Has anyone seen the new govenment anti cannabis add?
Printable View
Has anyone seen the new govenment anti cannabis add?
yep its very silly if you ask me
they're bringing out the same adverts over and over for each drug of people just overdosing and saying they changed etc...thats only becoz they became obsessive over the drug and it controlled them instead of us controlling the weed... as long as your mind can overpower weed you'll be fine.
Yes well unbelievable to say the least and what a waste of money! And at least they could of done there research instead of making up total garbage. :mad:
Hmpf...
No, haven't seen the ads myself... yet.
From what they're described here tho', they sound like they were made up by religious drunken zealots posturing as *incompetent* politicans, from what I've seen of similar ads and similar propandaganda elsewhere.
Anyway...
Putting in my two cents worth...
IMHO, Americans [and everyone else] right up to the top and down to the bottom, NEED to read their history texts to bone up on the Prohibition Of Alcohol [during the Great Depression years?] and why it did not work so well that the government had to be forced to repeal the laws that caused FAR more problems for the public than mere consumption of alcohol [even home-brewed stuff...] ever did, i.e, sky-high prices, corruption, adulteration of products with toxic ingredients, and criminal activities to support the habit, that sort of thing. Curiously similar to prohibition on marijuana [which started as a racist movement against New Mexicans], for similar reasons.
As for definitions, my considered opinion is that the hard drugs [heroin, cocaine, alcohol..] cause marked negative impacts on general health of the human body, while soft drugs [caffiene, marijuana, damiana, green tea...] tend to have benefical effects. IMHO, marijuana is just a strong version of a typical soft drug, as it is not particularly addicitive [about like coffee, and very difficult to overdose on] while alcohol is a weak version of a hard drug [can be addicitive and quite easy to overdose on].
I think it may be a good idea to legalize ALL drugs - it'd pull the rug out beneath the organized crime rather suddenly, for one thing, give the overworked cops something more productive to do, reduce the drug-law related problems [sky-high prices on drugs preclude money spent on decent diets and more important things, etc, etc... heroin, I understand, costs about $1.20 a pill to manufacture but sells for about $100 - a black mark against the legislators.] and make users more directly responsible for their own actions [in much the same way drinkers are advised not to drive wile intoxicated... enimently sensible advice, in my experience]. Also, the products in question would be subject to normal laws as regards advertising, packaging, and purity of ingredients and be subject to GST, like anything else, that sort of thing.
Of course I could be wrong on this... :) :cool:
no one has ever died from the ingestion of marijuana, but if you want to see silly, find the movie Reefer Madness, 1920's .
Hello from PA
LadyM, I have that DVD Reefer Madness, that I picked up cheap for measly five [Australian] dollars a while back.
From memory, the characters all acted like they were violently *drunk*, not stoned, from the start to the end. They moved too quickly, and were distinctly discoordinated as well.
They certainly didn't sing or indulge in bursts of creavity, like doodling for hours improbable pics of, for example, very pregnant mermaids, in sketchpads. Or crack fearsomely bad puns or wordplays. And I don't think they had any attacks of the famed *munchies*.
In short, the Reefer Madness was a government's ignorant idea of a joke, IMHO.
Good as an educational insight and for a laugh at the 1950's bureaucrats and politicans trying to pull a fast one over the public without doing any homework, but not much else.
Oops, I mean 1920's bureaucrats and politicans.
I understand that some politicans of the times, such as Anslinger, were very *racist* indeed - probably would make our dearly beloved P.M John Howard, Reverend Fred Nile, Phillip Ruddock, Amanda Vanstone, Pauline Hanson and rest of the Co, look as positively as benign as Enid Blython's The Famous Five characters.
havent seen the add but there's a new government study out that now admits a) you can become dependant & suffer withdrawal symtpons
b) pot is NOT 30-60 times stronger than the 60's. It is impossible to increase a plant that much, however when they say "weed is 10 times stronger than in the 60's" it's becasue they are comparing chronic hydro bud to crappy leaf joints. c) They have also admitted that 200 000 australians are dependant on pot & 300 000 smoke everyday, & that is in fact older generations that smoke most! search for it on google or something
its worth a read
:rasta: