|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Stoner Sloth
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The NSW government tried to create anti-marijuana PSAs to deter high school kids from smoking pot. Everybody involved is backing away from it rapidly as it has caught universal ridicule online.
Do PSAs, even good ones, actually work to deter kids from using drugs? What does?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
What does PSA stand for please?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Public Service Announcement?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The talk on Friday evening was that it's like so many government ads - well intentioned, but so amateurish in the execution as to have little to no effect in the intended market.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Public Service Announcement?
Thank you. It's an abbreviation I haven't met before.
What's the film like. The Opening Post makes it sound like the sort of thing Mr Grayson and Mr Cholmondley-Warner might have produced.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Anti-drug PSAs almost inevitably set themselves up for ridicule, partly because, to young people, the topic of drugs is seen as automatically funny(like sex and drinking), and also because the ads themselves are often just so incredibly bombastic.
Like, did anyone REALLY think that kids wouldn't be laughing their heads off at the "Your brain on drugs" fried egg ad from the 80s?
I think the best anti-drug ad would just feature someone calmly explaining the risks of certain drugs, in a factual. non-judegmental tone. And acknowledging that the research is, in many cases, ambigious.
So, for example: "Recent studies have shown a possible link between marijuana and schizophrenia. More research needs to be done, but this is something to keep in mind when making a decision about whether or not to use."
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Mousethief:
You may find this old article from Slate interesting.
As the writer states, those ads were supposed to be impervious to the sort of youthful cynicism that had mocked previous anti-drug campaigns. You can check out the comments section on You Tube to see whether or not that worked out.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
You hear of people, well past midlife, who have smoked cannabis in one form or another for 20-30 years. Perfectly capable of holding down a job, looking after themselves etc. No crippling schizophrenia, psychosis or cancer.
I do gather that some research has shown the brains of those under 20 years of age can be adversely affected in in the way those over are not. A lot of these things also come down to the individual's construction,(genetic makeup).
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
You hear of people, well past midlife, who have smoked cannabis in one form or another for 20-30 years. Perfectly capable of holding down a job, looking after themselves etc. No crippling schizophrenia, psychosis or cancer. ...
That isn't as persuasive as it sounds. A lot of people can work an entire lifetime in an atmosphere foetid with powdery asbestos dust without getting asbestosis. Another person is exposed to asbestos almost minimally and does get it.
My late grandmother smoked cigarettes almost the whole of her adult life, and reached over 100. Yet we all know that cigarettes seriously increase the risk of getting lung cancer.
Consumption is infectious. But if one member of a family develops it, it looks almost random whether other members of the family will catch it or not.
It may be that some of us are genetically more - or less - likely to develop certain conditions. But it does not even seem to be certain whether that is the explanation.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Mousethief:
You may find this old article from Slate interesting.
The problem with the article's analysis, of course, is that it was not written by a 13 year old, i.e. by a member of the target audience. I wonder if these people used focus groups at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What's the film like.
Click on the link and find out.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think the best anti-drug ad would just feature someone calmly explaining the risks of certain drugs, in a factual. non-judegmental tone. And acknowledging that the research is, in many cases, ambigious.
This presupposes that 14 year olds are swayable by facts, or enlightened self-interest that involves delaying gratification. As a teacher of 14 year olds, I am not convinced of this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
While the Montana Meth Project ads might not come as ridiculous as some other anti-drug PSAs, I did find the moral compass on on this one a little screwy.
I woinder if they're directing an equal amount of time and money to telling middle-aged men not to have sex with underaged drug addicts?
EDIT: Not in reply to any specific post, besides the topic itself.
[ 20. December 2015, 15:53: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Mouethief wrote:
quote:
This presupposes that 14 year olds are swayable by facts, or enlightened self-interest that involves delaying gratification. As a teacher of 14 year olds, I am not convinced of this.
You may be correct. Though, I will point out that the typical arguments in favour of comprehensive sex education, for example, presume that kids, if given all the facts about pregnancy and STDs, will make rational choices.
Of course, you may or may not subscribe to that view. Personally, having been in junior high and recalling the older kid who thought it would just be hilarious to chuck a rock at my head and laugh hysterically when it missed my temple by about an inch, I too share the skepticism that kids will base their choices on a rational analysis of the foreseeable consequencs.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It would be far more effective to prevent [undesired activity here] as something that only aged uncool people do. Pictures of the members of the Grateful Dead smoking weed, for instance, or of Frank Sinatra singing "You Make Me Feel So Young" as an overweight guy with gray hair puts a roach into his clip.
The only difficulty then would be the way that coolness tends to come back again, so that some day when the Dead are rediscovered to be cool you would need to recalibrate.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
My late grandmother smoked cigarettes almost the whole of her adult life, and reached over 100. Yet we all know that cigarettes seriously increase the risk of getting lung cancer.
That's very interesting. I and others can supply similar testimonies of smokers who appear to lead charmed lives while others, who observe strict health codes, do not. OK we've got the genetic thing, but otherwise the jury seems a long time out as to why this should be so.
But no, I would not use such anecdotes to persuade people into taking up smoking. It's just that sometimes it feels to me like the health lobby, with it's endless barrage of campaigns and advice, have in some ways done more harm than good. I mean who ever heard of liver damage in young people due to binge drinking 30 years ago? Not to mention all the health phobias and peculiar conditions we hear more and more about these days.
Accepted the above isn't exactly what the OPs on about. I should have thought keeping pot and other intoxicating substances out of schools and colleges, as it always used to be, is a sound idea. What folks do outside those places is their business.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
There are differences between any drug (or alcohol) used to crudely self-treat some psychological trouble like depression or anxiety, settle down temporary adolescent angst and developmental strife, genetic risks for addiction and related diagnoses like bi-polar, using in peer pressure situations, and ocassional social use. Must differentiate who's using and in what context. We might also consider the social ills within our societies which creats some of the contexts both internal and external to people.
In my youth, pot was a social statement of rebellion and non-agreement with perceived oppression. Being stoned seemed sensible in the context of televised murder hy soldiers in south Asian countries, riots, and here, the FLQ. I heard Timothy Leary speak once. He seemed very sensible and more so than criminal politicians like Nixon. If the equally criminal Trump were elected, I should think pot sales will go through the roof; the Donald is a big Dick nixon isn't he? Or, as the 35 years dead sainted John had it "happiness is a warm gun", with the double entrendre intended in the original.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Rolyn, you're not getting my point. I'm not arguing about whether smoking hashish is OK or bad for you. I'm arguing against using weak arguments.
If quite a lot of people can use it for years without harmful effects, that doesn't mean that it will have no harmful effects on anyone. Nor that those who are supposed to have been harmed by it must have been harmed by something else. Nor that they would have developed their conditions independently. That may be the case. It may not be. But quite a lot of people not being harmed isn't a strong argument that nobody will be. I suspect you wouldn't argue that because some people aren't harmed by them, there's no need to discourage people from smoking, protect them from being exposed to asbestos or trying to stop people with consumption infecting people who haven't got it.
No Prophet, are you really arguing that if I see horrible things on the television, you think I should get stoned so that I'm not upset by the news any more? Or that if I were a US citizen and Donald Trump gets elected, it will be my dafter fellow electors who should take the blame in stead of me if I go off into a permanent hashish induced daze? Because both of those are what you seem to be saying.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It would be far more effective to prevent [undesired activity here] as something that only aged uncool people do. Pictures of the members of the Grateful Dead smoking weed, for instance, or of Frank Sinatra singing "You Make Me Feel So Young" as an overweight guy with gray hair puts a roach into his clip.
The only difficulty then would be the way that coolness tends to come back again, so that some day when the Dead are rediscovered to be cool you would need to recalibrate.
This, and similar suggestions, make an assumption that while probably applicable in a limited context, is possibly overstated, ie. young people do drugs because of social pressure to be cool.
Whereas I don't think we should overlook the possibility that young people do drugs for the same reason that adults do: they tried it, they liked it, and so they want to continue doing it. Sure, in many cases, the desire to fit in might have prompted the initial experimentation, but as anyone who has tried drugs(at least the milder ones anyway) will tell you, there is also a basic pleasure derived from them, that keeps the users coming back again and again.
I'm pretty sure most pot smokers would be happy with legalization, even though it would remove the "outlaw" cache associated with the drug. Just like most people who drank during Prohibition didn't stop when it was repealed, since the forbidden glamour of the speakeasy was never the reason they were drinking in the first place.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There was an anti-drunkenness video back in the eighties which I would have thought would be effective.
There is a group of teenagers at a party; one boy is quite drunk in offensive ways. He knocks over his drink and other people's; he interrupts other people for no good reason; he tries to paw one of the girls; whenever he does any of this, he brays with laughter.
The gist of the voice-over was that this guy may think he's the life of the party, but no one else does.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
Back in 2000, when Britney Spears was at her peak, the Health Education Board for Scotland produced this advert in an effort to reduce the number of teenage girls taking up smoking. I was teaching at the time, and while I have no idea if it had any effect on the smoking statistics, I know that my pupils liked the advert and found it cool.
As I recall, the reasoning behind the ad was that teenagers don't take much notice of warnings about lung cancer or dying young, because that all seems so remote and old to them. And where an emphasis on sport and fitness had seemed to work quite well in dissuading teenage boys from smoking, it had little effect on the girls. But it seems that teenage girls do take note if smoking is shown to make them unattractive to boys. YMMV.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I like to draw a distinction between drug use and drug abuse. Lots of people use drugs every day. I had a cup of coffee this morning, and in a few minutes, I'm going to pour myself a crisp apple cider with a wedge of lime. However, if someone is abusing drugs, they probably have a problem, and drugs aren't it. And taking the drugs away or punishing them for abusing drugs won't solve whatever that problem is.
I'm reminded of a reality TV show on TLC about weight-loss surgery. They focus on how much the patients eat, their degree of disability, and their unhappiness. At some point during every episode, the patient will speak about the trauma or abuse that triggered their eating disorder. And then they go back to obsessing about food and weighing themselves and hoping surgery will make it better. I've only seen one episode where a patient was referred to a counsellor, and that was only after she had failed to comply with her treatment for several months and the bariatric specialist simply refused to see her any more. That just seems completely ass-backwards to me: we think it's so important to stop everyone from using drugs*, but we don't seem to have any interest in addressing why some people end up abusing drugs.
*For some reason, we're totally ok with alcohol and nicotine use killing more people directly and indirectly that all the other terrible, awful, illegal drugs put together.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Back in 2000, when Britney Spears was at her peak, the Health Education Board for Scotland produced this advert in an effort to reduce the number of teenage girls taking up smoking. I was teaching at the time, and while I have no idea if it had any effect on the smoking statistics, I know that my pupils liked the advert and found it cool.
As I recall, the reasoning behind the ad was that teenagers don't take much notice of warnings about lung cancer or dying young, because that all seems so remote and old to them. And where an emphasis on sport and fitness had seemed to work quite well in dissuading teenage boys from smoking, it had little effect on the girls. But it seems that teenage girls do take note if smoking is shown to make them unattractive to boys. YMMV.
From what I recall of junior high and high school, girls who smoked didn't seem to have much trouble getting dates. Not that they neccessarily got more dates than the non-smokers, but likely not significantly fewer.
But I can see how that ad would seem cool, not dorky, in contrast to many of the anti-narcotic ads. The difference is, I think, that the latter usually have to focus on the supposedly negative behaviours associated with the substance, which provides fertile grounds for ridicule.
Plus, like I said, there is the fact that illegal drugs, unlike tobacco or booze, are just seen as being automatically funny. Back in the 90s, my friends and I(university age) used to amuse ourselves at the bar by singing parody renditions of this.
As you can see, there aren't any mockable portrayals of stoners and addicts, but the mere repeating of DRUGS DRUGS DRUGS by fresh-faced moppets was by itself, just goofy. Not sure if we noticed the dad's perv moustache at the time.
[ 22. December 2015, 13:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Finally watched the Stoner Sloth videos, and I have to say, I don't think they're quite as ludicrous as some of the critics have been making out. The portrayal of delayed reactions and missed social cues on weed is not entirely inaccurate, and the pathetic music is a nice touch.
And, in some ways, you ARE worse on weed. Though of course, you're also worse on alcohol, but in different ways.
And I don't think there are too many stoners who would confuse salt with salad, no matter how baked they were.
Plus, regardless of their abstract merit, the fact that the ads are being widely mocked by their target demographic makes them, by the standards of advertising, failures.
[ 22. December 2015, 14:36: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Jonesing For Weed At 48
This satirical cartoon was published in hipster-friendly Heavy Metal magazine in the 90s. It takes roughly the same view of weed as Stoner Sloth, but I'm guessing it wasn't subject to the same amount of criticism, even though the artist(going by the accompanying commentary) has a negative opinion of marijuana use.
Also, Cheech And Chong portrayed weed pretty much the same way, but stoners tend to like their material.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
No Prophet, are you really arguing that if I see horrible things on the television, you think I should get stoned so that I'm not upset by the news any more? Or that if I were a US citizen and Donald Trump gets elected, it will be my dafter fellow electors who should take the blame in stead of me if I go off into a permanent hashish induced daze? Because both of those are what you seem to be saying.
It's revolution, on the inside and the outside. Change your reality or change the reality. Shoot the drugs or the gun. Or both. They're going to do it. It will be messy.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It's revolution, on the inside and the outside. Change your reality or change the reality. Shoot the drugs or the gun. Or both. They're going to do it. It will be messy.
Sorry. That was easily mockable rubbish fifty years ago and it still is.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I have to agree with you there Enoch.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
