... Will this eventually lead to the much needed legalization of marijuana?" |
I think we are headed there, just a matter of whether I'll be alive to enjoy that first legal puff!
Ridding the influence of the neocon religious right on public policy will go a long way in helping for sure.
Baby boomers now becoming the senior members of our legislative body will also help as will the next generation holding more seats.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:33:22 PM · #4 |
as a youth, i must give my 2 cents worth:
honestly, i have not met one person who has ever been affected by the commercials. Also, teen dirnking IMO is a lot worse than teen smoking, and the government should be focusing its efforts on stopping drunk driving accidents than trying to convince teens that ice skating is safer than smoking weed.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:43:56 PM · #5 |
Ham,
you missed the point of the commercial. it says weed is safer than ice skating because if you smoke you will spend your life on a couch watching TV.
I agree that drinking is a much bigger problem than most drugs. Alcohol is readily available, kids want it because they can't have it and our culture is that of binge drinking. I have seen drugs and alcohol in a few cultures. I spent time in Amsterdam and Austria, and a year in Australia. All vastly different approaches to drugs and alcohol.
These messages don't get through to young kids (middle school - freshman in high school, 10-14yrs old) because of the unfounded info and utter nonsense. They see right through the BS and therefore the source of these messages is discredited.
The new campains allow for decision making. They admit that weed isn't that bad, but it may make you lazy. Thats fine, its true for one and if a kid doesn't want to be lazy than they won't smoke. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:46:51 PM · #6 |
agreed, im just saying that these commercials dont have enough impact to stop the youth of america froms smoking..
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:51:08 PM · #7 |
Personally, after working as security in our hospital here in Burlington, Vt. it's not weed we should be targeting. Its crystal meth, cocaine and heroin that are the biggies. Drinking is another huge problem but targeting that is more difficult than the others because its mainstream and makes the gov. tons of money. What I saw from people of all ages, drinking and the hard ones i mentioned is far more severe in terms of what it does to a person. They have no idea what they are doing or who they might have hurt. So far I have never met a violent stoner. I only had to fight with the people who were on some pretty hard shit.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:54:35 PM · #8 |
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Seems pretty clear and sensible to me.
The government's legitimate role is to educate and regulate, but prohibition/criminalization has been a failed policy for as long as we have recorded history.
How much sense does it make to incarcerate someone (at about $40,000/year) for smoking a few joints, when Budweiser is the "Official Beer" (approx. 3.2% ethyl alcohol, an intoxicant, mind-altering drug) of Major League Baseball?
I've worked in a substance abuse treatment program for over 20 years, and I know that it's not a problem you can solve by declaring "war" on its victims. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 03:57:10 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by cryan:
... drinking and the hard ones i mentioned is far more severe in terms of what it does to a person. They have no idea what they are doing or who they might have hurt. So far I have never met a violent stoner... |
I think it was Ellen Goodman who said "People who drink alcohol get violent, people who smoke pot get the munchies." |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:01:15 PM · #10 |
good post general. Crayon, nice to hear from another Btown local. Was that you shooting some model on Church St a few weeks ago?
There are a lot of drug laws that are necessary, no one should be able to get morphine for fun. The marijuana laws are just baffling. The first was in the 30's, 1934 i think. The research to back these laws is unfounded and really just propaganda. Why weed of all things? It used to grow everywhere, its resilient, it grows fast, the byproducts are useful etc... Of all the drugs in the world, why is this one the root of all evil. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:02:43 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I know that it's not a problem you can solve by declaring "war" on its victims. |
Here, here!
You can't win a war against a concept, kinda like the "war on terror".
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:06:08 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Why weed of all things? It used to grow everywhere, its resilient, it grows fast, the byproducts are useful etc... Of all the drugs in the world, why is this one the root of all evil. |
Largely to create a market for DuPont's recently-patented artificial fiber, Nylon®.
Look for a book called The Emperor Wears No Clothes for the complete story ...
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 16:06:49. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:10:19 PM · #13 |
I graduated college with a degree in Cellular Biology and Genetics. As a requirement of graduation you had to complete an independant study. One of my class mates decided to do a study comparing the effects of pot compared to cigarettes.
First it took him forever to get the paperwork done. When he finally did he set it up the following
1) He did a comparison of the compounds from the smoke.
He found that pot had 2-3 times the carcinogen levels from pot than tobacco. For those that don't know carcinogens are compounds that cause/promote cancer growth.
2) The mice test
He had 2 sets of mice (plus a control set) Each set contained 4 pairs of mice (1 male and 1 female per set). Each set had increasing levels of exposure to pot. I don't remember the numbers completely, but I think the first one was 1 joint per day (mouse equivilent) and the top was like 5 joints per day.
I do remember he noted the following about the pot group.
At the lowest levels the subjects showed signs of the following...
Decreased activity, decreased interest in anything when pot was present, dramatic decrease in sexual interest (based on number of observed encounters between pairs) and a general malaise. The greater exposure to pot the more signifigant these changes were.
He noted that the cigarette group also demonstrated decreased activity, decreased interest in food, but unchanged interest in sex, but an increase in aggressivness.
I was in his peer review group, so I still have my notebook. The funniest thing was from his conclusion (I gave him a bonus point for this line).
"Aside from deciding that I am never smoking pot again....."
Edit:I am having an awful spelling day
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 16:11:34.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:17:03 PM · #14 |
what was the point of that post. by the way what is the mice equivalent of 1 joint.
the results didn't even prove anything other than the conclusion of I won't smoke pot again.
Did it mention that someone smokes 20 cigs a day? A normal cig contains almost 1gram of tobacco. A pack a day smoker is getting 3/4 of an ounce per day. A daily pot smoker smokes maybe 2 grams a day and thats a lot. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:18:37 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
The marijuana laws are just baffling. The first was in the 30's, 1934 i think. |
Strange but true, the first marijuana laws were rooted in racism.
The southern states were so enraged about Mexicans and blacks being "Disrespectful to whites, and were seducing white women with marihuana and their satanic music." Newspapers began printing articles about marihuana-crazed Negroes raping white women, and Mexicans as frenzied beasts under the influence of marihuana they encouraged the passing of the stamp act almost solely based on America's first drug "czar", Harry J. Anslinger's unscientific testimony.
From there it became an imovable object, and political tool.
Once the stamp act was ruled unconstitutional in 1970 (spearheaded by Timothy Leary) Nixon's administration helped Congress pass the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
This created the peculiar "scheduling" protocol and now a drug could be made illegal across the United States without an act of Congress, just the whim of the DEA.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 16:20:32.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:32:50 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
what was the point of that post. by the way what is the mice equivalent of 1 joint |
Adjusted for body weight.
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Did it mention that someone smokes 20 cigs a day? A normal cig contains almost 1gram of tobacco. A pack a day smoker is getting 3/4 of an ounce per day. A daily pot smoker smokes maybe 2 grams a day and thats a lot. |
He took all of this into account- the low end of the cigarete mouse group was a half pack- also adjusted for body weight. BTW- his upper end of the pot group- which was equivilent to 5 joints a day, died half way through the test. All they did was sit in a corner of the cage- they never ate. They starved themselves to death.
His carcinogen test was a comparison of 1 joint to 1 unfiltered cigarette.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:43:43 PM · #17 |
Hey man, no that wasn't me on Church street, but will be down there in the next week or so for a shoot. Look for the dude wearing a DENVER BRONCOS hat. Now on to the thread, weed used to be the major cash crop for Vermont until 1932 when it was put into prohibition. So here in VT. the laws aren't as bad for that as other states. As a matter of fact, a person can have up to an ounce of pot in ONE bag and not get anything other than a misdimenor (sp). However if the weed is broken up its considered distribution.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:45:08 PM · #18 |
This is my experience as a teacher.
Most of my students smoke(d) pot. Of those that used the "worse" drugs, (meth, coke, etc), all of them admitted to smoking pot first and using the others for a "bigger high."
My most frustrating experiences went like this --
Day 1 -- Cover a new concept.
Day 2 -- Review and practice new concept (mostly review because they didn't remember it).
Day 3 -- Review and practice no longer new concept.
Day 4 -- Give a "test" on said concept and listen to wails that we had never done this before.
Day 5 -- Go over "new" concept again.
ad nauseum.
My beef isn't against MJ. My beef is against what it does to the brains of those who inhale it. BUT, to hear them tell it, it makes them remember better, be more alert, and be better students. NOT. And nothing will ever convince me otherwise. I've seen too many giggly, munchy, glassy-eyed teenagers look at me completely blankly when I ask them to tell me what I've just said to them. My sutdents acted just like those mice in the study vxpra mentioned.
Sorry, this subject frustrates me to no end. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:46:29 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by cryan:
As a matter of fact, a person can have up to an ounce of pot in ONE bag and not get anything other than a misdimenor (sp). However if the weed is broken up its considered distribution. |
Hell, in Ohio, you can have 300 grams before it's a felony.
Same thing about it being in one bag.
But paraphenalia is a harsher misdeamenor, go figure.
I still don't see the point of the mice post.
No one is saying that it's healthier for your lungs.
The major carcinogens are in the non-cannibinoids (the plant matter) which can be avoided if you use a vaporizer.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:50:36 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by karmat:
This is my experience as a teacher.
Most of my students smoke(d) pot. Of those that used the "worse" drugs, (meth, coke, etc), all of them admitted to smoking pot first and using the others for a "bigger high."
My most frustrating experiences went like this --
Day 1 -- Cover a new concept.
Day 2 -- Review and practice new concept (mostly review because they didn't remember it).
Day 3 -- Review and practice no longer new concept.
Day 4 -- Give a "test" on said concept and listen to wails that we had never done this before.
Day 5 -- Go over "new" concept again.
ad nauseum.
My beef isn't against MJ. My beef is against what it does to the brains of those who inhale it. BUT, to hear them tell it, it makes them remember better, be more alert, and be better students. NOT. And nothing will ever convince me otherwise. I've seen too many giggly, munchy, glassy-eyed teenagers look at me completely blankly when I ask them to tell me what I've just said to them. My sutdents acted just like those mice in the study vxpra mentioned.
Sorry, this subject frustrates me to no end. |
Wow. It's unbelievable they're coming into your class like that. Do you take the same measures to correct this kind of thing as you would if they came into your class drunk? |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:54:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Of those that used the "worse" drugs, (meth, coke, etc), all of them admitted to smoking pot first and using the others for a "bigger high."
|
First of all, the brains of children are quite different physiologically than those of adults.
It should not be legalized for them period.
Secondly, no one is disputing the ill health effects of chronic use.
Thirdly, no one is also disputing that smoking it makes you forgetful,lethargic etc.
The debate is whether to waste millions and billions of dollars on a war against a concept that is doomed to failure.
The debate is also whether adults should be able to make a decision on doing something relatively benign to their own bodies.
Please read the moral arguments posed by the Nevada clergy supporting the ballot initiative here.
Also, do you think there is a reason the kids that move on to coke, meth etc. first smoked pot?
Because they had to get it from a dealer on the black market they were undoubtedly exposed to other black market drugs.
When was the last time you heard of a crack dealer also selling 40s?
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:59:02 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by karmat:
This is my experience as a teacher.
Most of my students smoke(d) pot. Of those that used the "worse" drugs, (meth, coke, etc), all of them admitted to smoking pot first and using the others for a "bigger high." |
There is a certain cachet and attraction for young people to the forbidden, particularly when the cautionary advertisements about it are rife with lurid misrepresentations and largely devoid of medical/physiological facts.
How many of those same kids smoked tobacco? Drank alcohol? Drank milk? Confusion between association and causation is a common error when interpreting any type of study -- it takes great care to design a study/question which avoids the issue.
In any event, the "cure" for those kids is not criminalization/incarceration -- that will only potentiate their problems. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:59:06 PM · #23 |
How bout this one, you will get a more harsh sentence if you are busted with acid then if you were to commit murder. Really, I'm not joking about this one. I believe its 10 years for a single "hit" of acid.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 05:02:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by rswank:
The debate is whether to waste millions and billions of dollars on a war against a concept that is doomed to failure. |
I don't think there really is much of a debate. Every war on "something" has failed. I'm still waiting for the mission accomplish sign for the war on poverty. Heck, even though we didn't win in Iraq at least we got that. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 05:04:29 PM · #25 |
As a kid, I dont understand their whole ice skating/skateboarding/physical activity is more dangerous than pot smoking campaign. First off, we already have enough commercials saying the usual dont smoke pot. However, we also have commercials saying that kids are too lazy and need to be more active (like the VERB commercials.) These seem very conflicting to me. Kids are told they need to be more active, yet not smoke pot. However, they are hit with a new idea, smoking pot is not only less dangerous, it requires less physical activity. So now, why would I do something less dangerous and something that requires less physical effort on my part?
|
|
