The new drug ads

[MooShiE]

I'm in!!
Although the concept of "drug-free" should really have a lot more to do with friends shouting you.......

ROFL

Dont take drugs everyone, your going to DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CuPillar]

'what will ecstasy do to you?"

i know exactly what it will do, JUST LOOK AT THE FUCKING NAME OF THE DRUG YOU STUPID GOVERNMENT!!!"

 

[smileyfish]

I always wondered why I sucked at sports. I used to think it was because I'm just unco-ordinated and in need of glasses. Obviously I was wrong! The reason why I can't catch and throw is because of Marijuana use. Holy Hell, who'd have thought!

Half of me questions whether the people who wrote these ads were taking drugs themselves, or whether they are naturally stupid.

I think these ads, for starters, shouldn't be aired before 8pm. Exposing children to car crashes and drug addicts on tv right before bedtime creates nightmares and fear. To relay this fear parents are then forced to tell their children what drugs are, how they affect people, and then why children shouldn't take them. While I think it's important for children to be aware that drugs are unhealthy, I think that some age groups are too young to deal with the intellectual side of "why". And these ads hardly help, all they do is give a "Because I said so" answer.

I guess the main problem I have with the campaign is its slogan. "You don't know what it'll do to you". Well, uh, I actually do know... and so do a whole lot of other people. People take drugs for this very reason. To get high without having to drink alcohol. The slogan makes the entire campaign into a total joke for people who participate in drug use. And to those who don't know much about drugs, they promote suspicion and fear.

The outcome for parents is even worse. Parents who know very little about drug use (and believe me, there are quite a few...) are now being told that the tell-tale signs of drug abuse are things like depression, and not being able to catch a ball. In a nation where 80% of the population will experience depression at some point, it makes me wonder how many poor depressed teenagers are now being accused of taking drugs. Furthermore, how many parents will now think that by simply stopping drug use that depression and uncoordination will ~go away~?

This anti-drug campaign is just another nail in the coffin for safe drug use. A campaign that focussed on HOW drugs affect people would have been far more effective. I bet if we all pool some ca$h together we could air our own radio ads; although it seems rather pathetic that the public should need to combat a such a stupid government campaign. I suppose this is what you get when you have a one party system.

Excellent post Sierra.

Not owning a TV, I've only seen the sections of the ads they showed on Insight last night* I do understand why the govt. feels the need to run such ads - the general populace wants to see the govt. being "tough on drugs". An honest and informative campaign would trigger massive public outcry and the government would be accused of promoting drug use (just like all organisations involved in HM currently are). Thankfully, our govt. chooses to appear tough whilst still being relatively soft on drug offenders (compared to the US).

Showing these ads to young children is, i feel, extremely irresponsible and I agree they should not be screened before 8pm. I also think they should be providing more useful infomormation. Yes, the effects depicted canand do happen (though in a minority of cases). Great - how about some information on what to do if you find someone in these situations? If your friend is suffering anxiety from marijuana use, or has collapsed due to a bad reaction with a poll, should you just stand there and say "see, I told you drugs were dangerous"? Where is the information about where and how to get help? Generating more fear and uncertainty helps no-one. The govt knows these ads don't reduce use (we have the stats to prove it, after all) and are airing them purely to appease voters, but you'd think they could at least make them useful.

* NicktheCheese, Madmick19 and johnboy did us proud

 

[endlesseulogy]

^ So you see, then, the influence that a post on bluelight can have on someone who doesn't know any better?

Thats what i mean when i say bluelight is full of hipocracy and bullshit.. if you are going to close down my misly little thread that was backed up by scientific evidence, why not close down the whole health forum, which in turn is backed up by nothing but hearsay from armchair psychologists and G.Ps

 

[neverwas]

Shouldn't the government be focosing on harm minimisation (like bl here) rather than the whole 'just say no' approach? Most kids ARE going to try drugs wether they know the dangers or not. Wouldn't it be better to educated them on how to be safe while on the stuff rather than just say "you don't know what it will do to you"

The Gov is doin what they think is harm minimisation. Its easier to sit here and judge these adds from this side of the fence...cause why? we've all taken speed, pills etc and its not made us go skitz out like that. but the fact is stuff like that does happen. just because its on an add doesnt make it any less realistic. (imo)

and DQ....id be happy your boy was asking you questions bout pills etc. shows these adds are provoking some thought on this subject.

 

[Samadhi]

Excellent post Sierra.

Not owning a TV, I've only seen the sections of the ads they showed on Insight last night* I do understand why the govt. feels the need to run such ads - the general populace wants to see the govt. being "tough on drugs". An honest and informative campaign would trigger massive public outcry and the government would be accused of promoting drug use (just like all organisations involved in HM currently are). Thankfully, our govt. chooses to appear tough whilst still being relatively soft on drug offenders (compared to the US).

Showing these ads to young children is, i feel, extremely irresponsible and I agree they should not be screened before 8pm. I also think they should be providing more useful infomormation. Yes, the effects depicted canand do happen (though in a minority of cases). Great - how about some information on what to do if you find someone in these situations? If your friend is suffering anxiety from marijuana use, or has collapsed due to a bad reaction with a poll, should you just stand there and say "see, I told you drugs were dangerous"? Where is the information about where and how to get help? Generating more fear and uncertainty helps no-one. The govt knows these ads don't reduce use (we have the stats to prove it, after all) and are airing them purely to appease voters, but you'd think they could at least make them useful.

* NicktheCheese, Madmick19 and johnboy did us proud

I agree with you both entirely. As i stated in my first post (page 1), while at least these ads are depicting scenes regarding drug use that may happen (instead of the first dodgy campaign about parents talking to children...and the infamous "drug fact-pack", what really annoys me about them is that, for me, when i've watched them, i'm left with a sense of... "what's the point? Where is the rest of the info?". I'm more aware than the average John/Jane Q Citizen when it comes to harm reduction, so i can only imagine what they may be thinking. What, so your friend has had a bad reaction to a drug or has the beginnings of drug induced psychosis and has locked themselves in the bathroom... what are they going to say to them, through the door..."Speed/Ecstasy/Marijuana... you don't know what it can do to you..." and then try to call "the Fedral Government". Gee, that's helpful.

I'm also in agreeance that they shouldn't be showed before around 8pm. Hell, they show the unedited speeding ads (the mother and baby that get collected by the father driving with his son) late and they still make me feel sick.. and i'm 27!

I also think that while sometimes "shock value" campaigns can help, they also tend to desensitise people.

 

[endlesseulogy]

These adds will never work because the government and authorities fail to realise that it is a natural human want to change states of consciousness. This isnt something that we have learnt to do, its something that is inate in us all from our time of birth. We are natural psychonaughts, its in our blood. Authorities treat drug use as a problem rather then something that is a part of us. Sure not all people like or want to take drugs, but thats just like saying some people like chocolate and some dont.. From my own research harm seems to follow those who use drugs to escape mental or emotional problems. I have met drug user after drug user who is actually ashamed of their drug use. They treat is as something they need to hide. This causes much emotional distress and causes users to take it overboard. Harm minimisation isnt going to work until the social stigma is removed. Until people are proud and confident enough to talk about their drug use to perfect strangers, to their doctor's, parents or workmates. The causes of health related problems are more psychological in my opinion, as opposed to actions of specific drugs. I choose to use the old saying, "Its only a problem if you make it one".

 

[CHiLD-0F-THE-BEAT]

Originally posted by samadhi
I also think that while sometimes "shock value" campaigns can help, they also tend to desensitise people.

^It's such a catch 22 - - - hell, the images of the Vietnam war shocked and appauled us, yet there is still war.
It's expected now that we'll be shown the carnage and violence that is war.

Also, *starfalls69* - - - I don't think it's particularly useful to have them screened to children.
Like Samadhi mentioned, they're quite graphic and I wouldn't like my young kids being subjected to that.

 

[doofqueen]

^^ exactly. A ten year old should not know that xtc exsists at all.

I think that doofqueen raises a very valid point about her son asking the question what is xtc.

And while i have no problems with some sort of campaign, I think that it can often have a negative effect and that is certainly the case here.

I know that doofqueen has a very open relationship with her son and hence he has no probs asking his Mum when he wants to know something.

But how many other kids were wondering the same thing and instead ask there mates at school or older brother.

With the result that enough is learnt that makes it an item of interest and they will in fact end up trying it cos they prefer to believe someone whom they know that they believe is taking it with no repurcussions...........It immediately tells them the adds are bullcrap.

Most people who use speed xtc etc are gunna be partying at various venues throughout the cities........why not go direct to the source with an informative educatuional package............such a package that should include references for this site and others.

i think that would be more benificial than sewing the seed of interest in a bloody ten year old.

That's the thing hey... people have critised me because i take my son doofing where there is an exposure to people on drugs. At doofs if your a child you can not tell if people are on drugs. They just look like adults having a good time, smiling, laughing and dancing. People that are on drugs tend to be discreet when children are around. He's been doofing for over 3 years and never once mentioned xtc to me. He watches tv and all sorts of questions come out... yeah tv is great 8)

 

[neverwas]

Re:

Originally posted by samadhi
I also think that while sometimes "shock value" campaigns can help, they also tend to desensitise people.

^It's such a catch 22 - - - hell, the images of the Vietnam war shocked and appauled us, yet there is still war.
It's expected now that we'll be shown the carnage and violence that is war.

Also, *starfalls69* - - - I don't think it's particularly useful to have them screened to children.
Like Samadhi mentioned, they're quite graphic and I wouldn't like my young kids being subjected to that.

children as in what age?

i think any child above the age 13 is mentally able to handle seeing that. or do you think they should put wanrigns on before the adds like M15+ or something...or show them at a later time?

 

[ozbreaker]

Originally posted by KemicalBurn
I forgot to say that studies have to repeated a number of times before they are accepted as a scientific fact.

Now, i cant explain that any simpler without pictures. You really are gonna have to shut up sooner or later

The study looked at one aspect of driving. Ie staying in lane/speed. And for that ASPECT of driving then what you stated appears true. However as KB reiterated to you a coupe of times at least - there is a difference between doing laps of a racecourse and driving on roads where random things are happening, cars come out from side streets, kiddies run out from behind cars etc, then you are truly fucked. When stoned your world condenses down to a small narrow focus and you are not as aware or alert as you would be whilst driving sober.

Please learn to tell the difference between 'cannabis IS PERFECTLY SAFE WHILST DRIVING' and 'cannabis HELPS PEOPLE DRIVING STAY IN THEIR LANES BETTER' as they 2 are different concepts.

As for the ads themselves? I saw them in the movie theatre and was giggling loudly throughout and at the end of the ad said loudly 'Well thank god for the government - they've certainly scared me'. Enough people laughed.

The ads don't affect me but i could see people getting scared off or more intrigued. It's interesting that 17/18 yo's that are quite intelligent and educated will still take e's even when they have been told things like 1 in 6 people that try it die and are convinced of it.

I still think harm minimisation is the key - on the same note i don't think its the best thing in the world for the drugs to become too widely available as far too few people that even preach harm minimisation seem to really take it to heart and go on massive binges, so what hope with the general population? Some people i have come across simply do not want to know nor care. It's baffling but it's this sort of attitude that makes more basket cases leading to more ammunition for the 'drugs are bad' lobby.

 

[endlesseulogy]

Thank you for clearing that up ozbreaker. I didnt pick up on that very valid point.

 

[UnSquare]

Ecstasy (OR ECSTASY-LIKE SUBSTANCI.E. Tryna Scare The PMA Inta Ya.) What Was I Sayin?

Mmmmmmkay...

Bluelight's all FIREY today.


O.K.,
anyway,
anyway, yeah I saw those drugs ads.

You know what they did?
No shit.
My brother,
who is QUITE well-behaved
went an' hooked-up a pack of "pills",
[tested: MDMA]
my Tulip hooked up a fiddy
(she was on a break),
an' I decided to keep buyin'
my meth from those guys in the
ad
caus
I read in 'The Paper' that some
Asian guy had been arrested at some
Australian airport with really stiff jeans
in his luggage.
Turns out they were soaked in
'Amphetamine Base'.

Support local industry.
Don't snort pants.

In fact,
in fact,
I'm
waitin' for the Ketamine Ad's
caus I havn't had any in a while
an' I'm waitin' for a trigger.

Turn's out we're not such a good control group.
Or test group.
Or...

Anyway,
anyway -
So we're like Pavlov's Dog,
only three people,
but in a dog.
Which makes me want the ketamine
all the more.
Where are those ads?

*bell rings*
*UnSquare reaches for his drink*


Also, anyway, like,
has anyone noticed, like
that, well... you probably haven't...
I posted some pictures whilst doin'
a bit of 'target shootin'' round the traps...
...and then I decide, well, ya know,
ta post 'em in 'THE LOUNGE'....
I figure, guns make good props for photo's,
like Marlin's, Good Lookin' Women, Drinks
'n' shit.
Makes for good photo's.
Takes the focus of Uncle S.
In Aus Soc you get - (insert no if not nicish comment)
In 'The Lounge' you get -
"That's not a Gun,
check out my sickarsedguns."
Yo.
a) It was to play on the Scary Shit Tathra 'owns'
b) My dick's about average size,
erect,
I'd say,
but I'm only 5'8"-9".
Anyway,
anyway it's weird.
So if you wanna be cool in the US,
you betta pull out a Gattlin' Gun,
like Blaine in Predator
(you know,
the wrestler,
Jesse' Ventura.
Shit people!
He's like the governer of some state or somethink over there.
That's two actor's outta tha movie 'Predator' that
are in AMERICAN POLITICS.)

So,
in fishinning,
you should catch Marlin,
hold it up in 'The Lounge',
an' unless you shot it with a
REALLY big harpoon,
don't show that.

Caus they might not get it.

 

[GillyWin]

Lets make some light-hearted harm minimisation ad's shall we. Put them forward. And hope that our good intentions aren't shot down blatant attempts to make people take drugs.

The only people who will ever be educated in harm minimisation are the ones who seek to educate themselves. These ad's have little to no impact on the stance of these people.

Hopefully the ad's will encourage people to educate themselves, the government wont do it.

 

[ozbreaker]

Thank you for clearing that up ozbreaker. I didnt pick up on that very valid point.

 

[silvia saint]

the drug ads do show some truth, which is good, but of course they're anti drug ads, so of course they're going to focus on every worst case scenario possible. they are nothing but diluted modernized versions of the reefer madness type propaganda of the 50's etc.

the war on drugs will never end, it is too profitable both politically and financially to those behind the prohibition.

War On Drugs A War on Freedom

Acclaimed US author Sam Smith branded the war on drugs 'a crucial precursor of the end of the First American Republic' this week, and suggested that the true motive behind the campaign is repression.

"The war on drugs was the first major test by the country's elite to see if
Americans would willingly surrender their constitutional rights," Mr Smith declared in Progressive Review.

"It turned out that they would and so for the past twenty years invasions of civil liberties increased, America threw more and more of its young people into prison, while exploding drug war budgets did nothing to stem the growth of the drug industry. Further, the drug war was a useful testing ground for repressive measures instituted following September 11," he suggested.

His analysis closely matched that of fellow author and British counter-culture icon Howard Marks, who served seven years in a maximum security US prison after building a 20 year career as one of the world's biggest cannabis smugglers.

"The War on Drugs protects no one outside a small elite group, endangers everyone else and is a sinister means of social control," said Mr Marks, in a speech he made at the Orange Index debate in Glasgow two years ago.

"One of the traditional and obvious ways of controlling people in society, whether it's a military dictatorship or a democracy, is to frighten them so that they'll accord authority to their superiors who claim they will protect them," he pointed out.

"The War on Drugs creates fear of people from whom we have to protect ourselves. It also takes care of superfluous people who don't contribute to profit making and wealth (in the US, this tends to mean the poor and black): they're put in prison," he added.

skrufff-e

and now we have the forever ongoing war on terror. stop sniffing for funny smelling smoke, start looking out for funny looking arabs. the police state is upon us.

 

[Riot Grrrl]

I saw the marijuana ad last night. I lauhed out loud cos i was stoned, laying in bed watching TV, doing no harm to myself or others.

 

[chrissy]

cliche but tru,

'prevention is better than cure'

 

[lostNfound]

prevention - wouldnt that cut jobs & increase unemployment rates I'm sure campaigners wouldn't want that.

 

[silvia saint]

to DQ-

i actually think it is great that your son has come to you to ask about ecstasy, it's a sure sign you're doing something right as a parent trust wise, it may be the only good thing to come out of these ads. whilst having to explain this to him at 10 might seem a tad premature, i do think it is necessary to inform at a much younger age as the facts show kids are experimenting with drugs a lot earlier in life these days.

unlike the older ads (the new ones still do to an extent) which suggested you use their free, propaganda, negative based fact pamphlet, you can now give him the whole story. i think if i ever find myself in your situation i would, after basically giving him both sides of the story, place the emphasis on that if he is ever wanting to try drugs, wait until he is older (18+), justifying this by explaining that his body and mind is going to undergo much maturing during this period and being a teen is a tough enough time without adding drugs to the mix, and that an older mind and body is much better in dealing with any negative psychological side effects of drugs, illegal or legal. i think this approach would work much better for all parents giving "the talk" in regards to curbing drug use early in life. sorry if i'm reiterating what others have said.

I've had good times on drugs, that's a fact. I've had bad times on drugs, too, ok? But I've had good and bad relationships...and I'm not giving up pussy.
Bill Hicks