cannabisnews.com: Truth in Advertising





Truth in Advertising
Posted by CN Staff on March 09, 2003 at 22:40:45 PT
By Steve Mirsky 
Source: Scientific American
The fault, Shakespeare once almost said, lies not in our stars but in our stuffing our faces. That sentiment is basically the reasoning behind a federal district court judge's January dismissal of a recent lawsuit against McDonald's, brought by two obese New York City teenagers who claimed that the fast food was at fault for their fat. "Common sense has prevailed," read a statement issued by a no doubt relieved McDonald's, which had probably contemplated a future where "over 99 billion served" would include the word "subpoenas." 
"The plaintiffs have alleged that the practices of McDonald's in making and selling their products are deceptive and that this deception has caused the minors who have consumed McDonald's products to injure their health by becoming obese," observed Judge Robert W. Sweet in his ruling. In other words, the kids asked, how were we to know that a steady diet of hamburgers and french fries was going to make us fat? And the judge's response was, well, they should know and they therefore "cannot blame McDonald's if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonald's products." Sweet clearly came down on the side of personal responsibility, a stance he has long taken. "In the interest of consistency and integrity," he wrote in a footnote, "it should be noted that the author of this opinion publicly opposed the criminalization of drugs.... This belief is based upon the notion that, as long as consumers have adequate knowledge about even harmful substances, they should be entitled to purchase them, and that the issue should be one of health, not the criminal law." Which brings us to Item Two, namely, the current odd ad campaign sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. My favorite in this series of public-service spots features two teenage boys smoking marijuana in the den of what appears to be an upper-middle-class home. After some insipid pot-inspired conversation, one dumb kid finds a handgun. The other dumb kid says, "Cool," and asks if it's loaded. The first dumb kid points the gun at the second, says, "No," and pulls the trigger. We hear a gunshot as the screen goes dark and then read the following: "Marijuana can distort your sense of reality. Harmless?" This is an antidrug commercial? Because it sure looks to me like an antigun commercial. I grew up in a house with a rifle, which was dismantled and in a locked case, and I know that no card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association would keep a handgun loaded and easily accessible, especially in a home with children. Furthermore, I put forth the proposition that I would much rather find myself in a room full of stoned teenagers without guns than in a room full of straight teenagers carrying loaded weapons. (I actually did the first part of this experiment in the 1970s, but I categorically refuse to do the second part, unless the teenagers in question are in boot camp at Parris Island.) Now, before I get audited, no one is suggesting that teenagers use drugs, just as no one is suggesting that they drink beer until they puke, except for companies that do extensive advertising to college kids, most of whom are below the legal drinking age. But I digress. Why not let teenagers know about the dangers of drug use in a way that would actually get their attention? For example, a TV commercial that might very well drive many teenage boys away from marijuana could say: "Smoking a lot of pot may give men breasts worthy of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue." I can envision another commercial that ends with a sober guy telling his stoned buddy, "Look, there's not enough dope in the world to get her to sleep with you." And finally, how about one in which two fat stoners sue their dealer because the munchies made them eat too much McDonald's? Complete Title: Truth in Advertising: There are Burger Joints, and Then There are Burgers and Joints Source: Scientific American (US)Author: Steve Mirsky Published: April 2003 IssueCopyright: 2003 Scientific American, Inc.Contact: editors sciam.comWebsite: http://www.sciam.com/Related Articles:Feds Waste Money On Ads http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15672.shtmlAnti-Drug Messages Clouded in Smoke? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15588.shtmlAnti-Pot Ads Deceive Youthhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15587.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by FoM on March 10, 2003 at 09:10:23 PT
Robbie
I'm sorry Robbie but for security reasons html doesn't work in the comment section.  It hasn't worked for a long time now. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/help.shtml#links
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Robbie on March 10, 2003 at 08:55:39 PT
LOL
***Furthermore, I put forth the proposition that I would much rather find myself in a room full of stoned teenagers without guns than in a room full of straight teenagers carrying loaded weapons.(I actually did the first part of this experiment in the 1970s, but I categorically refuse to do the second part, unless the teenagers in question are in boot camp at Parris Island.) ***===asideFoM, is there a link for page that explains how the HTML works at cnews? I keep using HTML tags but nothing happens.Good stuff! :-)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by TecHnoCult on March 10, 2003 at 07:17:58 PT
Scientific American
This publication is nothing to sneeze at! I grew up on this magaizine, along with Discover. Teenage Science Teams across all our high schools use Scientific American as a reference for issues. I believe it has a pretty large circulation. It's great when a magazine like this is willing to talk commen sense on this issue.THC
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on March 10, 2003 at 06:58:25 PT:
The Good Judge
I had the honor of sharing the podium with Judge Sweet at a drug policy symposium in NYC in March 2000. He is a rare commodity: a principled judge with the valor to state his opinions, support the right of the individual to cannabis, and to go against the status quo. I salute him. A society that refuses to acknowledge personal responsibility is an invitation to a totalitarian state. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by malleus2 on March 10, 2003 at 06:29:40 PT
Now, some more of this is in order!
Not just because of the common sensical viewpoint, but because it pokes fun at those bloated egos who think they have a right to tell others how to live. Bravo!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment