In the past two decades, the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America have made countless TV ads about the evils of illicit drugs. There was the one where that tweaker chick on meth plucked out her whole eyebrow. There was the one where Rachael Leigh Cook smashed up her kitchen. And, of course, there was the granddaddy of them all: the fried egg. ("This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?") I've hated every single one of these ads with a raging, righteous fury. Until now.

This new spot, titled "Pete's Couch," doesn't offend me. It acknowledges that smoking weed on your buddy's sofa is the "safest thing in the world." (Which is true. I actually had a friend named Pete in high school, and we did get high on his couch. No turmoil ensued.) The ad's main contention is that it's important to get off that couch and out into the world, where you can do things like ice skate with other teens. (Also true. It is indeed good to engage with the outside world, instead of just sitting in your rec room. Though I'd note that it's possible to smoke pot in your rec room one day and then go ice skating the next. Or even just smoke pot and immediately go ice skating—which, come to think of it, sounds like a blast. Who's in?)

Whatever you may think of its arguments, this spot is quite a departure for the ONDCP. Finally, an admission that using pot isn't necessarily calamitous. It's possible we're seeing this about-face only because previous scare-tactic ads were recently proved to increase drug use. But either way, I applaud the new, more truthful strategy. Lying is never what you want from your government (even if you've grown accustomed to it).

What should we be telling kids about drugs? I remember once seeing an anti-drug ad from way back when (I'm guessing the mid-1950s). Black-and-white footage showed happy kids horsing around on a playground while the kindly narrator offered his view that it's more fulfilling to find our bliss in life without mixing in the fog and dependency of drug abuse. Totally fair point, made without resorting to exaggeration or untruth. I recall thinking at the time that I wished modern anti-drug ads could be so reasonable. Instead, recent PSAs have suggested that drug use leads to: 1) Shooting your friend in the head, 2) running over a little girl on her bike, and 3) helping the terrorists.

In this context, "Pete's Couch" is a work of bracing honesty. Other spots in the ongoing "Above the Influence" campaign have been unawful, too. In "Whatever," a straight-edge kid talks about chaperoning his stoned friends around, acting as designated driver and as a sort of den mother for his wasted buddies. The point is that this kid makes his own decisions and chooses to stay off drugs even though his friends are getting high. Aside from cloaking the stoner kids' faces in shadows (as though smoking pot makes them incorporeal nothings), the ad is done in a low-key, nonhyperbolic way. I like that it seems to say it's OK to be friends with pot smokers (instead of instantly calling the cops on them, as past ads might have recommended).

Quick question, though, in light of this new marijuana glasnost: Will the ONDCP now retract its previous claims that pot is a dangerous gateway drug? And, logical next question (as others have noted): If smoking pot is the safest thing in the world, does not lead to the use of harder drugs, and, worst case, causes you to veg out on a couch for several hours, why is it a criminal offense? I eagerly await the ads addressing this conundrum.

Grade: B+. In general, I approve of the message here. It isn't ideal to be stoned on your couch all the time. I think most high-school kids can grasp and appreciate that truth. Will the ad stop those kids from experimenting with pot? No. Because smoking pot is also fun and largely harmless, and most high-school kids can grasp and appreciate that truth, too.

Note: The new case against pot? It makes you lazy.

Source: Slate (US Web)
Author: Seth Stevenson
Published: September 25, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
Contact: letters@slate.com
Website: http://www.slate.com/
URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2150334

Related Articles:

YouTube Meets Reefer Madness
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22200.shtml

Cool Reception on YouTube for Drug PSAs
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22187.shtml

I always got disgusted when a student of mine would say they had no time to practice but would tell me how they reached the thirteenth level of Death Slayer Zombie Killer on their Nintendo.

It may be moral relativism, but there are a lot of things hurting our kids more than cannabis that are perfectly legal and common sense says that's just wrong.

I think it's a bunch of people like me that think our government is a waste.

No one would waste a good high like that, unless of course, they had to hide for some reason.

What is CAGW?

I do not like to spend time with people like that or help them spread their hatred. I am for cannabis prohibition being ended but I am against people who advocate mass murder or torture.

I believe cannabis prohibition must be ended, but my advocacy of this has to be peaceful and has to be against those who would commit horrors even while they may agree with my goal.

Whig says,

As am an experienced pot-user of 40+ years, i know this argument is pure BS, like all the others. There are a lot of things in this world that kill ambition and marijuana is just the scapegoat for all of them. One; poverty, two; hopelessness, three; humiliation, four; bullies, five; lack of security, six; paranoia: the idea that marijuana is illegal and can get people in trouble, etc...

My final conclusion is that the main reason why those kids sit on the couch after smoking marijuana isn't because they don't want to do things, its because the demonization of marijuana has confined it and its users to closets, or, in this case, couches in basements.

People who use marijuana don't lack ambition, they simply find it somehat difficult to do things when they are low on money and in need of direction. Weed is a nice agent for objective thinking -- outside the box.

To accuse it of killing ambition just because it helps a person get in touch with their own individual mind and consciousness is absurd and caters to the moronic sports-jerk mentality.

It's similar to discussing the problem of semi-regulated marijuana. We want this. We want the government to come and meet us half way and let people have their medicine. You shouldn't be required to go through them, but it is better than sick people not getting their medicine at all.

We also want people to be able to grow their own medicine, but this can be (and in California, is) part of the regulated compromise. It's not a full loaf, but it is half a loaf and that is better than none.

I'm for ending cannabis prohibition even if it is to be replaced with cannabis regulation. And I'd rather have regulations which control what bandwidth providers can do than to let them go off with an unregulated monopoly.

Typical of politician types who are out to deceive to get their way.

If they called it what it really is...they wouldn't make any headway with it at all and they know it. That's why they do it.

I've noticed this often with Bills our government is considering. OFTEN.

republic-rats or democrans, I agree there's hardly any difference in a lot of ways, but the fact that no third party has a chance in hell of getting enough electoral votes, and in case you haven't noticed, the fact that the majority of Americans voted twice against G_W AND HE'S STILL THERE, should be enough evidence to conclude that democratic majority does not rule.

Virtuousness is not generally a quality that gets into politics. It's a standard adhered to by the 'best and the brightest' (of the Nephalim). It's not 'understanding' the law which qualifies you, but your 'understanding how to circumnavigate the law' which makes you rich and powerful enough to get public notice, and enter into the political fray.

Let these services be added as the ISP companies determine which ones, and when. The customers of these ISP's will naturally pick which service is ‘of choice’ to them, and others will follow suit. Users will choose what is right for them, and avoid paying for services they don't want.

Now who benefits from these regulations Big Corp wants, big corp, or the consumer?

Free enterprise vs. regulated enterprise?

The phrase ‘Internet Neutrality” comes from the ones who want to control. They coined that phrase and used it to make it sound better. Just the opposite is true.

Keep in mind that this type of legislation big corp wants, is a Gateway to more rules and regulations. Let the Internet evolve on it’s own without manipulation from Big Corp wanting government regulations, tilting things in their favor.

Look again.

********

from Citizens Against Government Waste:

In the name of so-called “net neutrality,” a number of special-interest groups, like MoveOn.org, and Internet content providers, such as Google, Yahoo, and Amazon.com, are pushing for federal regulations of the Internet that will ultimately hit you and all Internet users right in the pocketbook!

This cadre of high-tech companies that provide search engines, websites, and other “content” for the Internet want Congress to mandate that your Internet service provider the company that you pay for broadband or dial-up access to the Internet must carry every single piece of content and every service they have to offer, no matter the cost. If Congress bows to their demands and imposes some of the first-ever regulations on the freewheeling Internet, your service provider will have no option but to pass the higher cost for such universal service on to you.

In short, Google and the other high-tech Internet giants would have the government guarantee them below-cost access to premium high-speed network services with you, the end-user, footing the bill!

The Internet has thrived as a tool enhancing communications and commerce precisely because the government has, for the most part, taken a hands-off approach with regard to regulation and taxation. Net neutrality regulations would discourage crucial investment in broadband networks and stifle the innovation that is at the heart of the Internet’s success.

I have to stop you there, Museman. YouTube is not a counterpart of television. It may be video, but it is not controlled by any mainstream media company, with the further point that copyright enforcement can prevent a lot of things that the mainstream media even produced from being shown.

Much of YouTube is homemade video, and what is not is still what people like you and me wanted to show people. It's a free (except for that copyright problem) speech zone.

Like Cannabis News and Blogtopia, YouTube is part of the new ecosystem, not the old media. It may not succeed in establishing itself over the long run, but if not, replacements will. This is how we are reinventing all communications, so that everyone who wants to watch rather than listen, or listen rather than read, or read rather than watch, can have access to our shared media environment and submit our own responses that can equally be viewed by all.

But the threat remains that the government will shut down this free ecosystem, will restrict it to those with special permission, will limit our access. That is why I was so surprised to even hear Had Enough opposing network neutrality. The fact of the CORPORATE state is that the CORPORATIONS have more power than anyone, and libertarians never seem to understand this. They want to give more power to CORPORATIONS -- legal fictions that act outside of law and without limited lifespan or susceptability to any but financial harm.

We can't be silent and we can't be satisfied to sit and read and listen and watch any more. You are absolutely right about that. We need to be active, speaking and writing and performing for whomever we can get to listen to us, and then encourage them to speak as well.

I do not believe in any aspect of this system. It's roots are deep in ancient lies, and it's fruit speaks loudly for the heart of the tree which bears it.

no one should be endeared to this ad, even if it decides not to link potheads with hard drugs, recklessness, or anything. it is straight out of the doctrine of the Drug War--in other words, we're sissies afraid at taking a chance, being someone, being in love.

11 hours??? Does anyone at all have this concept when they burn, that they're going to drop on a couch and do nothing for 11 hours? This stereotypical portrayal does NO justice to any dimension of pot-smoking culture. I can remember my early twenties burning: we climbed mountains, fished, played softball, frisbee, played music, worked--how could such a bombastic commercial be accepted as truth? Oh, I forgot--professional and collegiate sports drug tests, so obviously no heads play sports. (???) Oh, I forgot--potheads are sissies, so they don't try to make it with girls (????) Oh, I forgot, potheads don't love nature, so they don't bicycle. (f#$%$%k!). Nothing excuses this ad from complete stupidity and worthlessness.

On NPR's "Topical Currents," a guest speaker admired the ad as a "departure" which made anti-drug thinking "more believable."

A believable crock. Hell, what do I know. All I am is a professor.

I'm not kidding about TV however, and my telling briefly of my brother is to illustrate the point -just like anything else- without guidance and honesty- to teach moderation in all things, television is a dangerous and addictive device. More dangerous and addictive than even alcohol or heroin if left to run unhendered and uncontrolled in front of a young mind.

The fact that our entire generation soaked up dangerous levels of radiation from those older TVs from the 50's and the 60's, probably has nothing to do with all the incidence of cancer in our age group?

The fact that the current regime of fascists, war mongers, and bio-destruction engineers use the medium to highlight their obfuscating doublethink, and to deliberatly create confusion about the very foundation of right and wrong- so that they can 'do no wrong' in the 'public eye' - goes almost completely unremarked about.

Television, airplanes, and automobiles; the death of a world.

Even though there are a few worthy programs available, television, and it's new counterparts like youtube, teaches children all the lies they need to know, all the false pretexts of a Hollywood America. It glorifies cops, lawyers, and doctors as some kind of modern 'heroes' just by virtue of their 'profession.' It falsifies history to create a consumer 'hook' in hopes to get all to watch the commercials in between.

Real nasty characters are resurrected (and created) as justified killers, and destruction is hailed by shouts of agreement and joy as the rubble comes down - it's no coincidence that everybody got to see the twin towers go down- though the shouts of joy were mostly in U.S. covert ops, and in Arab lands.

One of the estimations of percentage of herb users in the U.S. hovers around about 50% (though we all know it is more) the estimation of TV use is so close to 100% it would be hard to accurately get all the numbers in on the other side of the decimal point of 99.

Nobody can smoke herb and 'stay in one place for 11 hours', unless they are disabled and can't move, or as often happens when you smoke a lot of good bud on a couch- (in front of the TV)- you fall asleep. Does sleeping count?

TV on the other hand is known and documented to turn children into zombies.

I had a brother who spent most of his waking hours in front of the tube. You could yell, pound on the table, even stand in front of him, and he would act as if you did not exist. Only if you actually managed to block his vision of the TV -by turning it off or something, could you get his attention. We used to do that and time how long it took before his consciousness came back into his head. There was measureable lag.

I heard on the grapevine a few years back that my brother had dabbled once too many times with meth-creation, and died in a resulting explosion. Our family did not even get the opportunity to bury him. If I were to make some real correlations between original causes, and 'gateway' devices, I would say that TV sitting is the gateway to a world of horrors, and knowing the choices my brother made over his life, I know without a doubt that TV started his over-all lack of understanding reality, and led to the final illusion of the fake 'power' that meth gives it's users. I am convinced that without that TV constantly broadcasting all that pure BS into his formative brain, he would have been a completely different person, and his intelligence would have been benefit to the world.

I gave him a few more years I think, by turning him on to the herb, but TV got there first.

I think the government must've all been couch potatos -left in front of the TV while their wealthy parents partied, how else can one explain their idiocy?

By RB Warford, LWW Today

During the CSNY Tour, which wound up in Pittsburgh PA two weeks ago, the song "Let's Impeach the President" received wild responses. After a review of the recordings, the Boo-ometer was connected to the recordings and the results are:

#1 Atlanta GA

#2 St Louis MO

#3 Fresno CA

#4 Irvine CA

No reading is perfect and it may be that Atlanta, the only concert measured that was inside a building, may have benefited from the enclosed area acoustics. No other cities had booing that was loud enough to register on the Boo-ometer. In Atlanta, the boos were still not as loud as the cheers.

Roger McQuinn: http://www.byrds.com/

These jokers want to stereotype me and millions of others but we just don't fit their caricature.

Man, I had fun! LOL

Besides the inherent ridiculousness of the ad, I must disagree with it on a fundamental level. Now the ONDCP is saying that the worst thing that can happen to pot smokers is that they will waste their life away. I beg to differ, the times I've had smoking cannabis are some of the most valuable times in my life. And that evening is just one of many fine glowing examples in my mind. I value my times smoking cannabis just as much as every vacation I've taken, every family gathering I've attended, and every girl I've fallen for.

Ahhh, the early years when I truly was experimenting with cannabis, when every experience was so new and exciting. And to think I'll never get those two hours back... but it will always put a smile on my face.

The Byrds - You Ain't Going Nowhere

***

Oh oh are we gonna fly down in the easy chair

I don't care how many letters they sent

The morning came the morning went

Pack up your money pick up your tent you ain't going nowhere

Ooh we ride me high tomorrows the day my brides gonna come

Oh oh are we gonna fly down in the easy chair

WAYYYYYY back then, we also would occasionally smoke pot on "Pete's" couch. Maybe the pot was different then ( mostly Mexican) but it didn't give us couch lock. What I remember was that we would then engage in some very interesting conversations or realllllly listen to some interesting music, followed, typically, by cooking some munchies or performin a munchies search, followed by "let's go out and do something interesting", such as walk in the woods stoned and really look at nature. It was great and I think an enriching thing.

Janes is director of the Florida Office of Drug Control.

This dude Must be smokin crack! The latest study shows Cannabis smokers are somewhat LESS likely to get lung cancer. He must still have the 1960's copy of talking points...LOL

From Denver's television 9 News:

I thought it was pretty reasonable.

(In other words, it is illegal because it is illegal. I needn't mention the circular reasoning there.)

The author might wait a very long time. Even when reformers have cash in hand, they aren't permitted to tell their side of the story.

In Oregon, radio stations that played hours of government messages demonising drug users refused to run a short ad paid for by a couple questioning government drug laws. "Portland's KUFO-FM . . . turned them down. KUFO wasn't alone in such thinking. Jeff and Tracy, both 39, have also been turned down by Portland's KNRK-FM, KGON-FM, KKRZ-FM, KKCW-FM and KEX-AM, and by stations in Seattle and Bend."91 Attempts by the couple to advertise on buses and in local papers were also turned down as 'unsuitable for publication.' (p.300) ... Noted a student of media drug policy: "Even when reformers have cold, hard cash, it's often hard for those who disagree with governmental policy to buy into the mass media."102 (p.302)

Drug War Propaganda, http://www.cafepress.com/drugpropaganda2

I urge you today to tell your U.S. Senators to reject any attempts to add a “net neutrality” provision to telecommunications reform legislation. In the name of so-called “net neutrality,” a number of special-interest groups, like MoveOn.org, and Internet content providers, such as Google, Yahoo, and Amazon.com, are pushing for federal regulations of the Internet that will ultimately hit you and all Internet users right in the pocketbook!

Let me explain.

This cadre of high-tech companies that provide search engines, websites, and other “content” for the Internet want Congress to mandate that your Internet service provider - the company that you pay for broadband or dial-up access to the Internet - must carry every single piece of content and every service they have to offer, no matter the cost. If Congress bows to their demands and imposes some of the first-ever regulations on the freewheeling Internet, your service provider will have no option but to pass the higher cost for such universal service on to you.

In short, Google and the other high-tech Internet giants would have the government guarantee them below-cost access to premium high-speed network services - with you, the end-user, footing the bill!

The Internet has thrived as a tool enhancing communications and commerce precisely because the government has, for the most part, taken a hands-off approach with regard to regulation and taxation. Net neutrality regulations would discourage crucial investment in broadband networks and stifle the innovation that is at the heart of the Internet’s success.

Tell your U.S. Senators that you won’t pay more for your Internet service because of new and unnecessary regulations that benefit a few big companies! Tell them to say NO to net neutrality!

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Schatz President

https://secure2.convio.net/cagw/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr006=xjsida0k01.app25a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=365

Citizens Against Government Waste

http://tinyurl.com/grbqv

Colorado Attorney General to debate marijuana activist over Amendment 44: http://tinyurl.com/pty9f

The prohibitionists must be getting terribly desperate to want to engage in a debate. Tvert will eat the Colorado AG alive! Yippee!

THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...

Google Caught In Terror Storm Censorship: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/250906googlecensorship.htm

Great New WTC Science Film: 9/11 Mysteries: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060924123729902

A CLOSE LOOK: The 9/11 Pentagon TARGET WALL: http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/Pentagondemolition1.htm

False Flag News - Saving the world one drill at a time: http://falseflagnews.com/