home

This is Your Ass on Drugs

I love this article at Slate by Seth Stevenson, This is Your Ass on Drugs, evaluating one of the ads by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, called Pete's Couch.

The spot: A high-school kid sits on a couch in a basement rec room, next to a couple of stoner friends. Looking straight at the camera, he says, "I smoked weed and nobody died. I didn't get into a car accident. I didn't OD on heroin the next day. Nothing happened. We sat on Pete's couch for 11 hours." The couch then magically teleports into the midst of some wholesome teen scenes (kids mountain biking, ice skating, playing basketball), while the zonked-out stoners just sit there, looking bored. Our narrator concedes that you're more likely to die out there in the real world ("driving hard to the rim" or "ice skating with a girl") than on Pete's couch back in the rec room. But, deciding it's worth the trade-off, he says, "I'll take my chances out there."

The point of the ad is to make it seem like kids who smoke pot are nothing but couch potato[e]s. As if because they hang out one day getting high, all of their days will be spent that way. Stevenson writes:

This new spot, titled "Pete's Couch," doesn't offend me. It acknowledges that smoking weed on your buddy's sofa is the "safest thing in the world." (Which is true. I actually had a friend named Pete in high school, and we did get high on his couch. No turmoil ensued.) The ad's main contention is that it's important to get off that couch and out into the world, where you can do things like ice skate with other teens. (Also true. It is indeed good to engage with the outside world, instead of just sitting in your rec room. Though I'd note that it's possible to smoke pot in your rec room one day and then go ice skating the next. Or even just smoke pot and immediately go ice skating--which, come to think of it, sounds like a blast. Who's in?)

Stevenson notes that the ad is a departure from the usual reefer-madness tone of the ONDCP ads which previously used scare tactics.

Finally, an admission that using pot isn't necessarily calamitous. It's possible we're seeing this about-face only because previous scare-tactic ads were recently proved to increase drug use. But either way, I applaud the new, more truthful strategy. Lying is never what you want from your government (even if you've grown accustomed to it).

The next question, since the ads are aimed at kids, is:

What should we be telling kids about drugs? I remember once seeing an anti-drug ad from way back when (I'm guessing the mid-1950s). Black-and-white footage showed happy kids horsing around on a playground while the kindly narrator offered his view that it's more fulfilling to find our bliss in life without mixing in the fog and dependency of drug abuse. Totally fair point, made without resorting to exaggeration or untruth. I recall thinking at the time that I wished modern anti-drug ads could be so reasonable. Instead, recent PSAs have suggested that drug use leads to: 1) Shooting your friend in the head, 2) running over a little girl on her bike, and 3) helping the terrorists.

I wonder why there should be anti-marijuana ads at all. I sure don't want my tax dollars spent on them. I don't think my kid, and rightfully so, would have done anything but laugh at them. Stevenson then goes on to compare the ad to another of the ONDCP's ads:

In "Whatever," a straight-edge kid talks about chaperoning his stoned friends around, acting as designated driver and as a sort of den mother for his wasted buddies. The point is that this kid makes his own decisions and chooses to stay off drugs even though his friends are getting high. Aside from cloaking the stoner kids' faces in shadows (as though smoking pot makes them incorporeal nothings), the ad is done in a low-key, nonhyperbolic way. I like that it seems to say it's OK to be friends with pot smokers (instead of instantly calling the cops on them, as past ads might have recommended).

I'm not okay with that ad. It doesn't address the circumstance of when your kid is going out at night and tells you someone else is the designated driver. If I were in that situation would I confront my kid with the obvious, that it meant she might be getting high that night? No. I'd be counting my blessings that she and her friends were so responsible.

Of course, I don't have a daughter. But I think the TL kid would agree with me.

< Cognitive Dissonance: Can The Emboldened Be Emboldened? | New Trial Ordered For Judith Clark >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 01:38:17 AM EST
    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:37:22 AM EST
    I may not be typical, but just for the record, when I used to get high on cannabis I usually wanted to do something active like a walk or a bike ride.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:37:22 AM EST
    The ONDCP is so clueless...but I guess you'd have to be in the scene to know that. Clueless or simply lying.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 08:37:22 AM EST
    The point of the ad is to make it seem like kids who smoke pot are nothing but couch potato[e]s. The point of the ad is that their governemnt, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy, think it's ok to lie to them.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    As a father who has had to deal with a kid on drugs between the ages 15 and 22, this is an accurate portrayal. Addicts live in their little nest except when they need to score. It cost me about $150,000 in buying drugs so he wouldn;t end up stealing and getting a record. Another $100,000 in counselling. Eventually his girlfriend talked him out of smoking dope and other stuff. He is now making up for lost time at age 24. Dope is not "Harmless", niether is all the other sh*t that is being sold.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    If my kid was the designated driver I'd still worry that he'd be caught up in the bust....

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    Yeah, kind of conflicts with the idea that too many snowboarders are getting high and that it is a performance enhancing drug for at least that sport, doesn't it? Perhaps the people who run those "Truth" commercials about tobacco should put together a few featuring some of the more idiotic things our government has done over the years (yeah, I know, where would you even begin?), with the tagline "This is your government off drugs" of maybe "This is your government after a typical three-martini lunch with a lobbyist". Ted Kennedy could even be the spokesman.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    If the ads were made right, then they were written, audience tested, and rated as what was most likely to change opinion and more importantly, behavior. Obviously, many anti-drug spots are not well designed. The first one seems to target the kids that go for adrenaline rushes, a group more likely to abuse. The second? Maybe a peer presure/ social smoker spot. It doesn't appeal as much to me, but then, I'm an inline skating, mountain biking, formerly rock climbing and kayaking geek.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:36:01 AM EST
    It's a good ad--not just because it's not 'oohh, scary drugs kids!' But because it fits in with the way the drug feels. Sure, it's wonderful to go out and bicycle or play frisbee when high, but you feel it's also entirely possible to have what you feel is a good time sitting on a couch for eleven hours. Of course, they could have saved money and just played Shel Silverstein's/Dr. Hook's song I Got Stoned And I Missed It...

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    Given the effects of legal intoxicants link , marijuana doesn't appear all bad. The fact is that any intoxicant (or even plain old food) can be abused, and there will be some who will abuse it. But that doesn't mean they should all be outlawed. The UK is taking an interesting step: trying to get penalties in line with potential harm link . I wonder what a rational drug policy would look like. At least Nevada is going to make the attempt. link .

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#10)
    by baked potato on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    An article I think in the Nation some years back noted that the main sponsors for the "Partnership for a Drug Free America" are the tobacco and liquor industries. Follow the money.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#12)
    by brad on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    My kid was introduced to drugs at age 6. By his school! Before that, he didn't really know what drugs were and didn't need to. Why not let him grow up a bit before trying to brainwash him and get him thinking about drugs, wondering why people take them and what they feel like. This approach is counterproductive, at least in my neighborhood where drug use does not enter the daily life of a child of 6. Why not let the parents choose when its appropriate to have this discussion?

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    Uh the reason they stay locked up in the house is so they dont get popped smoking.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    if our politicians weren't making money the Don Corleone way, they wouldn't care about pot but since they get their contributions from drug dealers, they want to protect their clients investment in laws that penalize the user oil, paper, alcohol, fabric, fuel and hundreds of other uses for a product that anyone can grow on the roadside, even Trent Lott. can't make money on that now can they? I would think these latter uses are more important to the corporate interests. absolute corruption, all of the time, thats America buddy

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    dad $150,000 to support his habit, and another $100,000 for counseling. there's definitely a problem, and it's probably not with the kid! wheeew! off the cuff... get high with them, they'll probably think getting high is so un cool, problem solved.

    Re: This is Your Ass on Drugs (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:13:03 PM EST
    Hey Pieman, you sound like propaganda. Try hooked on phonics it worked for me.