Fun with commercials

I don’t really know if there’s an actual good way to use television commercials to get somebody to not do something. Yet, they keep trying.

My new favorite is this anti-smoking commercial.

Apparently smoking cigarettes is just like owning a dog.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Fun with commercials

  1. C.E. says:

    Yes, it’s silly and may not be effective. But at least smoking tobacco is truly dangerous. And education about tobacco dangers may actually be responsible for the decline in its use since the 1960’s. In fact, smoking rates for tobacco have been cut in half since the 1960’s, and no one had to go to jail for possessing tobacco. So I don’t have a real problem with these commercials.

  2. CJ says:

    CE but then I want the tobacco companies to have the freedom to feature people who absolutely love smoking. like myself. first of all, call it a placebo affect or whatever but i am telling you, smoking cigarettes amplifies opiates. I don’t know the science behind it but I’m telling you it does, I smoke so much and a few times I’ve thought the opiates were lackluster but after some cigarette smoking, holy canoli I caught so many great nods over the years thanks to cigarettes. Most heroin users (like myself) that I know, are also vociferous smokers. Anybody out there, take a look at the homeless smoking cigarettes in NYC and you will notice we often are smoking butts off the ground. When it rains it’s awful, talk about nicotine withdrawal.

    I think the point here is that it’s archaic the telling us what to do. I guess I come here with my pro heroin agenda but that’s partially because I’m sick of the anti heroin agenda and this anti tobacco agenda is just as bad. Shut up (not you, CE. the people doing these things.) I get we’re in a capitalist society here in the USA but what the hell is this message trying to coax anybody into buying? If anything, this is an anti capitalist message. Well ain’t there some God-fearing right winger out there to smite this nonsense then, this anti-american nonsense? LOL.

    The bottom line is, I would be more than happy to, any day, and I do mean it very literally, video tape myself with my skull and crossbones belt tied off around my bicep, NYC Needle Exchange (either the one on Broadway near Bushwhick, Kosciuzcko st. stop on the J or the one near the LES) financed 28 gauge syringe loaded, inserted, pulled back, suck in blood, and go in and then smile into the camera. But the fact of the matter is, from what i gather if I even showed off my old ripped up bag’s stamp collection on facebook I’d probably get in trouble. How absurd. I don’t remember where I read it but I read an anti prohibition piece recently where it talked about how this global drug prohibition is the fallen/failed dream of people who died many many years ago and for some reason we still prop up what THEY enivisioned, it’s not our original idea or desire. It’s simple but true and makes it all the more absurd.

    bye guys

  3. CJ says:

    oh not to mention this chick is annoying. i think in this day and age there is a crisis of young men (of which i believe i still am) being obsessed with dating and becoming father like possessive boyfriends. To that end, I do appreciate the commercial because indeed I have seen, as many of you probably also have seen, some great friends get ripped apart because of relationships but if we’re really honest, the girls were probably justified in leaving cause of the jealous and controlling nature of our friends. I find that people who use certain drugs, heroin/pain pills, marijuana, ecstacy, in my experiences, we seem to be way less jealous, way less controlling way less possessive than others when it comes to relationships. I’m not trying to sound arrogant or like a master of romance because I am definitely not, but I can very vividly recall the different outcomes of relationships amongst my friends those who were using and those who didnt. the ones who didnt or did but used alcohol and or crack or coke were always in tornado relationships, the heroin users and weed smokers were always in seemingly happy and stable long term relationships. I know this isnt entirely related but it was on my mind. In fact, myself personally I was in two very long relationships back to back, almost 3 years each [one was a tad over 3 years the other a tad short.]

    well i guess im saying drugs are good. that’s all. lol. pretty simple. i think the majority here would agree with that, eh friends??

  4. Ben says:

    This blog is the last place that should be mocking anti-smoking campaigns. This is what we want drug policy to be: it’s legal to buy them, but we strongly discourage it.

    We have successfully decreased cigarette usage in America without the use of violence. Let’s do the same with heroin and meth.

    • Pete says:

      No, this blog is a personal blog, and is certainly not the last place to mock anything. If I was Drug Policy Alliance or NORML or something, then it might be inappropriate.

      Besides, I wasn’t mocking the notion of properly educating people about the dangers of smoking. I’m all for that. I was mocking the ad.

      Seriously, the first time I watched it, I thought it was about dog ownership.

      Everywhere I went, he had to follow.

      “Let’s go outside now!” No, I’m talking to Jack. “Outside now.” It’s pouring. “Outside now.” Well, fine.

      He was so needy. “I haven’t seen you in so long.” Uh, yeah you did, just a little while ago. “But I miss you.”

      • Ben says:

        Fair enough. And it is certainly a dumb ad. But it’s also a model I point to as an example of how to do drug policy right and preserve liberty.

        • Matthew Meyer says:

          I agree that violence shouldn’t be a part of substance use education.

          But I do think that information should be the key to drug education, whereas this ad is an attempt to induce certain feelings. It’s too clever by half.

        • DdC says:

          More scapegoating tobacco without a mention of the actual harmful chemicals added to tobacco. Same chemicals hopefully never added to Ganja, but Incrementalism seems to be heading that way. There is violence in the new tobacco black market and violence in evicting lower and fixed income families for smelling of smoke. Violence in more homes burning down hiding from Butt Narks. Banning smoking in parks leading to fines, taking from family needs, and all of it utter nonsense.

          Since nothing is done about the factory smoke stacks, airplanes, trains, trucks, buses and cars spewing harmful substances from their tail pipes. On streets 20 feet from the banned smoking parks and even back porches. like Lincoln when he toked his corn cob playing his harmonica no one believes.

          Point being, its another prohibition with the same results. Same hysteria and hyperbole. The tobacco czar could be reading the memo from the drug czar. Bacci Madness, no different. Put the fear into the minds of the sheep. Truth be damned.

          Now the poor buy generic brands with even more chemicals to do more harm down the road. But the tobacco phobic can pat themselves on the back and show us more stupid commercials. The end results only show most of Americans are blind faith followers without a thought of their own to show, and will follow anyone sounding authoritative.

          First they followed Ronnie Rayguns telling them to buy cigarettes for their smoking pleasure, and then follow the Butt Worriers. Same boomers previously smoking pot, then rushing to follow the reefer mad Drug Worriers. Pushing the same hobgoblins and diversions to even include my Hemp blue jeans as a schedule#1 narcotic.

          So if you want to save lives and not just until the fear factor and stigma wears off. Then remove the poisons added to tobacco, that are not in organic tobacco products or do they cause damage. Flame retardants lit on fire and sucked into the lungs and none of the geniuses connected it with cancer or lung disease? Sounds like another agenda to me.

          More Fake Americans profits on prohibition. Lets outlaw prohibitches of all sizes and shapes, that would go farther to promote health than prohibiting something out of political correctness.

          Organic Cannabis/Tobacco vs Chemical Cigarettes
          Cancer risk in relation to radioactivity in tobacco
          Tobacco Radioactive, Pot Safer!
          Envisioning consumer packaging for pot

  5. primus says:

    Why don’t we just encourage the end of prohibition and then let each person figure out for themselves what they want to do about entheogens? I suspect that there will be changes to usage patterns, however overall usage will decline slightly over time as people become accustomed to being able to get what they want when they want it. Those for whom their Entheogen of Choice (EoC) is problematic will seek help to change their usage, others will just enjoy their EoC without the legal issues. Normalised usages will be less problematic for the users and society as well. Win-win.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Prohibitionists are very easily confused is why not. Gosh, it’s been a pain in the ass just trying to get them to grasp the idea of limited re-legalization. Now you want them to agree to re-legalize Lucifer, Satan and the Devil?? If we play for all or nothing, then nothing is the most likely result. It’s got nothing to do with what’s right or what’s wrong. If that were a serious consideration we wouldn’t have suffered the failure of prohibition in the first place.

    • strayan says:

      I have no problem with discouraging people from engaging in unhealthy practices or reminding them of all the good reasons to change their behaviour.

      I have a problem with using criminal sanctions against people merely for acting upon a drug preference that differs from the drug preference of the majority.

      I also have a problem with the government lying about the actual risks of some substances to justify the prohibition of those substances.

  6. CJ says:

    hahaha right on pete. you’re definitely right. it could be about dog ownership. and if we cant point out the idiocy of the prohib commercials here then where can we?? and cut down on heroin use? my god. i dont mean to insinuate but have you ever done it? dont buy the hype. learn the facts. i do it every day (theres no choice at this point) and i know the facts: its not bad for you – if you use it for your whole life youre not risking damaging anything in your body, the main danger comes from lack of knowledge/education that people will make mistakes with dosage and mixing with booze. infact i think through education we need more people on heroin, as someone who feels the effects, it would help so many. in the film the lost boys Kieffer Sutherland says about rice “how can so many chinese people be wrong?” well lest we forget the 2 opium wars, regarding opiates, i must reiterate, how can so many chinese people have been wrong? i know they werent.

    • DdC says:

      As others have mentioned, I’ll add my two cents. A Vietnam Vet padding the GI Bill smuggling ounces of Heroin in their duffle bags at $30k profit in 1971. Turned me on and “missed” the vein, he said. Put a bubble in my arm and scared me from trying again. For a while. Then a friend turned me on and I have never experienced anything closer to euphoria to this day. That really scared me as I knew the real danger was it was too tempting to stay in that place of happiness as a daily way of life. I can see how legitimizing it would remove the dangers of inconsistency and unsterile equipment. Maybe if they ever legalize it I’ll try again. Until then Ganja suits my needs. I would say I would take heroin over booze or most other white powders. I am certain the proverbial junkie is a product of prohibition, not drug use. Many just disposable snitches with yet another method to keep the cops in the doughnut shops longer. More arrests means bigger paychecks. Justice be damned.

      The Heroin Challenge

  7. Francis says:

    Tobacco: “Outside now!”

    Cannabis: “Couch in 15? Or, you know, whenever’s good for you. And remember we’ve got that new episode of Cosmos on DVR we still need to watch.”

  8. claygooding says:

    That the Supreme Court recognizes the rights of a citizen to possess legal MMJ is in definition an acceptance of marijuana as a medicine.
    That may be too much common sense but that is how I see it Vern and any juror,attorney,judge or even prosecutor should also.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused to overturn Arizona court rulings ordering the Yuma County sheriff to return marijuana that was seized from a woman with a California medical marijuana authorization honored by Arizona.

    The justices’ order was issued without comment Monday in the case of Valerie Okun, who had marijuana in her car when a Border Patrol agent stopped her and her husband in Yuma County, Ariz., in 2011. She was charged with marijuana possession crimes, but the charges were dropped when she provided proof she was authorized to possess marijuana under California’s medical marijuana program. Arizona’s medical marijuana law allows people with authorizations from other states to have marijuana in Arizona.

    But the Yuma County sheriff refused to return Okun’s marijuana, even after Arizona courts ruled in her favor.

    • claygooding says:

      Will the DOJ be required to appeal this decision,,otherwise the Supreme Court just ordered a Sheriff to hand over a Schedule 1 drug,,,,I am feeling lost in a cloud of dust from large chunks of wall,,or sky falling,,,waiting to see what our heroes at Reason,StoptheDrugWar and Randy Balko do with this,,too numerous to list who may chime in on this move.

      That was an interstate case,,doesn’t that make it even more controversial? If patients can carry interstate then why woudn’t it carry over too states with no MMJ? I just see all kinds of hair pulling and teeth grinding over this. Especially at the SAM table after somebody baits them with it properly. ☺

      • Plant Down Babylon says:

        Nice one Clay! A beautiful can-o-worms. I bet they taste yummy!

        An excellent legal mind, you have. Did you acquire any of that legalese from Pete’s Couch of Law?

        I’m liking your plan of attack!

      • “That the Supreme Court recognizes the rights of a citizen to possess legal MMJ is in definition an acceptance of marijuana as a medicine.”

        Right on Clay. It puts a LOT of things back into some perspective. Federal legislation has been dragging its feet and I see this as a big kick in the pants from the Supremes.

  9. Howard says:

    One of the stranger aspects about ads like this is that they never really impact those they’re trying to reach. It’s as if the ad is made to help parents feel good that someone other than themselves is trying to “help” their children.

    When I saw ads similar to this when I was a kid/teenager I always wondered, “Who is this for?” without realizing it was aimed at punks like me! Cracks me up now that I think about it.

    BTW, Joe Camel never lured me into smoking cigarettes either.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      The frying pan and egg “this is your brain on drugs” affected me greatly’ I lost count of how many times I’d be sitting on my couch stoned to the bejeezus when that PSA aired. The next thing I knew I’d be at Denny’s scarfing down a plate of fried eggs and sausage. It happened so many times that I suspect that it was corporate product placement. What other reason could there be for only showing that PSA when Denny’s was just about the only place around serving fried eggs at that time of the late night?

      • Howard says:

        I’d say it was sneaky product placement. IHOP would not have worked. You know, oozing batter (your brain) poured on a hot griddle just doesn’t have that crackling, sizzling quality that frying eggs have. And at the end when the snide actor says, “Any questions?” I would have mocked the TV and said, “Yeah, can you pass the butter and maple syrup?”

  10. Children that are able to reason as well as the one portrayed in this ad should be able to reason just as well with some facts instead of a Hollywood/Washington style psychology approach at manipulation. In other words use facts to help a young adult make an informed decision. One based on solid thinking, not an emotional appeal using gimmicks with pets. The dog idea is a bad one BTW fellows – it conjures up pictures of McGruff, a sure loser.

Comments are closed.