[OnTheIce]

andyt andyt:

Wonder why we don't have anti-alcohol use ads in the same way? Sure we have don't drink and drive ads, and don't drink and be preggo ads, but none about the permanent impairment caused by chronic alcohol use. What the pot ad doesn't seem to do is tell you that long term, chronic pot use may impair IQ, and that there are questions raised about the studies that found this to be the case. What's wrong with this ad campaign is it's trying to bullshit people, and the kids will see thru it, as they always have.

Alcohol is far more damaging than pot. Lets have ads for that, if the govt is really concerned about reducing harm from drugs. Of course that doesn't play well with the red-meat Reformacon voters, and those the govt hopes to dupe into being so. "JT wants to turn your kids on to dangerous drugs. OMG, set your hair on fire, send money to the CPC, then relax with a few drinks."

We made a mistake with both alcohol and cigarettes so much so, that we can't turn back the clock now because the government relies too heavily on the revenue from these two consumables. The government won't advertise to discourage decreases revenue.

Your argument is "We've fucked up twice, why not go for a third" or "it's not as bad as" it's nothing short of juvenile.

It's ok though...cause in the next 40-50 years when pot has been legal for sometime and people are starting to see the real health effects of long term use and governments are being sued for making it legal, someone else will be having this same conversation about another drug, because that drug won't be "as bad" as pot, alcohol or cigarettes.

[Thanos]

Yogi Yogi:

Thanos Thanos:

There's actually lots of anti-drinking ads on the internet and on TV from the AADAC type of organizations. Most of them are aimed at drinking-and-driving and at the binge-drinking 20-something party crowd. These ads are actually as ubiquitous right now as the 'war on drugs' ads used to be on US TV back in the day.

It's only a case of 'being seen to be doing something'. If the govt was serious then they would apply all the laws and regs that apply to tobacco to alcohol. And then some!

Yeah, but in reality the government isn't serious about anything that threatens their tax intake. Ten pounds of bullshit stuffed into a five-pound bag for the most part.

We don't need more regulations anyway. "There's nothing wrong with getting drunk, getting lap dances, playing VLT's, ripping off worker's comp, and eating chicken fingers" - Ray, TPB.

[andyt]

just to compare:

$1:

High levels of alcohol consumption are associated with an increased risk of alcoholism, malnutrition, chronic pancreatitis, alcoholic liver disease and cancer. In addition, damage to the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system can occur from chronic alcohol abuse.[5][6] The long-term use of alcohol is capable of damaging nearly every organ and system in the body.[7] The developing adolescent brain is particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of alcohol.[8]

Do they have ads about this?

$1:

Others have argued that the benefits of moderate alcohol consumption may be outweighed by other increased risks, including those of injuries, violence, fetal damage, liver disease, and certain forms of cancer.[12]
Withdrawal effects and dependence are also almost identical.[13] Alcohol at moderate levels has some positive and negative effects on health. The negative effects include increased risk of liver diseases, oropharyngeal cancer, esophageal cancer and pancreatitis. Conversely moderate intake of alcohol may have some beneficial effects on gastritis and cholelithiasis.[14] Of the total number of deaths and diseases caused by alcohol, most happen to the majority of the population who are moderate drinkers, rather than the heavy drinker minority.[15] Chronic alcohol misuse and abuse has serious effects on physical and mental health. Chronic excess alcohol intake, or alcohol dependence, can lead to a wide range of neuropsychiatric or neurological impairment, cardiovascular disease, liver disease, and malignant neoplasms. The psychiatric disorders which are associated with alcoholism include major depression, dysthymia, mania, hypomania, panic disorder, phobias, generalized anxiety disorder, personality disorders, schizophrenia, suicide, neurologic deficits (e.g. impairments of working memory, emotions, executive functions, visuospatial abilities and gait and balance) and brain damage. Alcohol dependence is associated with hypertension, coronary heart disease, and ischemic stroke, cancer of the respiratory system, and also cancers of the digestive system, liver, breast and ovaries. Heavy drinking is associated with liver disease, such as cirrhosis.[16] Excessive alcohol consumption can have a negative impact on aging.[17]

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

andyt andyt:

Wonder why we don't have anti-alcohol use ads in the same way? Sure we have don't drink and drive ads, and don't drink and be preggo ads, but none about the permanent impairment caused by chronic alcohol use. What the pot ad doesn't seem to do is tell you that long term, chronic pot use may impair IQ, and that there are questions raised about the studies that found this to be the case. What's wrong with this ad campaign is it's trying to bullshit people, and the kids will see thru it, as they always have.

Alcohol is far more damaging than pot. Lets have ads for that, if the govt is really concerned about reducing harm from drugs. Of course that doesn't play well with the red-meat Reformacon voters, and those the govt hopes to dupe into being so. "JT wants to turn your kids on to dangerous drugs. OMG, set your hair on fire, send money to the CPC, then relax with a few drinks."

We made a mistake with both alcohol and cigarettes so much so, that we can't turn back the clock now because the government relies too heavily on the revenue from these two consumables.

From tobacco too? Let's see, the last poll showed that about 17% of Canadians regularly used tobacco products. Lord knows how many of them are regular buyers of Native smokes so I'm not really seeing tobacco being the big "cash cow" it was 30-40 years ago.
Then there's the hypocrisy. Ontario wants to sue the tobacco companies despite being complicit in and profiting from the tobacco trade.
Yep, Ontario wants to sue big tobacco but you'll notice they still permit the sale of tobacco products in stores.

[Thanos]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Yep, Ontario wants to sue big tobacco but you'll notice they still permit the sale of tobacco products in stores.

That was one of the background items that brought Redfraud down here in AB. They made a big noise about suing the tobacco companies yet were still taking the tax money raised. That Redfraud's ex-husband was a lawyer at the firm that got the government contract to do the lawsuits was one of those things that never got explained, and probably never will be either.

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Incorrect.

There's research that supports both sides of the debate. A quick search online shows the various studies.

Because there are two sides to a debate does not mean that both sides are equal.

The problem that the Conservatives and the Daddy-state types have is that most Canadians have tried pot at one point or another,so outlandish claims are dismissed, as is the messenger.

Pot is certainly not harmless, but it isn't very harmful either. People don't kill for it, and people don't die from it. And the harm people do is mainly to themselves.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

That was one of the background items that brought Redfraud down here in AB. They made a big noise about suing the tobacco companies yet were still taking the tax money raised. That Redfraud's ex-husband was a lawyer at the firm that got the government contract to do the lawsuits was one of those things that never got explained, and probably never will be either.

Man was she ever crooked.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thanos Thanos:

That was one of the background items that brought Redfraud down here in AB. They made a big noise about suing the tobacco companies yet were still taking the tax money raised. That Redfraud's ex-husband was a lawyer at the firm that got the government contract to do the lawsuits was one of those things that never got explained, and probably never will be either.

Man was she ever crooked.

Yup. We dodged a major bullet out here when they gassed her. She was like one of the remoras that attached themselves to Chretien or something out of the Atlantic Seaboard in the 1920's or 30's that they were doing on Boardwalk Empire. Nothing less than old school naked corruption from the good ol' days.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Incorrect.

There's research that supports both sides of the debate. A quick search online shows the various studies.

Because there are two sides to a debate does not mean that both sides are equal.

The problem that the Conservatives and the Daddy-state types have is that most Canadians have tried pot at one point or another,so outlandish claims are dismissed, as is the messenger.

Pot is certainly not harmless, but it isn't very harmful either. People don't kill for it, and people don't die from it. And the harm people do is mainly to themselves.

Just saw another cop on TV saying he's never had to do a violent take down of a pot user. National Geographic had shows on about drugs. Cop after cop said they never have trouble with the chronics.

Where potheads might harm others is in driving. But from personal experience I can vouch that I was far safer on pot than booze behind the wheel.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Just saw another cop on TV saying he's never had to do a violent take down of a pot user. National Geographic had shows on about drugs. Cop after cop said they never have trouble with the chronics.

Where potheads might harm others is in driving. But from personal experience I can vouch that I was far safer on pot than booze behind the wheel.

[Thanos]

Probably not the same scenario though in the US for the ATF guys when they go up some of the cartel-associated pot ranchers who are loaded up with military-grade automatic weapons and a couple dozen pit bulls. Kind of significantly different in scale and scope from the wasteoid pseudo-hippie with some kind of bud-loaded closet-creature growing by leaps and bounds in his rental condo.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Probably not the same scenario though in the US for the ATF guys when they go up some of the cartel-associated pot ranchers who are loaded up with military-grade automatic weapons and a couple dozen pit bulls. Kind of significantly different in scale and scope from the wasteoid pseudo-hippie with some kind of bud-loaded closet-creature growing by leaps and bounds in his rental condo.

Nope. That has nothing to do with smoking pot, and everything to do with pot being illegal.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

Just saw another cop on TV saying he's never had to do a violent take down of a pot user. National Geographic had shows on about drugs. Cop after cop said they never have trouble with the chronics.

Where potheads might harm others is in driving. But from personal experience I can vouch that I was far safer on pot than booze behind the wheel.

Just to be clear, I've never had an accident while drunk or high, only totalled a car while dead sober, but high on speed. And I've never been arrested for driving while impaired. I was stopped sometimes, but always was able to talk my way out of it. Different attitudes in those days. I did have one friend who was deemed to be the least drunk of the group, so should drive. He wound up going down a cul de sac, jumping a ditch, and doing donuts in a cop's front yard. He only had a learner's license. All he got was 6 points, no arrest.

Glad I don't have to worry about any of that bullshit anymore.

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

From tobacco too? Let's see, the last poll showed that about 17% of Canadians regularly used tobacco products. Lord knows how many of them are regular buyers of Native smokes so I'm not really seeing tobacco being the big "cash cow" it was 30-40 years ago.
Then there's the hypocrisy. Ontario wants to sue the tobacco companies despite being complicit in and profiting from the tobacco trade.
Yep, Ontario wants to sue big tobacco but you'll notice they still permit the sale of tobacco products in stores.

Of course they do. It's a cash cow. 1+ billion for Ontario alone per year.

7 billion a year come from Canadians in the form of tobacco taxes. Provinces and the Feds don't want to give that up.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/totaltax.pdf

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Because there are two sides to a debate does not mean that both sides are equal.

The debate is based on factual studies...it doesn't matter what you or anyone considers 'equal' on either side of the debate. The research is there to support both sides of the debate.

[herbie]

Nothing's more obnoxious than a drunk.
Don't have to wade through a dozen stoners lurching, slurring, calling you 'buddy' trying to mooch change outside every single beer store.
Native friends say there'd be way less murders, beatings and other petty crimes if pot was the standard - but whitey would be outnumbered!