Schoolkids See Clinton and Gingrich in Rare Joint Appearance
So leads a NY Times article about Clinton's $2B (that's two fucking billion fucking dollars) plan to cut down on drug abuse through flashy commercials. After reading the headline one more time and getting a good laugh at the double entendre (heh heh, the NY Times said "joint"), move on to my whiny rant about why government is out of control.
Clinton plans to use tax dollars (and private donations) to fund commercials that he claims will "change the attitude of an entire generation of young people." I suppose he is right on that account. Television is an addictive medium and what better way to fight one addiction than with another addiction? Firefighters set fires to stop fires, right? The only problem with Clinton's campaign is that it will not work. It sounds good in theory, but anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it will fail in practice.
Politicians are up in arms that teen drug use in on the rise since the early 80s. What a shock. You mean the government wages a costly campaign against illegal substances and kids flock to them like fat Mid-Western moms to a store with a new shipment of Beanie Babies? In my wildest dreams, I never could have predicted that. With the new "hip" campaign, even more teens will try drugs. "Jesus fucking Christ, Ashley, the government is spending mad cash to fight drugs!" "Yeah, Brianna, in one commercial, a girl is smashing up her kitchen! It must be good shit! Let's go find Raheem. He's black; he probably sells drugs."
This campaign is that it does not stop the causes of drug addiction. Teens may use drugs because Mommy, Daddy and Big Brother say drugs are bad, but the teens who abuse drugs are not going to be affected by these commercials. If a kid's homelife involves being beaten by an alcoholic father while his tramp mother runs around, chances are drugs will win out over a commercial involving an attractive girl smashing things. The commercials may influence a few kids not to experiment with drugs, but it is not going to stop anyone with a propensity towards addiction. Their problems are much more serious than not hearing, "Just say no!" enough.
The only answer to the drug problem is to legalize drugs. I'm not going to quote studies from organizations that advocate the legalization of drugs. Drugs should not be legal because it may benefit society in the long-run. Drugs should be legal for the simple fact that it is not the government's business if people fuck up their lives.
If someone in Michigan ingests a lethal dosage of heroin, it does not affect me in any way, shape or form. It does not affect you. It does not affect Bill Clinton. And, most of all, it does not affect our nation's drug policy director, Gen. Barry McCaffrey. Drugs affect the people who use them. At times, there may be a trickle down effect and others may be affected, but that happens with alcohol and so far, there is no large-scale movement to return to the era of Prohibition. Lots of people have alcoholic parents who ruin Christmas each year with their, "I coulda been..." tirades and a number of people have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, but that has not sparked the emergence of a modern day Carrie Nation. Americans saw that Prohibition did not stop drinking and instead, drinking increased and an unforeseen side effect -- organized crime -- emerged. That is why most people would not support a ban on alcohol, but those same people do not see the parallel between Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
And you know what? They probably never will.
http://bitch.shutdown.com/legalizedrugs.html
