Drug Abuse=Supporting Terrorists?

[crazyray]

About those ads during the Super Bowl...what does everyone think?

[jkrohn]

On a whole I found the adds to be dissappointing. The Brittney Spears ads were lame, most were unoriginal and not funny. Too many old ads too. Only one I really like was that one where that guys legs were going crazy while he walked.

As for the drug money one, hmmmm, not sure what to say about that. I'll leave it at different.


Jkrohn

[crazyray]

I'm not talking about the quality of the ad, I'm wondering how people are responding to its meaning

[dragonb]

Pretty brutal commercials.
I guess they are really going for the shock therapy value of it.
The idea is good, and what they are saying is probably true.
But, I'm not sure if I agree with using the tragedy in that way. But, still split on it..
dragonb

[Sohgin]

I know the Taliban was a major supplier of opium, but I'd really like to see some numbers for the rest of the claim.

[Barney]

Next thing you'll know there will be ads that say "Driving without your safety belt on = supporting terrorists" and "Shoplifting = supporting terrorists." By buying drugs you support criminals, drug dealers. Some of them may fit the title "terrorist," others not. Of course it's just a clever trick to scare people off. But does anyone really think this will scare junkies enough they'll quit and discourage others to start? Somehow I don't think junkies are going to care that some terrorist will buy guns from their (stolen) money and kill people with it.

Next thing you'll know there will be ads that say "Driving without your safety belt on = supporting terrorists" and "Shoplifting = supporting terrorists."

haha so true


anyone catch those mlife commercials? now those were lame. seem the advertising department is have lack of imagination the past several superbowls. Plus the B. Spear pepsi commercials were horrid

JaYsin

[charmler]

*

[kenyg]

hmm.. So just where does the drug money go? Guess it eventually winds up in organized crime, then the drug cartels - guess you could call them terrorists - they're pretty brutal in their own countries.

As far as cigarettes. I like that the ads shock value, it makes people think. The cigarette companies don't want you to think.

That first pack of smokes wont kill you. But maybe you'll buy another pack - and another. Then you'll start thinking, jeez, I could use a smoke about now. It's called addiction.

They don't want you to think - this will kill me, but first, cause me years of suffering with emphysema, halling a portable oxygen tank around with me, until I finally have to have a hole cut in my throat to breath, where upon, I get dignosed with lung cancer, and die a slow lingering death.

Remember, tobacco is the only product that when used as directed causes death.

dont smoke.

[crazyray]

After all, how many kids die from smoking a pack of cigs versus whichever drug is en-vogue today.

While I sympathize with your sentiment, here are some stats:

The number of deaths and illnesses in 1995, related to addiction

Deaths
Alcohol-related: 105,000
Tobacco-related: 446,200
Drug-related: 38,900

Illnesses/injuries
Alcohol-related: 9,830,000
Tobacco-related: 26,771,000
Drug-related: 3,103,600

In fact, in the U.S., more people die from side effects of NSAIDS (ibuprofen, naproxen, etc) every year than from all illegal drugs combined.

(Stats are from SAMHSA.gov website)