Saw the strangest ad--it features a red Chevy Cavalier driving around town picking up stuff like C-4 and AK-47s and implies that people who buy drugs are somehow funding terrorist cells in the US.

The whole time I was watching the ad I was thinking "god damn, these guys are going to have some fun at the range today!"

Someone could do a great pro-gun spoof of this ad.  The trunk full of AKs and a Swedish K (thrown in for good measure, I guess) is priceless.

Anyone else see it?  What a terrible waste of taxpayer money.

Good ad.  Seeing a trunkload of subguns got my attention.  This ad reminded me of the Iowa anti-meth ad that featured a catchy tune... so catchy by the way that it made me want to try meth.


Meth, ohhh meth...

No, but I saw a different one that had kids saying that "I'm not hurting anyone".

Like Al Queda grows pot and ships it to the U.S.
As a matter of fact, the Taliban (for all the harm they caused) actually clamped down on tje opium tade, and made alot of farmers quit growing poppy.

Maybe we should sell pot to the taliban?  I bet they'd be a lot more 'relaxed'... and hungry.


"Dude... what if like we be being some 72 virgins' dream?"

Our government has found a new low for propaganda--I mean, what is scarier than an anonymous group of guys in a Chevy Cavalier with a bunch of AKs in the trunk and probably some anthrax or other devilish "weapons of mass destruction" on board?  

The ad basically says to people "Be afraid, be afraid, trust the government to save you, be afraid..."

If I knew of someone with a carload of AKs like that I'd be tempted to off the guy and take them for myself.  But then I'm an evil fuck who doesn't scare easily.
 

BE AFRAID!  CODE YELLOW/MAGENTA!  DON'T TRUST PEOPLE WITH BLACK GUNS!

-  Trust us... we're your government. [:)]

This is kind of like the antis saying that the terrorists get their guns at gun shows.  

I don't remember the source, but I remember reading that the only opium farmers that the Taliban put out of business were those not growing it for the Taliban itself.  Opium has [b]long[/b] been a major export of Afganistan!!  If you think the Taliban actually decreased it #1 export you are mistaken.  So yes, shooting Herion does [b]directly[/b] fund the Taliban....and alot of other people.

And other drug users [b]directly[/b] put money into the hands of criminals, some violent some not-so-violent.  I think some of you are missing the main point of the message, that when you do drugs you are hurting other people, directly or in-directly.  Now I know some of you "casual" potheads[8P] don't want to believe that but it's the truth.

sgtar15

PS Now the question of legalizing drugs is a whole different topic.

Perhaps the government should create ads which feature William Jefferson Clinton tokin' on a reefer.  Then they could pan out to a photo of Hitlery and ask "Is this what you want to end up with?"

Funny that you [u]never[/u] see any anti drug advertisements that feature pharmaceuticals  such as Valium or Xanax...  The "soccer mom's" choice of drugs!

Or how about Ridalin..?  Does anyone else find it odd that the schools to push it, even though there is a zero tolerance policy in effect...  I guess the soccer moms can relax a bit easier, knowing that Little Johhny is too incoherent to bother her!

Smoking pot doesn't contribute to any terrorists nor does not hurt anyone, directly or indirectly, so I say this is BS and so are the commercials.

That's like someone who posted that ADDICTION to pot messed up his whole family.  What a joke.  Total BS.

Of course, by legalizing all drugs, you take 100% of the profit motive out of the game, hence, violent crime would decrease dramatically.  Not something that Police unions or fed's would get behind, do you think?

Before 9/11, the US Goverment paid millions of dollars to the Taliban to supress opium production. I wonder if the Fed money was more likely to be used against us. Or some kid buying "X" at a Rave.

I choose the Feds.

I for one like the ads.  The basic message is that when you buy drugs, you are funding terrorism. Not necessarily just terrorism in the Middle East, but all over the world.  Take for example Columbia.  THe drug lords there are having government officials, judges, police, etc. blown up in car bombs, and assasinated all the time.  I would consider that terrorism, it's just not on most of our radar screens because it has little direct impact on us.  I didn't get the feeling that they were trying to send the message that the gov't will protect us, only that drugs and terrorism have a direct link.

You beat me to the punch.

It's obviously time to put pressure on the FDA to investigate Lilly, Phizer, Johnson, Robbins, and a myriad of others that all utilize products grown on foreign soil such as opium and cocaine in the everyday use of pharmaceuticals research, testing and production!

There are more pills on the street than any other drug, but going after the source of those is a big no-no, since the above mentioned companies put them there!

Does buying illegal drugs fund criminals? The question answers itself. But like so many social democrat responses to any situation, it's a very superficial analysis.

The problem is that prohibition of any [b]thing[/b] has never worked to cure a social problem. Didn't we learn how well the temperance movement in this country solved our nation's problems with a little thing called Prohibition? And aren't we all (or at least most of us) arguing [b]against[/b] the same kind of prohibition of our firearms?

It's a typical government view. Create a problem by enacting some form of prohibiton and offer a solution by threatening to punish those that break the rules of prohibition -- at least on the surface, it sounds reasonable. That way, that part of the government responsible for "solving" the problem justifies its existence. I'd love to be able to go someplace, throw a wrench into the machinery and then force the people there to pay me to fix it. Hmmm. Sounds kind of like a protection racket.

The extension of the logic of these ads is that [b]you[/b] are responsible for all the actions of anybody to whom you give money. I thought that the people who flew airplanes into buildings and wore bombs strapped to their chests were responsible for their actions. I had no idea that my spending money on coffee which went to a coffee farmer in Colombia who paid for his groceries from a man who runs a market on land owned by a drug cartel is supporting the murder of federal judges....

Touche!

It always amazes me when someone comes up with this "profit motive" nonsense related to the drug trade.  Profit motive is why the stuff is for sale in the first place.  I don't see any charities giving away cocaine. If crack were legalized tomorrow it would be MORE expensive. This whole idea that legalization would result in a bottoming of prices is ridiculous.  I can even see the commercials now:  Sure,  our prices are higher than streetcorner,  But you won't be stabbed, poisoned, or go to jail for buying it!  Bluntly put, if something costs 20$ illegally, you can be darn sure that's what the legal price is going to START at. Dope dealers don't have to worry about such things as legal fees (related to the sale of the product at least) advertising, quality control, tariffs, taxes, research, product testing, fair wages for workers, unions, insurance, storefronts, in short, all those things a legal business has to do. BTW: lower the crime rate?  Not hardly, people still need money to buy the stuff. If they're not employed,(What business will employ an addict?)  they'll still steal and murder to get it. Lastly, penalties on illegal use would increase.  The legal manufacturers would make sure of that.  

 
-no kidding!


[:D]

hello Johninaustin....how much does a bottle of boone's farm cost in austin? And guys get it through your head that as long as the governtment is one of the biggest importers of illegal drugs, it aint going to be legal....

That's a very presumptious statement to be making...  Aparently you haven't read any of my posts in this thread!

AntiUSSA, my point is that folks come up with this sort of perfect world that would magically appear if only drugs were legal. You know, 25 cent joints and no crime. It isn't going to happen. I bet if Marijuana were legalized on Friday, Monday would see a law banning private growers. There is money to be made, and nothing will change. I believe the drug laws would actully get harder.  Can't have street sales cutting into the customer base you know. It's like guns.  Currently legal, highly regulated, and expensive as heck from govt controlled suppliers. Private manufacture is a no no. Hound, Boone's Farm? do they still make that stuff?  The reason  swill is cheap is again, customer base. People will pay big bucks for fancy wine, but homeless cannot spend 50$ a bottle. do you really think some guy that makes 100K a year buys Boone's Farm? Even at 2$ or whatever, drunks will still steal and kill to get it.  Beer thefts are common. We had one homeless guy kill another with a hammer for a bottle of T-Bird, even when he had the money to buy his own. Same applies to drug users. Cocaine goes for $$ because that's what people pay. Even if that means robbing to support the habit. When the customer base refuses to pay more than say, 2$ a hit, then the price will come down. Whether it is illegal or legal has minimal bearing on it.      

John right back to ya
"drunks will still steal and kill to get it"

The horror story way of saying something is bad
doesn't work. People do bad things---people get killed over tennis shoes or kentucky fried chicken. The real horror of the drug war is the freedoms that are taken and the innocents that are hurt...as far as two drunks or junkies fighting....who cares?

Interesting. I don't see the brewers, distributors and dealers of Budweiser and Miller getting into shooting wars. And the distillers of Jack Daniels aren't murdering cops and other government officials.

But unless I'm completely wrong, at one time, the distribution of alcohol led to those exact conditions. Now, I don't think the alcohol has changed that much. Nor do I think that the population's taste for alcohol changed that much. The only substantive difference was that the government said that the manufacture, distribution and sale of alcohol was verboten.

Before, during, and after Prohibition, there was money to be made. That's what made America great -- capitalism, a free market economy. And A-B Brewing Co. is making money hand over fist (Bud Bowl anyone?). But they're not killing people for it. I think the decriminalization of alcohol had something to do with that.

A buddy of mine is brewing beer in his basement. Yet there are no goons from Miller trying to blow his house up. So I don't think "private manufacture" is a real big issue for these folks.

If somebody kills somebody else, he's a sociopath that needs to be removed from the gene pool. Sober, drunk, stone, hopped up, I don't care. A murder's a murder.

And if an airline pilot gets into a cockpit baked, I have real issues with that. But if some guy wants to sit at home after a hard week's work and wants to smoke a joint and giggle, why the heck do I care?

If somebody wants to destroy themselves, why am I standing in the way of that? That's a social problem, not a criminal one. I don't think anybody here condones drug abuse (legal or otherwise). But I don't see how creating a criminal class in an obvious repeat of a failure in our history is making things better.

Is a world with legalized drugs Utopian? No. It brings a whole host of its own problems. But it'll reduce the heck out of violent crime related to drug dealing -- including all of the things that those kids who buy drugs are supposedly funding. So getting back to the original ad we were discussing, it equated kids buying a nickel bag as supporters of 9/11. I think that's an irresponsible stretch.

You make no sense here -- "oh, they'll legalize it on Friday and then ban it on Monday!"  What are you smoking??  I want some.

Ah, now I understand where you get your facts.  Got any more interesting ones shoved up your [moon]??  Just a hint:  it's legal to "roll your own" guns.

So, let's see what the "logic" of the ad is:
1) Drugs are illegal;
2) Therefore they are produced by criminals;
3) The criminals make money by selling the illegal drugs;
4) Like any good businessman, the criminals then use the money they make to improve their business conditions.

Eliminate (1) and the whole chain collapses.

Make it legal to grow your own pot, and although you might buy a packet of seeds ONCE, you never have to send another dime outside the country.

Let me make it a little clearer:

Make it legal to grow opium poppies in your backyard, and costs for poppyseeds at the grocery stores will go down (since they won't have to roast them first), and you'll only have to spend about $3 to buy enough seeds for a whole opium field.

Or have you never bought spices in a grocery store before??