Truth (and consequences)

If you watch any TV shows aimed at the 18-34 demographic, you've seen ads by "truth," the totally cool anti-smoking campaign. Funded by $300 million a year in Big Tobacco protection money, most of the commercials showcase handsome teens and twentysomethings haunting an anonymous city's streets, irritating passersby by screaming into megaphones or brandishing scary dogs.

In other words, they're annoying. Filmmaker Richard Darge realized this and made his own "truth" commercial that shows what happens when a fed-up smoker encounters one of the campaign's self-righteous street theater junkies.

(Hat tip: John Tabin.)

Comments

Brian24 | March 30, 2006, 11:51am | #

I really wanted that to be funny. But it's not.

Jersey McJones | March 30, 2006, 11:52am | #

Eh.

John | March 30, 2006, 11:54am | #

Me to Brian. The Truth ads are such an easy target. Hard to believe they missed that badly.

Phil | March 30, 2006, 11:54am | #

Christ, can there be one day at Reason without an OH NOES TEH POOR BELEAGUERED SMOKERS post?

Mikep | March 30, 2006, 11:56am | #

FYI

The "Richard Darge" link just triggered a Norton Anti- Virus alert, Be Careful!!

Steven Crane | March 30, 2006, 11:57am | #

Whether you think smokers are beleaguered or not (and in Chicago, oh they are), thetruth ads super-suck.

SR | March 30, 2006, 12:01pm | #

As a regular G4 watcher, I have to see "the truth" ads almost every commercial break. They are so smugly annoying (and frequently attacking strawmen) that I'm tempted to start smoking just to spite them.

Evan | March 30, 2006, 12:04pm | #

I saw that stupid "dog by another name" one last night. I like how they demand that the cigarette companies "stop selling an addictive and deadly substance". Christ, you assholes, you've already gotten the surgeon general's apocalyptic warning on all packs, and you've gotten major tobacco companies to actually put commercials on the air that encourage people to stop using their product. Now, say what you want, but, in this day and age, with all of the stigma and "public reeducation" campaigns, it might be time to say, "hey, you know what? maybe some people just wanna smoke, even if it is bad for them. maybe it's their own fault if they choose to ignore all of the warnings and still smoke." But then, a bunch of not-so-clever advertising flunkies would have to go out and look for a real job. And Truth will have none of that!

Number 6 | March 30, 2006, 12:06pm | #

Oh, come on. The "Truth" people are dashing, daring rebels taking on the evil corporate oligarchical facist state to bring one simple truth to the people! One truth, hidden for years, that will change everything and wake the huddled proles! The facts these brave young revoltionaries will bring forth is...


wait for it...


Cigarettes are bad for you!

R C Dean | March 30, 2006, 12:07pm | #

They want the cigarette companies to stop selling cigarettes, but are perfectly willing to pocket their share of the proceeds.

There's a "truth" in there, alright, but its not the one they're trying to put over on us.

Evan | March 30, 2006, 12:07pm | #

PS: That "parody" really did suck big. The Truth ads are such an easy fucking target...I mean, sometimes, the ads themselves are hilarious, without trying to be. These guys must have had to try really hard to fuck that one up.

If The Daily Show weren't so lefty-oriented, I bet they could do a fucking brilliant take on them.

Yogi | March 30, 2006, 12:08pm | #

Has anyone seen the anti-pot commercials? They're a riot on the unintentional humor scale.

independent worm | March 30, 2006, 12:11pm | #

I thought "the truth" ads came from the American Legacy Foundation, which was created and funded by the tobacco companies, as part of the whole shakedown. At least some part of that foregoing sentence is true, don't know about all of it.

Tim Cavanaugh | March 30, 2006, 12:11pm | #

Why hasn't PETA or even the ASPCA come out against that Fang or Fluffy ad? They keep an obviously agitated animal in a small cage surrounded by gawkers in what looks like threatening weather, and torment him with that woman's shrill voice. That shouldn't happen to a dog.

mediageek | March 30, 2006, 12:14pm | #

"They are so smugly annoying (and frequently attacking strawmen) that I'm tempted to start smoking just to spite them."

You aren't the only one.

Evan | March 30, 2006, 12:16pm | #

Yogi:

The one where it went backwards through time, where the girl smoked a joint, and it "led" to her getting drunk and high and on her knees in a shitty dive bathroom puking her guts out and/or sleeping with some random dude...that's my favorite.

If only she had steered clear of the weed! Then she'd have ended up sober, spending the night studying and practicing her clarinet. But no, she just had to smoke that joint! The horror!

I know, from personal experience, this is how it goes. Every time I so much as smell some drifting pot smoke, I wake up the next morning wondering where I am...like, tied to the top of an RV with bungee cords on my way to Cambodia...damn devil weed!

mediageek | March 30, 2006, 12:20pm | #

I've been waiting for someone to do a really, really well done ass-tearing on all of those TRUTH ads, but I think the reason one hasn't materialized is because they're so goddamned sanctimonious that no rational person can sit through one without becoming blinded with righteously indignant anger.

Timon19 | March 30, 2006, 12:20pm | #

I despise smoking, and never, ever considered doing it myself...until those stupid ads started coming out. Nothing before or since has actually made me consider lighting up outside of those ads.

Maybe it's a plot by Big Tobacco to use reverse psychology to pick up more of the preteen-to-teen rebel market...

lunchstealer | March 30, 2006, 12:23pm | #

I laughed, but really only out of schadenfruede.

Evan | March 30, 2006, 12:24pm | #

Tim,

Because all those nanny-scold groups are interrelated somehow. PETA has a board member who is also a prominent member of PCRM, who in turn is staffed by the same folks who make the Truth ads.

Native NYer | March 30, 2006, 12:34pm | #

My first grader brought home a “safety” coloring book they gave out in school yesterday. Besides pages saying “Don’t play with guns or knives” under a picture of a kid having fun playing with a gun and a knife as a pirate, there was a page which said “never smoke, and don’t go near anyone who does”. So then I had to get into the conversation that it’s still OK to go near grandpa even though he smokes, and that sometimes there are people who tell other what to do even though that’s not their job.

Friggin nanny staters!

linguist | March 30, 2006, 12:34pm | #

I didn't think it was meant to be funny. It's deadly serious, in an Atlas Shrugged kind of way: Those who will force others to put down their cigs might just force them ...

well, you know where I'm going with this.

thoreau | March 30, 2006, 12:35pm | #

Here's a question: Are those ads intended to discourage drug use, or are they intended to drump up support for prohibition? There is a difference, even if the two purposes have some overlap.

SR | March 30, 2006, 12:39pm | #

"Has anyone seen the anti-pot commercials? They're a riot on the unintentional humor scale."

Yes, most of them make me wonder why anyone would be deterred from using the drug. (See, e.g., the guy with his own fist stuck in his mouth.)

mediageek | March 30, 2006, 12:47pm | #

Evan, I don't know about the various orgs like PeTA, etc, but most of the anti-gun rights organizations are so inter-related that their kids should all be cross-eyed and drooling.

Viking Moose | March 30, 2006, 12:53pm | #

thoreau:

that's a good point. it seems as though many of these types of ads, as well as general hype over MSM's assumed chemical habits of the youth culture (for lack of a better, generalized term), are designed to get the forces for prohibition mobilized.

to wit: whenever there's a car crash on the news here in chicagoland, regardless of context of the crash, if there are people younger than 30 in the car, the reports often end with "police have not yet ruled out drugs or alcohol in the accident" - regardless of the relevance of that statement!

(next time you tell someone about an accident you saw, throw in that line, and watch how the reaction changes)

look at the hype/hysteria about cold medicine and meth. look at how the "dangers of meth labs" are reported to the typical fox news viewer.

unless the kid is a type who would rebel against the group with the stronger pressure to conform, namely his/her peer group, the anti smoking message won't do jack. but getting easy-to-remember, easy-to-recite "facts" out there that are delivered in a very simple message, you get the undereducated middle america masses on board, and then you have a movement.

worked for the ayatollah...

cheers

Timothy | March 30, 2006, 12:54pm | #

"I smoked some weed so I tried to eat my own hand"

"I smoked some weed so I tried to out run a dog"

What bollocks. For me it's more like, "I smoked some weed and now I'm really stressed out, dude, the cops are coming, I swear...I can't stop walking in circles".

citizengnat | March 30, 2006, 12:58pm | #

thoreau

I'm 22, and growing up everyone made fun of anti-drug ads. The most well behaved anti-drug straight A students thought they were stupid. Someone in government must have realised this by now. So, my personal suspicion is that they are meant to scare hysterical baby-boomer parents into keeping drugs illegal. Back during the 2002 election they broke them out the latest anti-pot ads in NV months before they went nation-wide. If you will recall, MPP was running a pot legalization campaign there at the time.

citizengnat | March 30, 2006, 1:02pm | #

Feindishly evil tobacco companies producing "anti-smoking" ads so annoying and preachy they cause teens to smoke? I love it! Almost makes me wish I was still paying them to kill me.

JD | March 30, 2006, 1:19pm | #

Has anybody seen those "report card" ads which say "Hollywood is failing to protect our children from tobacco!" (or something like that, I can't remember the exact wording). I've been so tempted to add my own comments, like "If you expected Hollywood to raise your kids for you, you deserve an F in Parenting."

I'm not just ticked off about the stridently self-righteous tone of the anti-smoking ads - my real concern is that government is funding (directly or indirectly) campaigns to tell people what they should think. We should be able to have real debates about social issues without government propagandizing for one side. Why can't we have some laws that prohibit government from using public funds to promote a viewpoint? Yeah, I know, I'm a hopeless idealist.

Jeff P. | March 30, 2006, 1:20pm | #

I'd prefer to see libertarian Truth parody ads that shed light on the two-party system.

Kwix | March 30, 2006, 1:52pm | #

Here's a question: Are those ads intended to discourage drug use, or are they intended to drump up support for prohibition? There is a difference, even if the two purposes have some overlap.

I'd say it, like most 'Protectionist' ads are there to drum up support of prohibition. Speaking of prohibition (not tobacco at this time) Pete over at Drug War Rant has a nice little breakdown of the latest Press Release by our good buddy Karen Tandy of the DEA regarding Marc Emery.

What I love about it is this bit,"Mr. Emery turns a blind eye to marijuana's victims -- people like Victoria Rogers, a mother driving with her children when she was killed by a marijuana-intoxicated motorist." Oddly, an earlier speech by Tandy stated, "a drugged driver[~]high on a virtual drug cocktail of marijuana, cocaine, and opiates[~]struck another car and killed a 31-year old mother, Victoria Rogers, who was driving with her two young daughters and a niece."

I don't condone driving under the influence of any drug but this is a hell of a difference. Why was Mrs. Rogers case brought up before the media 2 years after it occured? Could it be possible that no other marijuana related accidents have happened since then, or more likely to gain sympathy with the public for the tragic death of a mother at the hands of a 'drug impaired maniac'?

If you can demonize a person or thing (Marc Emery, tobacco, meth) you can make it into something less than you and worthy of your contempt. If you apply terms that nobody would rightly call themselves you can distance yourself from them (junkie, druggie, meth-head, Big Tobacco, Right-Winger, Left-Winger) to aid in this contempt. This is what the Truth ads, anti-drug ads, and MSM are really good at. They portray users of certain substances and followers of certain ideologies as lower than human and worthy of contempt and scorn.

andy | March 30, 2006, 1:53pm | #

"I'm 22, and growing up everyone made fun of anti-drug ads."

My favorite was this one:

"Pusher:" You wanna smoke a joint?
Other kid: No.
"Pusher:" Oh, yeah, you're a chicken.
Other kid: I'm not a chicken, you're a turkey!

I think I was eight years old when I saw that and I still thought it was dumb.

Reformed Republican | March 30, 2006, 1:53pm | #

"I smoked some weed so I tried to out run a dog"

Whenever I have been around people who were smoking weed, they have never seemed remotely likely to attempt to outrun anything.

andy | March 30, 2006, 2:00pm | #

"Could it be possible that no other marijuana related accidents have happened since then, or more likely to gain sympathy with the public for the tragic death of a mother at the hands of a 'drug impaired maniac'?"

Anyone who says that weed doesn't impair driving is being disingenuous. Back when I used to smoke occasionally, I can count more than once when I came too close for comfort into getting into a serious accident. I even got into a pretty bad fender bender once. Yeah, you could make the argument that I wasn't "experienced" enough driving on it, but that's the point: Marijuana, at least for some people and at least for a certain time period, impairs driving. Of course, the extremist pot lovers/anti-prohibitionists hate to admit this.

I'm no fan of prohibition, but if you've gotta lie to make your case, it probably ain't worth bein' made.

Number 6 | March 30, 2006, 2:00pm | #

Andy- Of course, there's the perenial classic, "I learned from you, Dad!" Commercial. That one has yet to be equaled.

Number 6 | March 30, 2006, 2:03pm | #

Again to Andy- True, but I don't think anyone suggests that it should be legal to drive on weed. For one thing, it takes a reaaaaallly long time to get home.

Evan | March 30, 2006, 2:09pm | #

andy,

not that I'm advocating/justifying lying, you gotta cut the anti-prohibitionists a little slack. They're fighting against a movement with which lies are Standard Operating Procedure. You say,

"if you've gotta lie to make your case, it probably ain't worth bein' made."

While this is often true, there are exceptions. And this may be one of those exceptions: where your opposition lies constantly and flagrantly, but because of various factors (social stigma, etc), these lies are tolerated and believed by the people responsible for voting lawmakers into office. Again, I'm not saying that they need to lie, but if they're telling the truth while the other side lies continually, it isn't exactly right.

andy | March 30, 2006, 2:14pm | #

"Of course, there's the perenial classic, "I learned from you, Dad!" Commercial. That one has yet to be equaled."

Yeah, that one was a grin. I like the one now where the dad's like "Let's talk about the birds and the bees..." to his son, and his son is paralyzed in horror. The dad then says, "Or, we can talk about drugs" and the kid's like "Yeah, yeah, let's talk about drugs."

Woulda been great if the kid had been like, "why don't we talk about you getting the hell out of my room, you square-ass piece of shit. You're fucking up my buzz"

The commercial where the dad rolls up in the carpet like a joint is just retarded, though.

Garth | March 30, 2006, 2:16pm | #

Number 6: HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHh cough*hack*gasp That's classic.

Seriously, while I suspect that most readers here get it, some might not: Saying the government should not use our taxes to promote (probably false) ideologies about drugs is not the same as saying that people should be driving around stoned.

Libertarians lose so much of the regular public bcse average people cannot tell the difference between advocating an end to the Drug War and advocating taking drugs. These things are not the same.

Richard Darge | March 30, 2006, 2:17pm | #

Hello

I made that anti-TRUTH ad last week and just wanted to thank everybody for their comments, both positive and negative - I made this thing because, I, like you, dislike these ads - Someone told me to parody the anti-drug ads after I made this, but I don't think you need to parody them because they are already funny as is - What's to parody really? A pothead older brother, not watching his younger brother shoot himself in the face because the older bro was high is damn funny -

My intent with this anti-TRUTH project was to recreate an actual TRUTH ad to fool the viewer into believing it was real for the first 20 seconds, then simply to let it naturally fall into chaos, I guess you could say I am the guy on the opposite corner, even though I don't smoke

- I always had the thought of spinning the absurdity into extreme chaos, going way over the top, but it never really felt right - I wanted to keep that sense of realism throughout - to me, the real absurdity is the TRUTH doctor picking up the megaphone at the end - watch it again if you disliked it the first time and if you still hate it, I'd like to hear some of your ideas on how it could be better, because I'm always trying to better myself as a filmmaker, you can send me an email if you'd like, [e-mail]

On a technical note, we shot this with no permits in downtown Los Angeles, all of the megaphone audio was recorded in a park beforehand - no one bothered us because the camera was small and the crew was even smaller, it was a quick shoot

take care

andy | March 30, 2006, 2:19pm | #

"Again, I'm not saying that they need to lie, but if they're telling the truth while the other side lies continually, it isn't exactly right."

I see your point, but I think that any lies are part of a very slippery slope. If our side lies too noticably, the fascists will use those lies against us. The best thing to do is to consistantly call them out on their lies so that they seem like the lying pezzi di merda that they are. As for the anti-prohibitionists, it never hurts public opinion to know that a group is more honest than their opponent.

Kwix | March 30, 2006, 3:04pm | #

andy,
What part of my statement do you take as a lie? To quote myself, "I don't condone driving under the influence of any drug..."

My point was that the original speech by Tandy listed the driver's impairment as being a "cocktail" of drugs not just marijuana. She magically drops the other drugs out of her latest PR because it is directly related to Marc Emery. She makes it appear that marijuana was the ONLY cause for this tragic accident to demonize Mr. Emery, in effect painting him responsible for Mrs. Roger's death.

The MSM will not follow the trail back and try to search out the details of the accident, nor will they bother looking up the previous speech given by Mrs. Tandy. Instead they will print the PR as released and take it on good faith that the DEA isn't lying to them.

Warren | March 30, 2006, 3:15pm | #

I posted this once before, it went over well with the Hit and Runners. It seems appropriate here. I would be thrilled if anybody actually filmed it.

PSA
Setting: Sunny day in the park, father and son taking a stroll.

Kid: Dad, did you ever do drugs?
Dad:[stammers] Well uhh

[guy with large Que cards (QCG) runs up and holds up card that reads:
YEAH I DID
AND IT WAS A DUMB THING TO DO]

Dad: [Looks at card, begins reading, vaguely dispassionate]
Yeah I did, and it was a dumb …
[shakes head begins speaking in engaged conversation voice ]
Yeah, yeah I did. I did a lot of dumb things too. But I also had some great times. Some of the best moments of my life happened when I was high. Like the first time I made love to your mother.

[QCG gets panicked look on face. Turns card over and reads it (twice) turns card back around and holds it up, waves it back and forth]

Kid: Sooooo, you're saying drugs made your life better?
Dad: I'm saying that drugs are powerful things. And like all powerful things, you need to have a healthy fear of them. You see son, drugs, like cars, a little knowledge, and religion, can be very dangerous. But they can also be useful and life enhancing when used responsibly. It's important that you educate yourself on the effects and risks before you start experimenting.

[QCG rotates the "yeah I did" card to back of stack. He frantically waves the new top card which reads:
BUT NO ONE EVER TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT]

Dad: [turns his back to QCG and faces his son] And the biggest risk of all is the fact that they're illegal. Not only can you get arrested, but if you're convicted you loose any chance of getting into college or landing a decent job. And of course there's no FDA or even Consumer's Reports to ensure purity and quality. For instance, Ecstasy is far safer than beer, but when you buy pills on the black market, there's no way of knowing what is in them. You could be putting anything from sugar to cyanide in your body.

[Father and son begin walking again. QCG violently throws the "no one ever" card away. His new card reads:
DRUGS ARE BAD
MMMMM-KAY
He is walking backwards and jamming his finger at his card]

Kid: So if making drugs illegal actually makes them more dangerous, why don't we just end drug prohibition?
Dad: Well it's like I said son, people do a lot of dumb things.
[Father and son continue talking and walk off together]
[QCG trips and falls to ground, cards go flying. Close up on his face – look of exasperation]
QCG: I need a drink

Maurkov | March 30, 2006, 3:15pm | #

Richard, thanks for dropping by.

Would it have been possible to mock the TRUTH ads without casting aspersions on concealed carry?

Mr. F. Le Mur | March 30, 2006, 3:21pm | #

I thought "the truth" ads came from the American Legacy Foundation, which was created and funded by the tobacco companies, as part of the whole shakedown.

thetruth.com is registered to the Amierican Legacy Foundation.

Pete Guther | March 30, 2006, 3:22pm | #

I don't think anyone responsible has said that it's a good idea to drive while stoned. But it's critical to counter the arguments made by prohibitionists that legalization would somehow turn our highways into graveyards.

And when prohibitionists try to scare people about the dangers of driving while on marijuana, it's legitimate to point out that driving while under the influence of marijuana, while not safe, is by most studies, well below the danger of alcohol or fatigue.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution."

A Dutch study in real world conditions concluded "THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program."

A May 1998 Australian review of 2,500 injured drivers reported that cannabis had "no significant effect" on driving culpability."

And the Transport Research Laboratory in London found: "..researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously. Although the cannabis affected reaction time in regular users, its effects appear to be substantially less dangerous than fatigue or drinking."

And then, of course, there's the classic joke:

A drunk driver will blow right through a stop sign without slowing down. The stoned driver will patiently wait for it to turn green."

Mr. F. Le Mur | March 30, 2006, 3:31pm | #

I don't condone driving under the influence of any drug but this is a hell of a difference.
How about caffeine, nicotine or amphetamines? They can all improve driving performance.

Richard Darge - keep up the good work!

Convoluted Insult Police | March 30, 2006, 3:51pm | #

Not only can you get arrested, but if you're convicted you loose any chance of getting into college or landing a decent job.

I don't think making stuff up in commercials is going to help our case much.

zach | March 30, 2006, 3:56pm | #

Oops. That was me, not the Convoluted Insult Police.

smacky | March 30, 2006, 4:06pm | #

I'd prefer to see libertarian Truth parody ads that shed light on the two-party system.


Hear, hear! This is top priority on my list of shams to expose.


Pete Guther,

All of those pot smoking studies are irrelevant to the point, though. The fact that marijuana is a psychoactive substance requires that people should not be driving under its influence. To wit: I am an excellent drunk driver. My reaction times and precaution are as good if not better than when I am completely sober. However, the likelihood that I would cause a fiery car crash is far greater when I am stoned because I cannot drive when I am high on pot.


Also, I already mentioned this in another thread, but this morning I had a dream that I grew marijuana for the purpose of selling and profiting from my harvest. I woke up this morning thinking how lovely it would be if I could actually do that for a little side income.

Isaac Bartram | March 30, 2006, 4:35pm | #

I don't think making stuff up in commercials is going to help our case much.

I'm not sure where the untruth is here, zach.

I might have worded it:

"Not only can you get arrested, but if you're convicted you [could] loose any chance of getting into college or landing a decent job."

but as it is it's true in general.

zach | March 30, 2006, 4:37pm | #

Well smack, you're probably in a better position to do that now than you would be if it were legal. The amount of special licenses and inspections a grower would have to put up with if the pot trade were legalized would likely make it impossible for you to grow and distribute it on such a small scale.

Well, here's hoping libertarians will have to confront that problem some day.

daksya | March 30, 2006, 4:37pm | #

The fact that marijuana is a psychoactive substance requires that people should not be driving under its influence.

So caffeine is out as well?

However, the likelihood that I would cause a fiery car crash is far greater when I am stoned because I cannot drive when I am high on pot.

That's your likelihood. The point of the studies Pete cited, is that across the population, pot poses a mild risk. A dose-based prohibition would be better. After all, even with the more dangerous alcohol, upto 0.08 BAC is tolerated.

zach | March 30, 2006, 4:38pm | #

but as it is it's true in general.

Whatever you say Mr. Clinton. ;)

David | March 30, 2006, 4:40pm | #

I woke up this morning thinking how lovely it would be if I could actually do that for a little side income.

If you could, you wouldn't make enough for it to be worthwhile. The money's in the illegal. Unless you started selling "enhanced" cupcakes. :)

smacky | March 30, 2006, 4:57pm | #

David,

Have you ever eaten a pot brownie? I had one a few years ago back in college (or was it highschool)? Anyway, they really work! Of course, they were made by true potheads, so they must've known how to make them potent.

Akira MacKenzie | March 30, 2006, 5:11pm | #

The movie... meh, while I agree with the sentiment, the execution really needed work.

As for driving under the influence; even a hard-core legalizer like myself has no problem with DWI laws. However, since perfectly legal alcohol is a far more popular "drug" than pot, the notion that we must keep prohibition going just to prevent drug-related traffic accidents is rather stupid.

Akira MacKenzie | March 30, 2006, 5:17pm | #

Have you ever eaten a pot brownie? I had one a few years ago back in college (or was it highschool)? Anyway, they really work! Of course, they were made by true potheads, so they must've known how to make them potent.

Ok, seeing that I was too steeped in anti-drug propaganda during my teens to try it, and I'm too chicken shit now to make a connection (I like to be able to ind employment), I have to ask: What is using marijuna like?

(Sheesh,I feel like the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" guy in the Monty Python skit after asking that question.)

Jim Walsh | March 30, 2006, 5:21pm | #

I actually liked the "Truth" parody ad. A self-righteous blowhard with all the answers who is ultimately willing to resort to violence and brutality to protect his "message" from proper response and scrutiny? Put in that context, it's really not all that far removed from reality.

JD | March 30, 2006, 5:35pm | #

Akira - My experience was that pot is boring. I tried it a couple times and never experienced anything more than being a little dizzy and woozy. My reaction was "This is what all the fuss is about? I should have just had a beer." I seriously think a lot of the mystique about pot comes from the fact that it's illegal, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm just not built for it to do anything interesting to me.

JD | March 30, 2006, 5:39pm | #

Warren - I like that script! We should try and get it made, if anybody would ever actually air it.

Warren | March 30, 2006, 5:54pm | #

JD,
Thanks. I see it playing on public access cable all across the country. And of course on the internet where every blog will have a link to it.

Tim | March 30, 2006, 6:59pm | #

I think a very funny commentary on how harmless pot smokers are is The Streets song "The Irony of it All" This song is pretty funny if you have ever heard it. Basically it is about how stoners usually just hang out and play video games, order pizza, etc. Here are a couple sample lyrics for your enjoyment:

Eh hello. My names Tim and I'm a criminal,
In the eyes of society I need to be in jail
For the choice of herbs I inhale.
This ain't no wholesale operation
Just a few eighths and some Playstations my's vocation
I pose a threat to the nation
And down the station the police hold no patience
Let's talk space and time
I like to get deep sometimes and think about Einstein
And Carl Jung And old Kung Fu movies I like to see
Pass the hydrator please
Yeah I'm floating on thin air.
Going to Amsterdam in the New Year - top gear there
Cause I taker pride in my hobby
Home made bongs using my engineering degree
Dear Leaders, please legalise weed for these reasons.



You know I don't see why I should be the criminal
How can something with no recorded fatalities be illegal
And how many deaths are there per year from alcohol
I just completed Gran Tourismo on the hardest setting
We pose no threat on my settee
Ooh the pizza's here will someone let him in please
"We didn't order chicken, Not a problem we'll pick it out
I doubt they meant to mess us about
After all we're all adults not louts."
As I was saying, we're friendly peaceful people
We're not the ones out there causing trouble.
We just sit in this hazy bubble with our quarters
Discussing how beautiful Gail Porter is.
MTV, BBC 2, Channel 4 is on until six in the morning.
Then at six in the morning the sun dawns and it's my bedtime.

FatDrunkAndStupid | March 30, 2006, 7:04pm | #

I actually loved the one truth ad about how the tobacco companies named their marketing intiative to low income and alternative-lifestlye folks "PROJECT SCUM". I thought that was funny as hell. Not the ad itself, but the fact that that people in the tobacco industry had enough of a sense of humour to do something like that. A stark contrast to those annoying fucks with the blowhorns.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | March 30, 2006, 7:30pm | #

Have you ever eaten a pot brownie? I had one a few years ago back in college (or was it highschool)? Anyway, they really work! Of course, they were made by true potheads, so they must've known how to make them potent.

You need a double boiler so they chocolate doesn't boil. Blend CS with the unboiled, yet melted chocolate and voila.

b-psycho | March 30, 2006, 7:48pm | #

I laughed so hard I dropped my joint.

Litmus Paper | March 30, 2006, 10:23pm | #

I liked the parody "truth" ad. It isn't a knee slapper, but it does a good job of getting the same feel as the actual "truth" ads.
By the way, no one has mentioned what I thought was the all-time most famous anti-drug ad:

Commercial starts with a close up of an egg.

Announcer: "This is your brain"

Egg is cracked and dropped into a hot frying pan.

Announcer: "This is your brain on drugs. Any Questions?"

smacky | March 30, 2006, 11:11pm | #

You need a double boiler so they chocolate doesn't boil. Blend CS with the unboiled, yet melted chocolate and voila.

TPG,

What is CS?

chunkstyle | March 31, 2006, 12:07am | #

smacky,

I would guess it stands for cannabis sativa.

Rhywun | March 31, 2006, 12:40am | #

The fact that marijuana is a psychoactive substance requires that people should not be driving under its influence.

I agree. And the cool thing about pot is that driving is one of the last things it makes you feel like doing.

I tried it a couple times and never experienced anything more than being a little dizzy and woozy.

It took me about 2 or 3 tries before it would "take". Ever since, it's been a blast. I only smoke maybe once a year now if I'm lucky - but I've never been disappointed, unlike on some other drugs which shall remain nameless (*cough* acid *cough*). Oh, and the 2 times I was stoned in public which was kind of freaky.

FreeTheWeed | March 31, 2006, 8:28am | #

Nothing like being stoned in public in South Beach. Sun beating down, beautiful breeze. Just use some clear eyes, an icebreaker, wash the hands, and your ready to blend in with the peeps! Lovely times, lovely times.

Dogboy | March 31, 2006, 10:34am | #

Call me crazy, but I've seen the commercial and would be more than willing to pet "Fluffy". Dogs love me; it's a gift.

Billy Ray | March 31, 2006, 10:40am | #

The best way to incorporate the benefits of CS into food is to place it -- with some butter -- in a crockpot for twenty-four hours (set on low). The "nutrients" are absorbed into the fat. When it's done, just strain out the fiberous matter and use the butter as you would in any recipe.

smacky | March 31, 2006, 11:24am | #

Thanks for the tip, Billy Ray.

And thanks for clearing that up, chunkstyle.

It took me about 2 or 3 tries before it would "take".

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing that Rhywun said. If you're really interested to know what it's like to be stoned, JD, the average person usually needs to try it a few times. I don't exactly know why. The same thing happened to me when I started way back when. I don't think I actually got high until the 3rd or 4th time I smoked...maybe your body needs to have a small THC buildup before you get results. Just a hypothesis.

JD | March 31, 2006, 1:03pm | #

Smacky - that does raise the apropos question, of course, of why anybody does something that isn't interesting several times waiting for the interesting thing to kick in. Our friends over at "truth" imply that it has something to do with big evil corporations, but maybe those aren't actually required. Hm...

smacky | March 31, 2006, 1:38pm | #

Smacky - that does raise the apropos question, of course, of why anybody does something that isn't interesting several times waiting for the interesting thing to kick in. Our friends over at "truth" imply that it has something to do with big evil corporations, but maybe those aren't actually required. Hm...

The same chain of events happened when I began smoking at age 13. (I've since quit.) The first cigarette I lit was stolen from a pack left by one of my mother's friends who smoked. I lit the cigarette at the filter end and quizzically inhaled as the resultant fire melted the filter. That didn't stop me from trying a second one (I lit the right end the second time) or possibly even a third, until I eventually knew what a "cigarette buzz" was. It was my own choice. (And this was after years of being brainwashed into believing that smokers are bad people!)

Mr. F. Le Mur | March 31, 2006, 4:36pm | #

The "nutrients" are absorbed into the fat.

Grind, sift, and toss into the pot of chili to get chili of pot.