[evilkoal]

has anyone else noticed that the "above the influence" commercials are getting more and more stupid? it is like they do not have a single good reason for their commercials to be aired. personally, i dont think these commercials should be aired unless they have legitimate reasons for people to not do what they are talking about.

that would be like KFC making commercials that say "salad is disgusting, bad for your health, and kills brain cells" with nothing to back up their claims.

unless i am missing something on these commercials that provides credible research, i believe that these commercials should be barred from the air or commercials that show the other point of view should be allowed to air.

[myrmaad]

evilkoal, on Feb 7 2009, 07:30 AM, said:

has anyone else noticed that the "above the influence" commercials are getting more and more stupid? it is like they do not have a single good reason for their commercials to be aired. personally, i dont think these commercials should be aired unless they have legitimate reasons for people to not do what they are talking about.

that would be like KFC making commercials that say "salad is disgusting, bad for your health, and kills brain cells" with nothing to back up their claims.

unless i am missing something on these commercials that provides credible research, i believe that these commercials should be barred from the air or commercials that show the other point of view should be allowed to air.

I never heard of it.

[herosinger]

Neither have I, but I think you're missing the point of commercials. They're paid for by third parties. Other than FCC guidelines, their content isn't managed by the government.

[evilkoal]

ehh, they play alot down here in california.

i dont know why some parts of our government work the way they do. who even voted for them to run that way? they should be impeached hahaha.

[doomjockey]

TheTruth.com is an ad campaign launched with the purpose of informing young people about the dangers of tobacco. Whether they actually accomplish this meaningfully is probably up for debate.



"Above the Influence" is an entirely different campaign sponsored by the gov't, evilkoal.

Personally, I feel that ATI dwells a bit too much on sensationalism then actual information. They like to make a lot of far-reaching claims without backing them up. More often times than not they compare something like smoking marijuana to alcoholism. If you've ever seen the effects of both, you know the two aren't nearly the same.

I don't think the campaign is a bad idea, but poorly handled.

[Dragonblade86]

They compare thc abuse to ethanol abuse in order to condemn cannabis? heh, i don't even know where to start..

mental health. out of 2 million cannabis users in the U.k 400 have some form of mental health problem. this doest take into account contamination of the drug, i.e. cannabis that has been sprayed or mixed with various household products such as soap, plastics (mainly in hash) laced with harder drugs etc. it doesnt take into account whether the user was already prone to mental health problems, nor ethanol usage. Imnot saying there arnt mental risks, but research has shown that in most cases its probally a matter of thc increasing pre-existing problems rather than creating new ones obviously though if your on mind altering substances 24/7 then theres a good chance your going to run into problems regardless of the substance (even if its something prescribed like anti-depressants)

as mental health goes thc is proven to be safer than prozac yet alone ethanol.

"brain damage" - thc causes no brain damage, although smoking can lead to brain damage via the impact on your lungs and circulatory system. Ethanol dehydrates the brain causeing it to shrink resulting in a loss of balance, poor judgement, mental instbility, paralysis or even death. that headache the next day? brain damage from your brain shrinking to much from the dehydration.

physical health. there are many toxins in cannabis and smoking is obviously harmful, use a vapouriser to seperate thc from toxins and to avoid smoke damage. we all know aout the various physical conditions caused by ethanol im not going to write about them as their too many.

If used correclty cannabis has a mild mental risk at best. Ethanol is more comparable to cocaine (and studies have shown its nearly as addictive too)

[Vagrant0]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the "truth" commercials are sponsored and paid for by tobacco companies. They're designed to be offending but ultimately meaningless since the product itself is something that people cannot easily quit once they start. The whole anti-smoking campaign is, and always was a sort of a farce. Its entire purpose is to refute the claims of sickness or injury from use by having a simple "hey, you know it's bad for you, havn't you seen the commercials we put out, or the labels that we print on each package" message. It's all a legal cover, which has other interesting implications, such as criminalizing anyone who smokes in public, or encouraging those who are addicted to your product to spend alot of money on products to supposedly stop smoking. This is not to suggest that smoking is, or ever was healthy, just that the efforts of preventing it are rather empty in the long run. Instead of attacking the causes behind why people start smoking, or continue to smoke in spite of the insane cost to pocket and health, they just make people more aware of all the bad things about smoking so that all those non-smokers out there have more words to throw at you every time you light up.

The anti-drug ads are a different story. These are paid for by the government, in an attempt to make people think twice before partaking of whatever narcotic which is handed to them. The ads are supposed to be silly, they are supposed to be stupid. This is because it's usually only those really weird, stupid ads which we tend to remember. They seem to not make sense so that the viewer is forced to try and work it out, thus increasing the exposure and connection with the ad. It's not necessarily effective, few things really are, but it is memorable, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about them.

[evilkoal]

doomjockey, on Feb 7 2009, 06:48 PM, said:

TheTruth.com is an ad campaign launched with the purpose of informing young people about the dangers of tobacco. Whether they actually accomplish this meaningfully is probably up for debate.



"Above the Influence" is an entirely different campaign sponsored by the gov't, evilkoal.

Personally, I feel that ATI dwells a bit too much on sensationalism then actual information. They like to make a lot of far-reaching claims without backing them up. More often times than not they compare something like smoking marijuana to alcoholism. If you've ever seen the effects of both, you know the two aren't nearly the same.

I don't think the campaign is a bad idea, but poorly handled.

ahh, i thought they were the same thing

but yeah, i (and i am sure a lot more people) would like to see the research to back up the claims that these commercials make. i wonder if there is any way to make the government display the credentials for their claims.

[Vagrant0]

evilkoal, on Feb 8 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

but yeah, i (and i am sure a lot more people) would like to see the research to back up the claims that these commercials make. i wonder if there is any way to make the government display the credentials for their claims.

Why would they start doing that now?

As for the confusion, the reason why the claims are so broad is because they are often not mentioning or targeting any single drug. Instead they target the idea of people letting their friends decide everything about them, or turning to drugs instead of looking for more positive outlets.

Regardless of what claims are made, one thing is certain, prolonged drug usage, regardless what that drug actually is, almost always has a very negative impact of the lives of those who use that drug. Their methods may be unclear, their claims may not be well founded, but the purpose is sound.

Compare it to another group like PETA. PETA's claims are often totally unfounded and well over the border of what most people would consider sane or reasonable, and they do incomprehensible publicity stunts. Yet, people still believe what they are told, and many of those assist in forcing those beliefs on others. This is a model which is true of almost every activist group. Facts don't matter, common sense doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is the amount of exposure that people get to your group and your cause.

You could honestly create an activist group against having any children, and encouraging abortions, or operations to prevent pregnancy, claiming everything from global warming to an increase of crime and poverty. And just because the two things might be in some way related, people might actually take your cause to heart, and mention your organization to others. The more exposure your group gets, the more chance that others, not associated with your group, might start repeating your message around dinner tables, water coolers, or waiting in line somewhere, not to mention every time they see someone either with kids, or expecting.

[Mr Wulfgar]

Tobacco-based products are horrible substances that causes cancer in a million different ways, and then they turn your teeth yellow and make you smell bad (just for ha-ha's). This I know from personal experience, as I have known a lot of smokers. At this point, I can actually tell how long (about) they've been smoking just by looking at them. Pot is a little more unknown, and pot addictions seem to be more psychological than physical, but it's still not very good for you and, unless you can trace it back to the plant it came from, you don't know what else is in it.

My point is that even though TheTruth is a pretty ridiculous organization, they are fighting for the right cause.

Also, I am offended at comparisons between PETA and TheTruth. Actually, I'm pretty sure anyone would be offended by comparisons between PETA and anything they support.