digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at dustinland.com

I'm So Sick of All These Anti-Drug Commercials [COMIC]

dustinland.com — A comic that offers an alternative perspective to anti-drug commercials.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caruso, on 04/08/2008, -143/+26Get your facts right before making a comic with such seriousness at the end...

    Who owns drug plants? tooth fairies?

    If your gonna do drugs, grow your own... tbh..
    • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -9/+94If your (sic) gonna (sic) write in English, do so correctly.

      Regardless of your literacy, I still have no idea what your point is. Cannabis has no reason to be illegal, while alcohol is one of the worst drugs legally available on the market.
      • bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -4/+40I'll drink to that.
      • jcaino, on 04/08/2008, -8/+18Tobacco ain't so hot either. Not to mention that tobacco and cigarettes ARE the gateway drugs. Ask anyone who has tried 'pot' whether they drank alcohol or tried a cigarette before trying marijuana. They're legal and lining the pockets of some greedy assholes.
        • Xchus, on 04/08/2008, -3/+10BS, I never smoked cigarettes before smoking shiva, and I haven't smoke cigarettes afterward either
          • ElAssoWipo, on 04/08/2008, -12/+3That actually supports his point.
          • djbon2112, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7Neither did I. I drink and smoke pot, and I've never taken a puff off a cigarette, and never plan to.
          • Inquisition, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Actually, weed was my gateway to smoking tobacco. The first few cigarettes gave a really good buzz for a minute or two, and my mom couldn't smell tobacco since she also smoked. She could smell the tiniest puff of pot though.
        • dynelol, on 04/08/2008, -6/+7Tobacco is wonderful. Anyone who has started a cigarette AND can think will realize that it isn't healthy and there is no benefit from it. It legally allows stupid people to kill themselves.
          • BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9Ironically, nicotine is known to improve concentration. This is why writers and creative people tend to like to smoke. It's also an appetite suppressant, which is how tobacco was once marketed to women. Cigarettes definitely aren't healthy and will make you stinky and nasty-looking, but that's not to say that people won't find benefits in them.
          • oldhick, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14Exactly. Some of us stupidly still enjoy vices and should be "allowed" to in a supposedly free country.
          • screensnot, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1You know what tobacco is good for? It keeps me from tearing the heads off of jackasses like you. Wait 'til I've disembarked from a 12 hour plane ride, then call me stupid. I dare you.

            I realize this is MY character flaw. But, I'm sick of little *****, such as yourself, pointing it out.
        • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3While I think you're right with the majority image, there are some exceptions, including me who don't fit that rule. Cigarettes have never been very attractive, even when I used to smoke weed. Not the best argument to make IMO.
        • accelleron, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Can we please stop using the words "gateway drug?" We're only reinforcing a bad stereotype provided by the drug war itself, and long since proven false (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14990863?dopt=A ... The real gateway isn't the drug, it's the dealer and the propaganda. When you find out that everything school and your TV tells you marijuana is false, you tend to ignore (sound) warnings against harder drugs, as well, and that is a gateway. When someone you buy MJ off of offers you some acid, that's a gateway. The drugs themselves have little to do with it - if they were available at Rite-Aid, you'd see a lot of the 'gateway' stuff disappear - and a lot of the violence, untaxed profits, and health problems as well.
          • CaptainCool53, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Every bit of that is true.
            Instead of teaching zero tolerance, schools should teach moderation. People smoke weed, people drink, people do drugs. There's no stopping that. We can, however, teach safety with regards to these practices.
        • CaptainCool53, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Yea, and people who smoke cigarettes probably drank milk before they started smoking. The two aren't related.
          The kind of person who ignores health risks of tobacco use is often the same kind who uses cannabis. One does not lead to the other.
      • VenDrake, on 04/08/2008, -1/+23I don't get it. If you use capitalization and punctuation then you are expected to refrain from using slang such as "gonna" and correctly use homonyms such as "you're" and "your" correctly.
        But ...

        if u don't then u r fine and no1 cares - ne 1 else c dat?

        i can has consistancy?

        ** Throws donuts to the grammar police and runs away **
        • mediaphile, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1No, it's just easier to completely disregard a comment that doesn't take itself seriously.
      • cdahlkvist, on 04/08/2008, -23/+6Yeah! You tell them!

        And while we are at it let's make a few other changes. I mean, rape doesn't kill anyone but think of all the damage murder does.

        If we just legalized rape then rapists wouldn't murder their victims on top of the rape.

        And hey, what the hell, let's legalize robbery. That way robbers won't have to kill the people they are robbing.

        Yeah, there are more alcohol related accidents and deaths but it's use is more widespread. To say "Hey, pot should be legal because alcohol is more dangerous" is a crappy argument.

        Sure, pot should be legal but not because "other things are worse".
        • Swivelstick, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4huh?
        • forgiste, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Except for the fact that rape and robbery are crimes with victims. You can't have a crime without a victim... If drugs were legal then there wouldn't be nearly as many victims of bad drug deals or bad product because the purity and the reputation of the dealers would be certified, pharmacies...
          • cdahlkvist, on 04/08/2008, -5/+1Until some poor drug addict decides to kill someone in a robbery to get money for more drugs.

            Don't tell me that legalization would make it victimless.
          • shawnz, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4right, but marijuana isn't addictive
          • BearinG, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah just like every cigarette smoker killing people for a pack of smoke.. do you think that because its illegal that the poor drug addict wouldn't be willing to kill anyone for drugs NOW ?

            If everything was illegal we wouldn't have any problems right? Like if we banned cars, we wouldn't have car accidents..
        • CaptainCool53, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I buried that comment, but now I regret it. I actually agree with you (sarcasm taken into account). Pot should be legalized, not because other (legal) things are worse, but because the government does not have the right to prevent citizens from using it. Same with tobacco and heroin. It's a no-brainer.
          Car accidents kill thousands every year, but we don't see any campaign to illegalize driving, nor should we. It's a liberty, and is sacrosanct.
      • heyiquit, on 04/08/2008, -7/+2Alcohol is one of the most dangerous only because it is the most heavily consumed. Many things are more harmful than alcohol, so should we outlaw them too?
        • Adamlite, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5I think the point is that it should be up to us what we consume, not to have our government treat us like toddlers.
        • alliekins619, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5No, we should stop being a nanny state altogether. Parents should raise their own children.
      • Volatile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5"Gonna" is so widely used and pervasive that it's not a big deal anymore. It's barely slang. It's really something so trivial that there's no reason to care about it. Pointing it out, to me, is just pedantry.
        • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2It's not barely slang, it's fully slang. It's not even a contraction. It's just a silly non-word formed to imitate lazy speech. If one wants to write informally, then his or her point will be considered informally.

          Besides, I responded to the core argument.
          • Hockey13, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1mediaphile, language is not static. It is not up to you or any person or group of people to decide which direction it ultimately goes in. It's entirely possible that "gonna" will be a standard shortening in the near future (or now) and "going to" could be considered archaic in written speech. It's pointless to get upset about "perfect" vs. "imperfect" English because language is more fluid than any one person can understand.
          • mediaphile, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1You're right, let's all ignore the complexity and beauty of language for simplicity's sake.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/08/2008, -6/+47Drug plants?

      Well, the poppy fields of Afghanistan are controlled by the invaders of Afghanistan. This was made legal when the Taliban were ousted.

      Cocaine comes from South American countries that are controlled by America. Only the ones that are controlled by America.

      Pot comes from absolutely everywhere. Because that's where it grows.

      Then you have chemical drugs that are mostly made in Europe from cocaine and heroin derivatives and other.

      "In 1986, Senator John Kerry and Senator Christopher Dodd proposed a series of hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding charges of Contra involvement in drug trafficking; the hearings were conducted by Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Republican Chairman of the Committee. The report of the Committee, released on April 13, 1989, found that "Contra drug links included... payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies." The U.S. State Department paid over $806,000 to known drug traffickers to carry humanitarian assistance to the Contras.[8]"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contra's_coca ...

      • BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2008, -6/+4Dude...I don't digg you often, but that deserved it. ***** the hypocricy...
      • ADA531, on 04/08/2008, -2/+10Do NOT cloud the issue with facts!
      • boycottadhok, on 04/08/2008, -7/+0what about Bolivia? or Venezuela, where the president publicly ate coke (not that that is illegal, but he did it to show support to farc), or Nicaragua which is a hole of drugs going from Colombia to the states. yeah, those are all USA controlled countries
      • directedition, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Let us not forget North Korea. A large part of their economy is based on poppies.
        • mikebaldwin67, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1who would have thought a country could fund itself with bagel toppings.
      • MrTulip, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2synthetic drugs made from cocaine and heroine derivatives? care to enlighten me?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Oh there's tons of them. Speed for one, it's supposed to be made from amphetamines but there are many variants out there that contain cocaine.

          Then you have impure variants of MDMA or GHB sold as different "varieties", which can contain both cocaine and heroin. It's basically the makers trying to get users addicted to their very own variety by adding a little "kick" to it.

          Crack is also a cocaine derivative but that one is very much American, no need to import.

          In northern African countries they also sell hashish that contains cocaine.

          The actual drugs aren't supposed to contain any heroin or cocaine but they very often do. And law enforcement knows, they can get a harsher sentence against someone that has ecstacy pills that contain cocaine or heroin than against someone who has regular mdma pills. Which are most often classified as type B drugs.
      • jax1492, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2one of things the Taliban did was to almost eradicate poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, then the usa came in and now its out of control more than ever.
        • roboticrickshaw, on 04/08/2008, -1/+0Yes but that was only to artificially drive up its price so that they could make more money form their already existing stockpiles
    • ayeroxor, on 04/08/2008, -12/+3Who control's America's prescription drug industry? Fairydust? Who control's America's legal recreational drug industries, namely alcohol and tobacco? Star princesses?

      Great argument.
    • MioTheGreat, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Lacy LaPlante?
    • epmc, on 04/08/2008, -1/+17Well as a proud Canadian I know most of the bud I smoke is homegrown. I'm just doing my part in helping the domestic economy.
      • sgglynn, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Send some to me, i'm sick of dirty mids
    • iloveazngurlzs, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4i grow the plants everyone smokes. not afghani's

      and i live in amerrrrca
    • delmar14, on 04/08/2008, -5/+7Weed isn't a drug, ITS A ***** PLANT!
      • Csaliture, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Mushrooms are a plant as well. Does that mean they aren't drugs? By your logic Ive never done drugs. Sweet!
        • shawnz, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4no, mushrooms are a fungi.
          • Csaliture, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Yes they are a fungi, but biologists classify fungi under a branch of botany. Which is the study of plants. Thereby making it a plant. Arguable, yes. But generally fungi is considered a plant
          • rootneg2, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3@Csaliture

            well....
            it depends on who who talk to. Some scientists would say that Mycology (the study of mushrooms and fungi) is a distinct and separate field from Botany; and most would say that "plant" refers specifically to the phylogenetic kingdom "plantae". Nearly all scientists agree that "fungi" and "plantae" as formal categories are distinct (if not forming an explicit kingdom each in their own right; falling into seperate classifications) as fungi do not photosynthesize or contain chlorophyll, which is usually seen as the distinguishing characteristic of "plantae"

            None of this, however, really matters as far as your counterpoint to delmar14 goes; it is still just as valid a statement from that standpoint.
          • Csaliture, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2your superior knowledge of scientific classifications trumps my own. I guess I have done drugs then
      • theillbehaviord, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2Are you ***** retarded? Holy *****
      • rootneg2, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4Cocaine isn't a drug, ITS A HELLUVA PLANT!!
    • Calcularius, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5When I was young pot was cheap and everywhere... then Nancy Reagan came along...
      Now that it's expensive and "scary" I guess it's easier for kids to get Meth and Vicodin.
      Is that what you wanted, Nancy? Our kids are on Meth and Vicodin because harmless weed is too hard to get now.
  • teriyakisause, on 04/08/2008, -23/+179I didn't understand what this was talking about...too high I guess
    • 5urr3al5am, on 04/08/2008, -17/+9Its pointless babble pandering to the druggie-digg crowd
    • peligro18, on 04/08/2008, -6/+5you know somebody that doesnt udnerstand that you are joking could think that smoking pot make you stupid...i am high and i did get it...
      • juicebag, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6Apparently pot can make you type like a moron, though.
      • JuniorVX, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3being high made him point out the obvious.
      • Reziarfg, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Being high makes you oblivious to sarcasm apparently.
    • dougdiggerton, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7Am I the only one that enjoys watchin a good antidrug commercial? little mexican girl: "that must have been from saturday night, i was so high"
      • JuniorVX, on 04/08/2008, -0/+10or the one with the dog that talks to the kid saying "i don't like it when you do drugs". All that did for me was after I smoked I tried talking to my dog.
        • BearinG, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Isn't that what its all about.. more inter-species relationships?
      • ShinMoses, on 04/08/2008, -1/+0That is my person favorite. And every one is giving her dirty looks. I let people take embarrassing pictures of me when I'm high too. But random people on the streets don't usually look at them. Stupid comercials
      • kz13, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1That one would be my favorite if not for the three incredibly contrived words of Spanish they just had to put in. I love the talking dog. But I have to say, I hate the one where the guy forgets his little brother. And the one where the girl raps.
      • burnin8r28, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1sometimes i see some anti-drug commercials, and i only understand them when I'm high.
      • markdev4free, on 08/12/2008, -0/+0OH ***** YEAH.. THAT LIL' MEXICAN GIRL WAS LIKE.."AWW THAT MUST HAVE BEEN FROM SATURDAY NIGHT... I WAS SO HIGH" WHATEVER BITCH.. YOU'RE JUST A BIG SLUT AND YOU'RE TRYING TO BLAME THE CHRONIC.. THAT'S WHY EVERYBODY LOOKS AT YOU LIKE A DUMBASS.. THEY KNOW YOUR-- "I'M A SLUT, BUT BLAME IT ON THE WEED" SCHEME WAY TOO WELL.. BITCH
  • imarrann, on 04/08/2008, -71/+11Sick of anti-drug commercials?
    There's an easy solution; get the entire human race to stop doing meth / cocaine / heroine....
    and then we'll have "stop drinking coffee" ads all day
    • WaxenPith, on 04/08/2008, -5/+25apparently you didn't RTFA.
      • solidus636, on 04/08/2008, -2/+23you mean, RTFC.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -6/+2Apparently you can't tell the difference between an article and a pro-drug hippy's scrawlings.
        • Solis, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Apparently, you don't know what a hippy is.
    • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -11/+16There's an easier solution: move to a country that's not racially biased against cannabis.
      • fatrandy13, on 04/08/2008, -15/+4excuse me? or is it a little more likely that drug users tend to be of a certain race???
        • TobiasParker, on 04/08/2008, -6/+10Literally everyone i have ever met, from all walks of life have at least tried smoking "marijuana".
          • consoneo, on 04/08/2008, -11/+9Meet me. I haven't.
          • executorzz, on 04/08/2008, -3/+4I haven't either.

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6917003.stm
          • fatrandy13, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2theres a difference between trying marijuana, and habitually abusing it on an hourly basis...
          • MisterEX, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Yeah, about 15 bags of Cheetos.
          • SpencerMc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2@executorzz (Stupid digg comment system)

            That article is *****. Schizophrenia is a dichotomous condition; you either have it or you don't. Traumatic experiences such as drug use can trigger its onset, but it was latent there to begin with. If you're not schizophrenic, there is no way doing any sort of drug is going to cause you to become schizophrenic, and if you are schizophrenic then it will manifest itself regardless of whether or not you use substances. More likely, the study confuses cause and effect; schizophrenics are more likely to seek refuge in drugs and alcohol.
          • TobiasParker, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I said "meet", not get trolled by.
        • KTO3TO, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7yay "quotes"
        • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Actually, fatrandy13, I was talking about the racism that drove the prohibition of "marjiuana". Even the term marijuana is a racist misnomer.

          I don't believe drug use is limited to certain races. My white roommate smokes more pot than I ever do, and I'm hispanic.

          Also, labeling the use of cannabis as abuse is naive. The human body reaches equilibrium with THC after repeated use. Do some ***** research.
          • fatrandy13, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1abuse: improper or excessive use (one of many definitions) - EXCESSIVE use
          • mediaphile, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Excess of something would imply that there's a point where there is neither too little or too much, at which point anything over would be considered excess. With cannabis, your brain chemistry reaches equilibrium after repeated use, and any use over that is ineffective. Going above this point has no extra effect one way or the other, since the brain has already reached equilibrium. So to say that one can abuse cannabis is incorrect.
      • migitalwarfare, on 04/08/2008, -3/+5There's an even easier solution... turn off the ***** TV
        • Lanlost, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0My crazy (but great) roommate wouldn't* allow me to have a TV when I moved in with her and another friend on mine.
          I had had TV and cable my whole life until this point so I missed it at first. After a few months I forgot it even existed.
          When people would ask ME about a show and I would tell them I didn't have TV they would be like "No, no.. its on ABC you don't need cable." Me: "I don't have.. a tv... at all." Them: *stare implying I'm crazy* -> "Are you .. ***** crazy?"

          * I could have fought her more and more but she got pissy and I had the internet so all was good.
          ** I have TV again.
      • Digger1218, on 04/08/2008, -5/+7Racially biased against cannabis? Thats the dumbest thing I've ever read.
        • dynelol, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7It IS stupid. I think he meant a country that is biased against cannabis for racist reasons.
          • Digger1218, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Ahhh, I see. Makes more sense now.
          • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Yes, I was talking about the racism that drove the prohibition of cannabis in the United States.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1When did cannabis become a race?
        • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Never, but you should read up on the prohibition of cannabis and the racism that caused it.
    • MisterEX, on 04/08/2008, -2/+20I love doing heroines. Hell, I'll do 'em all day. Doing Heroines - my anti-drug.
      • spinaltap87, on 04/08/2008, -15/+2go big or go home. Now, I bury you for not being funny.
        • shakbhaji, on 04/08/2008, -0/+18WTF is "go big or go home?" That sounds like some stupid ***** from an abercrombie shirt.
        • epmc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5@ shakbhaji

          haha, now THAT was funny.
        • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2@shakbhaji

          It's an extreme sports phrase, i.e., snowboarders, surfers, and skaters should either do big tricks or don't even bother. Spinaltap87 was just repurposing the phrase to humorously apply to heroin.
    • Terasiel, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7Apparently you haven't seen an anti-drug commercial. The overwhelming majority, pressing far into the final decimal places before that final 100%, are only against marijuana. There is almost no such thing as anti-cocaine, anti-meth, or anti-heroine on TV or radio anymore.
      • ophello, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3H-E-R-O-I-N is not spelled with an "E"
      • veganvelma, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Surprisingly, Alabama is running an anti-meth ad in between the 20 different anti-marijuana ads.
        I'm guessing its because we have too many people blowing up their houses trying to make it.
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6Or you could just legalize them. After the alcohol prohibition ended nearly all the gangs in that era disbanded, as would most of the gangs today because they would not have territory to fight over.

      The human race has always used drugs and mind altering substances and they always will. That is a fact of life, trying to stop it only causes problems.

      The simple solution to this problem is to educate people with unbiased factual information and let them make their own decisions.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1The members of the human race have always fought each other, killed each other, raped each other, etc. I guess that's all fine then.
        • Elbryan233, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Oh good. THIS argument again. Listen closely now, I'll try to explain how what you said is retarded. When people rape, murder, and steal, we prosecute them for it. Just as when people exercise their right to choose to put alcohol in their body and wind up hurting someone else, we prosecute them. People should be afforded the choice to put whatever they damn well please into their own bodies. But when they ***** up and hurt or kill someone else because of drugs, we punish them. If it's OK for alcohol, why isn't it OK for pot? People can do whatever the hell they want to themselves, as long as no one else is hurt.
          • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1[[People can do whatever the hell they want to themselves, as long as no one else is hurt.]]

            I agree. My statement, however, was in response to the flawed assumption by Bhuddaismybuddy that because humans have always used mind-altering substances, it is somehow justified. The argument is invalid. Just because an activity has existed for a very long time does not justify it.
          • BearinG, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Just like fat people eating fat stuff.. they're allowed.. if only they didn't blame the Gov't and restaurants for it.
          • mahdaeng, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1@BearinG:

            I agree.
    • Chassit, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Here's a better idea: mind your own ***** business!
  • bobito, on 04/08/2008, -5/+53I think my favorite is the commercial where the cartoon drawing of a man gets high, and then sits on a bench next to his girlfriend. Then an alien comes down from outer space and takes away his girlfriend. http://youtube.com/watch?v=1x0_6a_CpkI I must agree though, creating nonsensical, fact-less commercials that incorrectly water down an issue of relatively great importance to the country is definitely the way to get the populace to stop ever using drugs, and make good political decisions on how to deal with the problems the drug trade creates.
    • bjornski, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11I still like the dog that talks to Lindsay in the kitchen. Cracks me up every time. And she's cute, too. Wish I knew her when I was 17.
    • dubloe7, on 04/08/2008, -9/+18I like the one with the high chick thinking macs are good. that one cracks me up, I don't think anyone could be high enough to think macs are good.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMt2MK67-Qw
      • ophello, on 04/08/2008, -14/+1they are good -- ***** you!
      • libertinette, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Aliens don't do drugs because the people that made that ad used up all the drugs in the universe.
    • Samsong, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7It was the spaceship that the girl was really interested in.
      • WNW3, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2"It's the car, right? Chicks love the car. "
        • metateck, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Does 3rd rock from the sun still come on?
    • narcofiche, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4I think those commercials are created to entertain those who are stoned. They're usually really ridiculous and pretty amusing. Plus anti-drug commercials don't really work anyway. If you have kids who are home alone and bored, looking for something to do, all those commercials do is plant that seed (no pun intended) in their minds.
      Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if those anti-drug commercials were actually put out by a bunch of stoners.
      • CobaltBlue, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3DARE to keep kids off drugs worked for me. I didn't do any drugs and when I thought about doing some I was always too high from pot to be motivated to go out and get some.
    • epmc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5So not doing drugs promotes interspecies sex?
    • Ellipsys, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4I always thought the ones where the dog talks to the boy (drawn in 5th grade cartoon style) or the girl (live action, but dog's mouth is CGI'ed) are funny. If your dog is talking to you like that, maybe you are doing too many drugs. Perhaps they fail to see the irony.
      • Protoss, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5If a dog started talking, I'd be worried the pot was laced with something.
    • evodude, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3I hope to god that was some retarded kid's commercial and not someone older trying to make it look like a kid did it. Because if it was anyone older than seven, they should really just go kill themselves.
    • laserpig, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Is it just me who thinks those Above The Influence commercials are hilarious high?
    • stopbrorape, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1That girls gonna ***** a alien!!!!!!
  • juttman, on 04/08/2008, -4/+174Drug commercials are pretty lame, but those ***** Truth.com commercials make me crazy. If someone told me to kick puppies all day or watch the one about the "typo" one more time there would by flying pooches in the great lakes state.
    • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+26The most recent Disney-esque Truth commercials are some of the dumbest PSAs I've ever seen in my entire life. They make absolutely NO sense. I wish I could find the person that came up with them and explain to him or her just how ineffective and stupid those PSAs are.
      • Denneval, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4I just found them and watched them. http://www.thetruth.com/videos/typo.cfm

        Seriously. What art director would want to represent their work with an ad like that?
      • hammburglar, on 04/08/2008, -0/+10ive started smoking just because those commercials piss me off so much
      • solesoul, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1...But I loved the Disney-esque commercials...I thought it was the only funny ones they've done...
    • ReverendRodger, on 04/08/2008, -2/+46If I remember correctly they're funded by the tobacco industry as part of the settlement against big tobacco (which also included not advertising to children, etc.). So if you wonder why those ads are so stupid and infuriating that they make you want to smoke just to be contrary to that ad... *tinfoil hat*
      • KTO3TO, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9wow that is ingenious
      • blahtastic, on 04/08/2008, -1/+27Oh my god. I don't know if thats true or not, but if it is they make so much more sense now.
      • DiggyWiggy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9Yeah, just like the Partnership for a Drug-Free America used to receive millions worth of funding from the biggest LEGAL drug companies in the country, including the biggest tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, and pharmaceutical companies. As of 1997 though, the only drug companies which fund the campaign are the big pharmaceutical companies, due to criticism. So you can tell there are certain interests being served. I mean, obviously they're not concerned with real drug threats, like coke, meth and heroin; all the PSAs are anti-weed. Most likely because it cuts into sales of anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs, and probably a slew of others.
      • jrackow, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Actually no. They're not funded by the tobacco companies. The Ad council came up with them...
        http://www.adcouncil.org/newsDetail.aspx?id=57
        -Not only related to your comment, but others.... They are effective ads. They're extremely effective and award winning. The non-effective ads are the "Think... Don't Smoke" ads. Big Tobacco came up with those. Also, why would a tobacco company come up with an ad that depicted kids unloading thousands of body bags outside a corporate office building claiming that tobacco companies kill people?
        -The reason the TRUTH ads are effective is because it gives youth a sense of rebellion. Just like when I was young, I smoked at age 10. Then regularly at 12. To where I smoked a pack a day when 16. I was being rebellious. The truth ads had no impact on me because they weren't around then. But in terms of recognition when testing both ad campaigns, teens recognized the truth ads overwhelmingly compared to the "Think... Don't Smoke" ads.

        So I realize that a lot of diggers think the campaign sucks, but it actually does not suck. It's not about whether or not we think something is enjoyable, annoying, whatever. It's whether it's effective. Which it is.
        • MonkCanatella, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Dugg up for making a sensible argument. But the ads are annoying as *****, and we're bashing them because, of all the things they could use against Tobacco companies, they choose these annoying, bland commercials.
    • DangerCollie, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8I remember when the truth.com commercials first came out, they inspired sympathy for the tobacco companies. Those were the spots about the tobacco boards lying to the public about the risk and that made them an evil corporation. Okay, evil like auto manufacturers dragging their feet on seat belts, airlines forging maintenance logs, oil companies undermining climate change research, chemical companies lying about dumping waste...that's a very long list. In the pantheon of evil conduct we routinely accept from corporate interests, I don't think what the tobacco companies did was any worse than what we suffer routinely from broad spectrum of businesses.
      • HonestAbe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Keep in mind that all those companies are lying to themselves before they lie to you. Most people aren't fundamentally evil. They don't want to believe that they are causing harm, so they convince themselves first and then try to convince you.
        • MonkCanatella, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3And then they start being evil.
          • HonestAbe, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Yes. But the people who make up those companies aren't evil themselves, and their minds can be changed.
    • DevinOlsen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Link...?
    • Insomnya3AM, on 04/08/2008, -6/+2Hey - Check out this online dog-kicking guide: http://tinyurl.com/4o77j3
    • plhearn, on 04/08/2008, -4/+3IT MUSTA BEEN A TYPO A TYPO A TYPO IT MUSTA BEEN A TYPO LET SMOKE SOME NICOTINE!

      Wait!...... There can't be that many typos.........................................................................
      • iruber1337, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2As a non-smoker, if I see that damned commercial again...I'm finally giving in and buying that pack.
    • SwedishNinja, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8The "Typo" ad is wrong on so many levels. YES LET'S TRIVIALIZE THE DEATHS OF MILLIONS WITH A MUSICAL PRODUCTION, GUYS! What's next? A musical comedy about the Holocaust? Maybe if Hollywood wasn't run by Jews, there would be.
    • DevinOlsen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwj6ycOZ82A - Typo Ad
  • tmanv, on 04/08/2008, -24/+58This was just bad...
    • tyywebb, on 04/08/2008, -9/+5Yep, buried for being anti-beer.
    • sgtpppr, on 04/08/2008, -4/+4Honestly, I think this comic sums it up about as efficiently and effectively as possible. Welcome to America where the ends justifies the means and lying to people is 'ok' as long as it's for what the establishment considers to be a 'good' cause. The very open hypocrisy of having beer commercials running next to anti-drug commercials just once again shows that either everyone is asleep or people just don't care.
    • kaelyiesta, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3Not only hypocrisy about using drugs but about selling them. I can't believe our government can say with a straight face anything condemning about people financing terrorists by using drugs. Does anyone recall that our very own CIA has its own drug operations? Operations that involve terrorists? Now THAT is hypocrisy.
    • ChromeWalnut, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7i don't get it, was the comic supposed to be funny?
      • Solis, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1I don't get it, are you suppose to be mentally handicapped?
      • BearinG, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1No, just a recap of how stupid they are..
    • 4d669, on 04/08/2008, -8/+1Think of any person you know who ended up doing heroin, pills or any other 'stronger' drug. 98% of them started with weed. Eventually smoking everyday made it useless and ineffective and they turned to something else. That's why it's illegal you dumb ***** which too much money from your parents. Enjoy your permanently altered hormones, dead neurons and ***** up chemical composition of your brain. But it's ok. You won't need them anyway, all you do is watch Family Guy, surf Facebook and read top 10 lists at Digg. You don't really need all that fancy gray matter activity.
      • deetank, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1that was a joke...right?
      • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2THC does not work like other drugs that rely on dopamine production. Cannabis can be smoked indefinitely without ever stopping being effective. Our brains do come to a certain amount of equilibrium as far as how it affects the motor system and nervous system, so the "stoned" effect does decrease, but that usually happens within the first couple months of starting to smoke. The ability to get high from THC does not go away. Most other drugs, though, cause our brain to produce dopamine to make us feel better. The problem there is, as you've stated, that over time the brain will produce less and less dopamine on its own, causing those kinds of drugs to lose effectiveness. At that point, the user must increase their dosage to get the same high. Fortunately, THC works completely differently.

        I have a couple dozen friends, all of whom smoke cannabis, and not a single one of them uses anything else on a regular basis. Your 98% statistic is made up *****. Cannabis is illegal because of racism at the beginning of the last century. There are no permanent effects on hormones. Cannabinoids have been shown to actually stimulate neuron growth in lab rats. The human brain is born with THC receptors, and THC is naturally produced in the brain. In other words, none of the things you stated are even close to true. Do some research before you start calling people dumb *****.

        And not that it matters, but I hate Family Guy, I barely use Facebook (I certainly don't surf it), and I don't give a damn about top 10 lists, on Digg or anywhere else.

        As for fancy grey matter activity, I've certainly had my share. Quick rundown: accepted into the California Gifted and Talented Education program in third grade, at which point my IQ was tested to be 156. I was given two separate opportunities to skip grades in school, once in elementary and once in middle school. Throughout elementary, middle, and high school, I tested in the top two percentile on national standardized tests. I took AP classes in high school. I took 18 years of private music lessons, and became a state ranked pianist. Do you still want to insult my intellect based solely on my cannabis usage?
        • Jig813, on 04/08/2008, -1/+0dude i'm sure some guy who works for some government anti-drug agency will see this (because of course they have nothing better to do than to surf digg all day) then they will spend countless hours and thousands of dollars hunting you down, arresting you and ruining your life just because you smoke weed. There will be a national uproar against this apparent injustice, but the FOX "News" Network will do a piece on how you are a lowlife degenerate scum-bag so that the American public doesn't start getting crazy ideas about drugs not being so bad (this of course will all be funded by some Republican National Commitee) Then as your case moves higher up in the courts the media frenzy surrounding this landmark national case of mediaphile vs. old republican fogeys will grow exponentially. Oprah will run a piece on how Marijuana ruins lives (she will cite "a million little pieces" as a source, repeatedly) then crazy pothead liberals in San Fran will scale the Golden Gate Bridge and unfurl gigantic banners proclaiming the injustices occurring to you that will be decorated with gigantic marijuana leaves--no one will really notice. All the crusty republicans will be droning about it on C-Span, then the maniac Liberal pundits will yell there heads off, both of them though are guaranteed to make little if any sense. Finally among much media frenzy the verdict will come in, unsurprisingly the verdict was in favor of the old republican fogeys. (what would you expect when you got Mr Roberts handing down the decisions) You will be sentenced to a life sentence in prison. An Alabama senator will then motion to have the sentence increased due too the heinous nature of your crime. Following the senators suggestion Johnny G ups the ante--one life sentence plus one eternities worth of damnation in hell. Just as all seems lost suddenly our great president will burst through the doors. He will apologize to you saying he would've come to your rescue sooner it was just that he had no idea about the trial his Texas Ranch's "goddamn antenna wasn't workin right" he will then go on to pardon you because he "loves me a little weed every now and then" You are then invited to his Ranch where you and him sit back relax and smoke a joint. However while all this was happening the Iranian government had been building an arsenal of nuclear warheads. The nuclear holocaust ensues,everyone is dead, but due to your remote location you and bush manage to survive. So now it is just you George and a silo-ful of fresh cannabis.---Well, that was a rant now wasn't it?
        • 4d669, on 04/09/2008, -2/+1You can't disprove by example. Go ahead and ask any junkie if he started out by smoking weed and enlighten yourself.
          The brain naturally produces lithium and that doesn't mean *****, there's a bunch of other toxic chemicals naturally produced by your brain that would kill you if you took enough of it and would permanently ruin your chemical composition of your brain as well.
          That stupid lab rat flawed study used a minimal amount of weed which doesn't even compare to what you kids use to get stoned.

          There are examples of Jews who became Nazis. Just because you are 'smart' and smoke weed doesn't mean it will affect everyone in the same way. If you would take one day of your life and visit your local rehab center, you would see that most people in there started by smoking weed everyday. Sure, some people quit when they graduate and never move out to more potent drugs. But a lot of them don't.

          Instruct yourself with real life instead of reading pro-weed propaganda on the internet.
          • mediaphile, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Funny you should suggest I check out a rehab center, seeing as how I went every visiting day when my best friend went to rehab for two and half months for cannabis. I also talked to his counselors, and his friends in rehab, and all of them agreed that my friend didn't belong in rehab for pot. His counselors made him the head of the house two weeks before he was supposed to be eligible to do so. Everyone else in that center was addicted to everything but cannabis, and he was the only normal person there. So don't tell me about visiting my local rehab center for a day you presumptuous bastard.

            There are counter-examples to everything. Of course. But I'm not the exception. I know at least twenty other cannabis smokers like me who are exactly the same. Maybe it's because it's legal out here that nobody trips about it, but we're not all exceptions.

            You say junkies all start on cannabis? Try asking them when they had their first drink.
          • 4d669, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1You visited your friend, you didn't even bother asking anyone else how they got there. You're beginning to sound as willingly ignorant as a creationist.
          • mediaphile, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1What are you talking about? I talked to both the other patients and his counselors. They didn't see cannabis as a gateway drug. Drug addiction is a behavioral disorder, not a side effect of cannabis.
      • SpencerMc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I can come pretty damn close to guaranteeing that I know traveling hippies who live far more exciting, adventure filled lives than you.
      • caramba420, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Did you know that 98% of statistics are made up on the spot?
      • BearinG, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1replies the person on digg..
    • moush, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4It doesn't matter to most digg users, if they see the word drug, sex, porn, titty, cat, hack, WoW, microsoft, apple, Obama, Hillary in it, it's DUGG.
  • Darrelc, on 04/08/2008, -18/+12I thought that was one of the better comics I've seen. Good drawings too.
    • ricktm, on 04/08/2008, -4/+9you gotta be on drugs to think that ... oh. wait.
  • Nysul, on 04/08/2008, -1/+60We have the worst anti-meth commercials in AZ. I don't even watch traditional television anymore, I just torrent everything. If I want to be disturbed I'll put in an indie movie, sometimes I just want to relax without having to think about gang rape and meth babies.
    • dasmonki, on 04/08/2008, -1/+24How do you relax without thinking of gang rape and meth babies?
    • huertanix, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Yah, no joke. Frakin' meth billboards on the 60 are creepy too.
    • mike81890, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1Sounds like America in the 1930's. Leave me alone world!
    • tandy400, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I'll agree with that. "No one thinks they'll try to tear off their own skin... Meth will change that"

      http://www.methproject.org/View_Ads/print.php
      • Qumahlin, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1While I agree about the commercials...that statement is true. I have known two people who used meth, one who abused it heavily. She picked at her skin day and night...essentially just tearing chunks of skin off of her legs, arm, face...she finally got of of meth but the scars are still there and its pretty hard for her to explain to someone why exactly she tore her own skin off.
    • sinrtb, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3As a recovering meth-head (10 years clean) I have to say the only thing that will make you want to jump off the wagon more then watching someone snort a line is watching one of the anti drug commercials.
    • Tyrghast, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1lol @ indie movie... just cus it has no budget no big name actors doesn't mean it's good.
    • iruber1337, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Good thing you did, on April 15th AZ is blocking out most channels to show "Crystal Darkness." It is a documentary about the horrors of meth and becoming skeletor.
      Seriously who does that? People are already stressed from Tax day and now they're stopping regularly scheduled programs to give us sensationalist documentary...I see a blue-collar zombie riot ensuing (NO NEW LOST!!111 RAWR!)
      • lobsterxcore, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Are you serious? I'm blaming Arpaio.
  • WileyII, on 04/08/2008, -10/+2Maybe its because I live in CA, but the supposed commercials shown there are far too exaggerated. As far as I've seen, no modern anti-drug group is that unrealistic, I think its more an idea leftover from the past decades that doesn't exist anymore.
    • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9I think you mean that no modern anti-drug group is realistic. The best anti-drug commercials I've seen came from Darren Aronofsky, and were about meth. They didn't hold any punches, and realistically portrayed the ***** situations meth users go through. Other than that, anti-drug commercials are just propaganda by people who have never used drugs and have no idea what it's like.
      • orangefly, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1henry rollins with the meth commercial at least had a point....that it really speeds up your heart....
    • bobito, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1No, in my state (NJ), we get commercials this ridiculous. I've seen all of the ones he mentions aired, and if you look at the third? comment on the page for mine, you can see my personal favorite.
    • muchachoburacho, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3At least 2 of the frames were direct references to actual anti drug commercials.
      • donte, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Actual drug commercials that still run today no less -- not from past decades (that would be pretending that smoking pot was like frying an egg or saying that I learned to smoke pot from my dad).
  • dotlizard, on 04/08/2008, -5/+372funny i just saw that anti-pot commercial that says that smoking pot means burning up all your accomplishments, your diploma, and your car. followed by a beer commercial that said beer will make you happy, attractive, and get you laid.
    • hikaruzero, on 04/08/2008, -10/+2It must be a conspiracy! Quick, someone call the twoofers! XD
    • tsotha, on 04/08/2008, -3/+37Beer *will* get you laid. But not if *you* drink it.
    • inverselogic, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Dude, lets go vent.
    • RustyJ, on 04/08/2008, -0/+19I know the commercial you're referring to, the one where they all set their stuff on fire. That one really irritates me.
      I have a diploma, a nice car, a good job, I play guitar, and I still burn one every night. Those commercials are just oh so accurate!
      • Testiculese, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5What the hell, how'd YOU become ME?
      • Asheis, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2You're a testament. Pot gets too much flack sometimes, and even though I don't smoke, I support legalization. Keep being successful! maybe we can overthrow these pointless stereotypes, and see marijuana for what it is: a great tool! (rope, medicinal purposes, clothing, etc)
      • ellealle, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2I'm doing my PhD now and i've been smoking regularly since high school.
        In fact, pot is what made me realize that I wanted to study the brain.....and my experiences on shrooms are what made me decide to get into vision and colour perception
        • MonkCanatella, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Dunno why you were dugg down. That's pretty inspirational.
    • XombieRobot, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2Weed can impair your driving just as much as alcohol can if you smoke enough. I don't agree with the unequal comparisons on both sides of the argument. I just think they should both be avoided if you are planning to drive.
      • Asheis, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2I totally agree. Enough accidents happen when you're entirely sober. Adding ANY impairment is a mistake.
      • Qumahlin, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1"Weed can impair your driving just as much as alcohol can if you smoke enough" That is incorrect. It will impair your driving, but not nearly in the same manner as alcohol and not nearly as bad.

        Add in the fact that usually when your that high on pot you would have no desire to get into a car
    • moush, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Both are wrong, smoking weed in your mom's basement probably won't help you get laid. Going and drinking beer with other people probably will.
    • Kanidia, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1One of the main reasons that doing drugs will result in you being in the streets is because drugs are illegal and it is difficult to buy. If drugs were cheaper (due to it being legal) then it will be as harmful (financial wise) as alcohol.
  • jjive, on 04/08/2008, -5/+520The real reason no one has been run over by a pot smoker, It's not that hard to dodge a car that's going 5 mph.
    • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -13/+73The real reason no one has been run over by a pot smoker is that pot doesn't negatively affect one's motor skills.
      • jjive, on 04/08/2008, -3/+25Toke on dude, I was being stereotypical not cynical.
      • Woecip, on 04/08/2008, -12/+24Thats so wrong its pathetic. You might actually help your cause if you just stop spouting falsehoods. There are those of us who arent necessarily opposed to legalizing although we have no interest, but are tired of BOTH sides lying.
        • jjive, on 04/08/2008, -3/+8Marijuana affects people in different ways, none of them as serious as I would consider the affects of alcohol.
          Don't let my lame attempt at comedy sway your opinion one way or the other.
          • executorzz, on 04/08/2008, -4/+2Effects of marijuana

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6917003.stm
          • MacEnvy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3@executorzz
            They didn't prove causation in that study. I'd say it's more likely that people suffering form psychosis are more likely to try marijuana as it can offer some relief from their symptoms.

            In other words, you bought poorly-thought-out propaganda, hook, line, and sinker.
        • DeathJux, on 04/08/2008, -2/+26I think it was the BBC (or some other British program) that had a young man take a driving test, then smoke a joint, then take the test again. He scored better the second time through, because he said he was concentrating harder.

          "So wrong it's pathetic"? Where is your proof?
          • floorman56, on 04/08/2008, -12/+4So it would be OK with you if your Dr Smoked a joint before he operated on you because it would make him concentrate harder. Or your Airline pilot
          • LoudNoise, on 04/08/2008, -1/+17So it would be OK with you if your Dr drank 3 cups of coffee before he operated on you because it would make him concentrate harder. Or your Airline pilot
            The nesting! It does nothing!
          • revjustin2, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11What's that thing that just flew by your head? Was that "the point"?
          • Pssdoff, on 04/08/2008, -0/+13if doctors and pilots can't drink alcohol, or smoke cigarettes while working, why would they be allowed to toke?
          • kinseyincanada, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4ive known people who can drive great when they are stoned, i also know people who can't drive at all when they are stoned, i can say the same thing about people who drink and drive. The bottom line is you shouldnt toke and drive, or especially drink and drive.
          • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Personally, my motor skills are improved when I'm high, especially if the cannabis is sativa. My typing speed is faster, I do better at video games, and jiu-jitsu is way easier. Maybe that doesn't work for everyone, but I know it's the same for many of my friends as well. And driving high on cannabis? Please. It's no different.

            But then, I'm smoking cannabis club stuff. Maybe ***** weed is a different story.
          • thelock65, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Maybe he did better because he had already taken the test so he knew what was coming up. just a thought
          • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1@thelock65

            That's not how driving reflex tests work.
          • thomascj, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1@mediaphile -- i bet the guy at the counter told you all that, didn't he?
        • chrisaug18, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4I'd like to see any drunk get close to that good of results
        • kaelyiesta, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Actually, he's right. Pot has been shown to do little to impair driving. A british show started an unscientific study that later encouraged scientists to try a more methodologically sound set of tests. Both came up with the same results, that pot alone does little to increase the chances of accidents. Wonder why that contradicts all that ***** the US government gives you about pot related accidents? They don't tell you that most of those cases involve multiple psychoactive substances. Go ahead, look it up. You seem so interested in truth. Get some.

        • jzh1554, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0Driving while high on weed while compared to drunk driving is like comparing a squirt gun to an atomic bomb.... I'd like to see some numbers comparing high drivers to drunk drivers and the accidents that happen because of them.... Marijuana's effects are negligible when compared to alcohol, and there is no arguing against that
        • repmekevets, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2i've driven high and felt pretty comfortable with it. with that being said, i've also driven high and gone through a stop sign i didn't notice... i almost got broad-sided by another car. i'm all for letting people smoke, it's nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol consumption, but i don't think we should be ok with people getting high and driving around.
      • Innagadadavida, on 04/08/2008, -3/+23I don't know about you guys, but it effects me when I drive. I forget stuff like headlights, stoplights, and speed limits.

        But that's just me. I won't drive when I'm high anymore anyway, just to be safe.
        • orangefly, on 04/08/2008, -1/+55a friend of mine once got pulled over for stopping at a green light....
        • consoneo, on 04/08/2008, -3/+7You probably do that stuff when you're not high, but fail to notice. Heh...
        • Testiculese, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3I've found that my driving skills are lowered to that of the average driver if I'm high. Depends on the high, though. Some Brown Frown and I'm as stupid as the rest of the morons on the road. Some bright greens and I'm just as capable as ever. (Unlike the morons, though, I don't suddenly get a bout of invincibility...that's what alcohol does to you)
        • SpencerMc, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green.
      • KTO3TO, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1yea and when it does affect someones motor skills they won't be able to get inside the car let alone insert the key to start the car, problem solved
        • bruce86, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4That logic works so well with alcohol too.
      • Ansible, on 04/08/2008, -7/+11Huh. Doesn't affect motor skills. I don't know what you're smoking, but I think you might need to make sure its not oregano.
        • muchachoburacho, on 04/08/2008, -4/+4I think you don't know what you're talking about.
      • TheWorm, on 04/08/2008, -4/+15No way in hell I would trust myself to drive high.
        • leamanc, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3The first couple of times you try driving on pot, you DO drive like 5 mph and it feels like 70. You get used to it after a while though. Probably still does slow down your reaction time, and therefore not recommended, but it's not like driving drunk.
        • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4But it IS DUI (Driving under the influence). DUI doesn't just apply to alcohol, it applies to anything that may affect your reactions while driving.
        • familynight, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1@thanakar
          I don't think anyone is arguing over whether or not driving while high is legal. Further, the term varies depending on local laws and is defined by statute, not by the term itself. The crime actually can have a qualitative or quantitative (or both) definition. So, you can be charged even without any actual impairment if, for instance, your blood alcohol level is above a certain level but there is no demonstrable change in your motor skills, or you could be charged if a police officer witnesses signs of motor skill impairment but takes no quantitative test of your state. I'm definitely not saying this is a bad thing, just that DUI laws are defined by people and can be amended to include or exclude whatever the hell we (really, politicians) want. My point is that lots of things effect one's ability to react, and DUI laws do not necessarily cover the vast majority of them, so don't throw around the term DUI and the inclusion of marijuana as a source of impairment as though it is proof of anything.
          • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I agree with you, when I was taking a defensive driving course the instructor was telling us about a highway patrol cop that would stop people and charge them with Driving While Drinking for anything liquid beverage, not just alcohol.
        • Testiculese, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Are you young, TheWorm, or new(ish) to toking? When I first started as a kid, there was no way I could drive. I was, essentially, drunk off my ass without the spins.

          As I got older and more accustomed to the effects, driving was no longer a problem. It helped that I lived in the sticks, where there were no other cars to hit anyway...so don't take my words and go "Well I'm gonna start now!" :)
        • ohnoitstaylor, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2When I get high I can't trust myself to get off the ***** couch--unless it's to get food--let alone go out and drive a ***** car.
      • disoriented, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1For me at least, it doesn't affect my motor skills at all, perhaps even enhances them. I know I drive more cautiously when high because of fear of getting pulled over. I smoke weed every day before I go and play basketball, and like I said, it enhances my motor skills, and when smoked through a bong actually helps relieve my asthma.
        • repmekevets, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1hahaha, dugg for the saying weed provides asthma relief.
      • stoanhart, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8*****. I would get in a car with a stoned driver a million times before I would get in a car with a drunk driver, but I'm not naive enough to believe it doesn't affect your driving skills.

        Maybe your motor skills are fine, but your concentration and environmental awareness is *****.
      • ANT1138, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I think we're parked, man..
      • Nickatnite101, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2lets see, it would depend how high i am. If a take a few bong hits and can still remember where my keys are then sure ill drive. If i rip more then a few bong hits and start laughing at my dog eating while looking for my keys then no.
    • jjive, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Before you comment please read all my posts in this thread.
      I think I have made my true feelings obvious without hitting you over the head with a bong.
    • DangerCollie, on 04/08/2008, -0/+29I know. When you're high 25 mph is like SO fast. Whoa, what's the rush there, skippy.
    • hurt911gen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Don't drive bicycles while high on pot, duh.
      • stopbrorape, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1my friend did that and ran into his trash cans at the end of his driveway.
        • hurt911gen, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Your friend deserves to get his/her license to breed taken away.
    • nickerbocker, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1So the old people who live in Phoenix in the winter are pot heads. That explains their driving.
    • dylio, on 04/08/2008, -1/+12Pot is a better drug than alcohol - fact, and I'll prove it. You're at a ballgame, you're at a concert, someone's really violent, aggressive and obnoxious, are they drunk or are they smoking pot? (Audience) Drunk! The one and only correct answer, tell them what they've won, Johnny. I have never seen people on pot get in a fight because it is ***** impossible! Hey, buddy. Hey, what? End of argument. Say you get in a car accident, and you've been smoking pot. You're only going four miles an hour. Vroom... CRASH. *****, we hit something. Forgot to open the garage door, man. We got to get the garage door open so Domino's knows we're home! - RIP BILL HICKS
    • IareKEVLAR, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2There was a problem completing your request. Please reload the page and try again.
  • whymsicalburito, on 04/08/2008, -11/+22Heroin is not the only thing grown in Afghanistan, haven't you ever heard of Afghani Hash?? They produce loads of that stuff, but yes 93% of the world's heroin does come from Afghanistan. Just grow your own weed! problem solved!
    • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Hash is cannabis, and statistics are *****. Who really gives a *****.
    • bromac, on 04/08/2008, -0/+11Afghani hash is just made from strains that came from that region. "Purple Kush", for example, is the new big thing in BC. It's not grown anywhere near the Hindu Kush mountains. Yes, they do grow it there but they don't ship it to North America. Most of the hash you smoke in the US comes from Mexico and Canada.

      Transporting pot from Afghanistan isn't worth the risk, and would make the price too high to compete with local offerings. Heroin is the only drug worth the trouble of shipping halfway around the world.
    • leakus, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3The people we are fighting in Afghanistan are the wrong people if you want to fight drugs. The Taliban was actually one of the biggest threads to the opium farmers. So with the that logic, you should do drugs to help the warlords and opium farmers. In fact, the production of drugs rose in Afghanistan since we started fighting the terrorists. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3408353.stm
    • BenKenobi88, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I think a problem is that this artist asserts that terrorists only exist in Afghanistan...when the crime lords in South America might be just as bad...
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 04/08/2008, -10/+52You are not free. Stop acting like it.
  • crampy20, on 04/08/2008, -13/+42wtf - this is an awful comic - i agree with the title, just not the damn link
  • macweirdo42, on 04/08/2008, -6/+74Please, anti-drug people, I implore you - explain to me just exactly what it is that makes marijuana worse than alcohol?
    • bigdubbz, on 04/08/2008, -3/+16no one beats up there girlfriend when they are blunted
    • ReverendRodger, on 04/08/2008, -4/+15I think marijuana is a target just because it's easy, as it's already illegal. I imagine that if they won against marijuana use they would move on to alcohol and getting it banned again (MADD anyone?), then move on to simple things like coffee until we live in a joyless, dull society without any stimulus.
      • blahtastic, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4I don't know what I'd do without any caffeine ever. What a terrible world it would be :(
        • jriggs420, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14Sounds like you have a drug problem.
          • blahtastic, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3I said ever. After a couple weeks of no pop/soda I do tend to miss it. So yeah, you're probably right.
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1[[until we live in a joyless, dull society without any stimulus]]

        How sad that you need substances for stimulus.
    • MrBattle, on 04/08/2008, -3/+27why do anti-drug people have to be pro-alcohol?
      • kylere, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4That is a good question! Since prohibition failed, that segment of the population that pushed for it had to have something to do, so it is logical they picked another issue. But I am willing to bet that those who want to decide what others can do tend to be anti-alcohol also, most of the most vigilant crusaders I have met have been junkies of one form or another and they want to protect everyone from their weakness.
      • 1timeuser, on 04/08/2008, -0/+14If they are making commercials that bad they have to be drinking something, right?
      • Xchus, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8yeah alcohol sucks, I'll take some shiva over alcohol anyday...
      • Adamlite, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5I'm pro-cannabis and pro-alcohol (I'd choose bud over alcohol if I had to choose at gunpoint). Alcohol will make you feel like hell in the morning, but that's what hangover-relieving bowls are for.
    • ktk1336, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11The ONLY difference between pot & alcohol is the fact that pot is ILLEGAL, which can result in fines, felonies, & prison time as a consequence. These consequences are not a result of the physical effects of pot, which as we all know do not make anyone violent/hostile, affect motor skills, or pose a health risk. The consequences are a result of Anslingers drug laws, which have resulted in thousands of convicted "criminals", & have led to the largest influx of non violent "offenders" into US prisons, ever.

      These anti-pot ads are aimed at clueless people to further the government's age old agenda to control those members of the US population who are found to be independent thinkers & therefore a thread to the sheep - herding authority figures.

      Has anyone watched "Grass"? It's on the Sundance Channel. Check it out if you have a chance.
      • Adamlite, on 04/08/2008, -2/+5What we need is to separate morality and legality where cannabis is concerned. If not, we'll stay stuck in this loop of "it's illegal, so it's bad" and "well it's obviously bad since it's illegal, let's keep it illegal".
      • mahdaeng, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1[[These anti-pot ads are aimed at clueless people to further the government's age old agenda to control those members of the US population who are found to be independent thinkers & therefore a thread to the sheep - herding authority figures.]]

        I disagree. I think it would be far easier to convince a drugged population of something than a clear-headed, healthy population.

        And by the way, pot does affect motor skills and long-term brain functioning.
        • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4You're right, pot does affect motor skills and long-term brain functioning. My motor skills are quantifiably faster and more precise when I'm high, and cannabinoids have been shown to stimulate the growth of neurons in lab rats. Good job!
          • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Verifiable proof, please.
          • mediaphile, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1My typing skills are definitely faster when I'm high, based against the same tests taken while either sober or drunk. I personally do better at video games when I'm high, as do my friends that I play online with. Obviously those can't be verified by you, but as for neurogenesis in rats, here's one story on it from ScienceNews.org: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20051015/fob7. ...
      • whyufail, on 04/08/2008, -4/+1Correction, both kill brain cells, the difference is some ***** stoner can blow pot in my face, it's a bit harder to cram a tube down my throat and make me drink.
        • mediaphile, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Correction, smoke kills brain cells when it deprives one of oxygen. THC does not kill brain cells. Pot smoke blown in your face does not kill brain cells, unless you're only breathing smoke and no oxygen. The carcinogens in second hand tobacco smoke are what can hurt you.
        • RustyJ, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3whyufail, you are a ***** idiot. Stop stereotyping people. Do yourself a favor and when that "***** stoner" passes you a joint, hit it. It might open up your already closed off mind.
        • TrevaLVF, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1There is no scientific evidence to prove the old "pot kills brain cells" argument. Smoke kills brain cells, as mediaphile explained.
          Marijuana itself does not contain hazardous material. Whyufail, I don't believe that you have done any research on marijuana. You come across as somebody that blindly believes the government-funded reports from sources that will draw any conclusions that the people behind those government grants (and anti-marijuana industry grants) demand.
      • Merlaak, on 04/09/2008, -2/+1"These anti-pot ads are aimed at clueless people to further the government's age old agenda to control those members of the US population who are found to be independent thinkers & therefore a thread to the sheep - herding authority figures."

        So... only pot-smokers are capable of independent thought? I suppose anyone who opposes pot legalization are the so-called sheep for the "sheep-herding authority figures". Blanket statements like these do nothing to rally support - they only alienate and ostracize. Personally, I am undecided on the whole pot issue. I don't smoke and I don't intend to, but I am capable of independent thought without the aid of external substances (caffeine, pot, alcohol, et cetera).
        • BearinG, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1the question is, can you and see through biased external gov't sources and propaganda..
        • ktk1336, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2No, I did not mean & I did not say that only pot smokers are capable of independent thought. I meant that pot smokers are part of that independent group, which consists of people from all walks of life. My point is that our government would prefer that the US be populated with lemmings - people who don't question or resist, regardless of how ridiculous any one of their laws or policies may be. This applies to many facets of US policy, both domestic and foreign.
      • TrevaLVF, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1Ktk1336, there is a big difference between alcohol and marijuana. For starters, alcohol impairs motor skills, judgment and eye sight to the point where a person that is under the influence of alcohol is more likely to be involved in an accident involving a motor vehicle. I've been around hard-core stoners all my life. And I admit, I've had my fair share of this substance. I've never known any case where somebody was involved in an accident because they were too stoned. I've never read, or heard a report of an accident caused by a person that was under the influence of marijuana.

        Withdrawal symptoms from excessive use of marijuana are considerably milder than alcohol, narcotics, cocaine, meth, opiates, and other drugs.

        I have never known marijuana to encourage obnoxious, loud, boisterous and violent behavior in anybody, but I have known some obnoxious, loud, boisterous and violent people to mellow out while under the influence of marijuana. Any exception to this is with people that were also under the influence of other substances, particularly alcohol, cocaine, or prescription drugs.

        I have never known anybody that died because they smoked pot. I have known plenty of people that died from health-related problems caused by too much regular alcohol consumption. In my 25+ years of living in Florida, I have known many cases where college students that went to Florida on Spring Break suffered alcohol poisoning (I recall a young man that downed as much tequila as he could on a dare, then went into a coma). I have known alcoholics that destroyed their livers and many that went insane.
    • executorzz, on 04/08/2008, -15/+4What's wrong with marijuana:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6917003.stm
      • UcIc, on 04/08/2008, -1/+12Next time try linking to an article that contains proven facts and not just speculative *****.
      • andbruno, on 04/08/2008, -1/+11That's a complete fabrication.

        I feel bad for people who believe that.

        Next you'll be saying it'll cause your daughters to dance with negros and listen to that scary jazz music.

        (correct reply... sorry about that empty one below)
      • BarriedaleNick, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Even if its true then if you have a 1% chance of becoming mentally ill then if you are a smoker you would have a 1.4% chance of becoming mentally ill. Now if you remove the already mentally ill self medicators and children (who are more susceptible) from the equation then we're just quibbling about extremely small numbers. Ill take my chance with the odd bit of herb - besides I've been mentally ill and it's not all bad!
        • TrevaLVF, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I don't know anybody that has become mentally ill because they smoke (or smoked) pot. Most mentally ill people that I have known and currently know either smoked it rarely and very little, or never. That includes numerous people whose mental illness was caused by other factors. No evidence exists to prove that there is any chance that marijuana can cause mental illness.
    • andbruno, on 04/08/2008, -5/+4(emptying comment, replied to wrong person)
    • Buddhaismybuddy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+19Alcohol isn't made from a plant that would make the cotton industry completely obsolete. If marijuana was legal they would have to legalize hemp too and that would piss off too many massive corporations.
      • Testiculese, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8Yep, instead of adjusting and adapting, they went RIAA on our asses.
      • Qumahlin, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1the whole "hemp" side of the argument is false and has nothing to do with illegalization these days. You can manufacture hemp with almost no detectable quantities of THC meaning if you wanted to get high off of it you would have allllooootttttt of work to do. Hemp also would not put cotton out of business. While hemp is a viable replacement for cotton in some areas such as rope, in other areas such a clothing it simply is not as good of a fiber to work with

        Legalization of MJ and all hemp would barely put a ding into the cotton industry.
        • badi03, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1But what about the oil and lumber industry?
    • LeRenard, on 04/08/2008, -6/+1Sorry to break up your me-too fest, but one difference is that alcohol can be used in amounts that do not seriously impair the user, 1 beer with a meal is almost unnoticeable. It's a food, historically. Pot, on the other hand, gets you wasted. Not that you cant get wasted on beer, or only use a tiny amount of pot.. but the intent is usually different. You don't often hear about people who take half a wiff of one hit of pot because it "goes with their meal".
      • theandy1, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6No *****, the weed must be smoked before the meal for it to be great.
      • sircomix, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6I do.
      • cheesebob, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1We're not talking about people who drink with meals. I wasn't a fan of beer until i had it with a meal my oldest brother made ( we also got smashed later that night). I only smoke a bit of pot, because smoking enough to get me high would mean smoking the entire bag. A bit of pot never got me 'wasted'. the best pot I've had makes me awesome at video games, a better writer, and an epic debater of endlessly stupid ideas.
      • Elbryan233, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8Wait, wait, wait. Back that train up a second. So you're saying that alcohol, if used responsibly, doesn't have to be detrimental? But what if...just bear with me here, what if POT was used responsibly? Woah. People could get high and not go crazy and ruin society? Man, what kind of crazy mixed-up bizarro world could THAT happen in?

        Oh, right. The one we all live in. Cool.
      • TrevaLVF, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1I had a great-grandmother that used marijuana with other ingredients to make medicinal tea and broth.
        My own mother would indulge in a slight amount of marijuana in a hot, or iced and sweetened beverage for her aching bones, which cause her muscles to tense up from the pain, if it was legal enough to grow, thus cheaper to use that way. She has never smoked it and never wants to smoke that, or anything else. However, she has been taking an interest in marijuana for medicinal purposes.

        People don't just drink alcoholic beverages because they like the taste. They also enjoy the other benefits of it. They enjoy using it to relax. Most enjoy the mild buzz that a glass of wine provides.

        I don't know very many meal-time drinkers that don't over-indulge in alcoholic beverages, at least, occasionally. Maybe two people. That's it. Most of the ones that claim that they only have a glass with a meal, or before bedtime turn out to be closet alcoholics. As in, addicts. Drunks. Lushes.

        Recovering alcoholics cannot drink a glass of wine with a meal, or have beer with pizza. They cannot touch booze, because it puts them at the same kind of risk of any addict that uses a trigger substance, or the substance they were hooked on before they got clean and sober.
    • gcauthon, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Didn't you pay attention in elementary school? Marijuana creates a gateway that allows other more dangerous drugs to enter your body. So you smoke a few joints and suddenly you realize you're buzzed on cocaine. Smoke a few more and somehow you've managed to OD on heroine. Marijuana is like a magical gateway drug.
      • ruforealz, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Now you're thinking in portals
      • Merlaak, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1That's actually the story of my sister's life... only instead of heroin is was LSD. Nothing too magical about it... just mankind's propensity to continue pushing to see how far they can go.
      • TrevaLVF, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1No. Marijuana is not really that gateway drug. Get beyond the anti-marijuana propaganda that tells you to believe this and start checking for other possible gateway drugs.
        Alcohol, which has been traditionally and commonly found in many homes. It was not unusual for kids of my generation (I was born in the 60's) to be given a nip of beer or wine by a parent, or other relative in the home. It was also not uncommon for kids to sneak into their parents' liquor cabinet when the parents' weren't home, or were not paying attention.
        Most drugs addicts that I have known who are in the teens - early forties had other gateway drugs, as follows:
        Ritalin, Xanax, drugs to treat depression, Thorazine, cough syrup, pain killers, booze.
        They were given these drugs as children, also given the impression that they could/should use some kind of drug to cure, or comfort and relief of whatever ails them.
        Much of my generation was raised by parents that bought into the hype, "Got a problem? Take a pill." Perhaps, you've never heard the Rolling Stones song, "Mothers Little Helper?"
        I challenge anybody that claims to be an addict (using, or recovering) who believes that marijuana was their gateway drug to look more deeply through their past to see if there was actually one, or more other "gateway" substance. That takes a lot of introspection for many. Sadly, quite a number of people claim that they don't remember much about their childhood, so they can't recall if they were ever given alcohol, pills, or a drug syrup that might actually be their gateway drug.
        Food can be the gateway substance. Sugar can be a gateway substance. Do you have any idea how many addicts love the hell out of that colorful and sweet cereal that's marketed to kids?
    • desertDenizen, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Convention. Sad, huh?
    • mirzmaster, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1If macwierdo is inviting some opposing view points, then why is executorzz getting dugg down for providing them? And why are all the responses to the BBC article he links to, "oh man, that's all made up stuff!!!1!1"? Where are the actual counter-arguments, or studies that prove the opposite?

      Moreover, I contest that no one has yet provided a good argument in favour of drug consumption, but rather, I see some excellent arguments for outlawing alcohol and tobacco. I find it ironic that the same people who would probably be up in arms about prohibition are here providing excellent arguments in support of it, when it comes to talking about marijuana.
      • macweirdo42, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1The study is complete garbage. Did you actually read the article? The entire study was correlational. In other words, it's completely useless.
      • macweirdo42, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Sorry, just needed to clarify. I was, in fact, seriously asking for opposing viewpoints. However, the closest thing I got to a concrete counter-argument was executorzz's article, and it was completely useless.
    • SmokersAnon, on 04/09/2008, -1/+0Yes, I have yet to see someone hurt another person, WHILE high. But apparently, most of you are unable to take into account what a person can do while sober, in need of that high. People rob at gun point, prostitute themselves, and kill over drugs. Alcoholics stand in the streets and beg for their buzz. I'll take the beggars. And yes, weed IS a gateway drug. Thats about the only fact your gonna find in all the anti-drug propaganda. Its very easy to get ahold of, and a person always wants something more. Also, pot-heads are an extremely boring group. Their is nothing wrong with a little bar fight, every now and then. Its the crowd that comes with the drugs, that generally pisses me off. From what I've seen, a group of high "individuals" are generally in the same zone of thought. Sheep to a different flock. Yet, somehow they are the great enlightened ones. Drugs and Alcohol are for play, not your so-called enlightment. Your far better off finding that sober. The greatest thing about alcohol, is the fact that you never truly know a person, until you get them drunk.

      But, in the end, its all about personal preference. Their is no "weed is better", or "beer is better". People are so quick to blame societies problems on one thing or another, when in reality, we are the cause of our own misgivings. A good beer cures all my problems, while a joint will do it for you. Thats all their is to it.

      Just my humble opinion. *cough, durgs ar bda, cough*
  • cablewires, on 04/08/2008, -3/+36got 2 words for ya: Bill Hicks.
    • lektroluv, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Yeah man. Buried for desecration of comedic genius.
      • Zm3r3, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Comic genius and a prophet, if Bill Hicks was still alive I'd beg him to run for the Presidency!!!
    • space3024,