Website Personally I found these commercials that say that people that buy drugs are helping fund terrorists to be a little too extreme. Does anyone actually believe that someone with an addiction to a drug will stop just because it might help fund a terrorist 8 steps down? I mean the Taliban gained a lot of it's power thanks to the US Government, should someone start an anti-government.com website? I understand they're trying to scare people into not doing drugs, but I think they could have used a better method than saying "Thousands of Americans died thanks to you." Am I the only one that this commercial rubbed the wrong way?
I didn't mind it, but then again I'm not the type that really changes my personal values by what television tells me. So I think you make a very good point about drug addicts stopping because of a commercial. But I think they were going more for prevention than anything else...like another reason not to do drugs. And I don't think that linking illegal drug trade money with terrorism is too far a stretch at all.
They disturbed me. Simplistic, cheap, extreme fear tactics with little basis on reality. They are not meant for drug users, though, imo...just to stir up more fear, etc of middle aged white people for the drug war.
You know I feel about "thetruth.com". Well its not as bad, but its the same kind of thing going on with those ads.
the problem is how many drug users watch the super bowl or tv regularly and those who do, how many actually are not high enough to actually realize whats going on and of those who do, how many actually care, and of those who care, how many have the ability to quit? like 2? world wide. it be cheaper to take the 2 million per commercial and target like 100 individual drug users and help them quit. much more efficient.
The target audience wasn't drug users. It was potential drug users. It's been shown that extremely graphic ads have a large effect on smoking use (in Canada, I believe). I assume that's the strategy they were trying to employ here. Will it work here? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, though, it can't really hurt. Other things haven't really been too effective. Maybe ostracizing people will be.
Well I don't see these commercials preventing kids from doing drugs either. I doubt many kids actually believe that purchasing drugs is aiding terrorists, whether it's true or not...
I think they were right on the money, if people didn't do illegal drugs it would make them non profitable for the cartels/terrorists. I find the link quite plausible. DaDakota
I clearly see the link. The mafia, organized crime, terrorism, etc. have been linked to drugs and illegal activities in general for years. If it keeps just a few people from doing drugs, isn't it still worth it? I don't know how effective it was during the Superbowl, but a good commercial in general. I could be wrong, but I don't know how many potential drug users watch the Superbowl. I'm sure they did the research though. And I don't think they were trying to point fingers at drug users and calling them responsible for 9/11, but maybe I missed that. But with less funding to terror groups, it could limit them, even if it's just a little.
It was a lame scare tactic. They referred to 9/11 many times also, mentioning boxcutters, etc... Probably 2 of the most used drugs in the US today are mar1juana and X, I remember reading that most of Bin Laden's funds come from cocaine and heroine. It's not even realistic to say that purchasing drugs of any kind help fund terrorists like Bin Laden. I'm annoyed by the commercial because it's hardly even true... Maybe the democrats should make commercials about how George W help funded terrorists back in his coke snorting days...* *(Intellectual property of pued)
Regardless of whether or not Bin Laden received funds for mar1juana or X, he still received funds from drug money. It was a cheap way to scare the people, but saying that it was "hardly even true" means nothing. It was true. Buying drugs CAN help fund terrorists. Now, it may be unlikely, but it was a scare tactic that I think will be more effective than most drug prevention commercials, because NO ONE wants to think that they could possibly be at fault for the 9/11 incident. That fear can be a powerful thing.
I think what they are doing is awful . You cant go out and blame people who buy drugs for terrorism just because Drugs are illegal and bad for you. If I buy a 12 pack of Coke and a Bag Of Doritos from "Ahmed" at the Local 7-11 and he takes the money I handed him and buys a knife, holds up an airplane and kills 200 people, does that make me a terrorist contributor just because I have a fondness for Cola and Nacho-Cheese Flavored Corn Chips ? That logic makes no sense, You cant be sure what money goes where .
I found these commercials to be a complete joke. I can't wait for Dubya to release his "Voting for Democrats Supports Terrorism" TV ads right before the November elections.
Puedfor, you're so right. Drug abuse is horrible. What is even worse is creating billion dollar drug lords in addition to the horrible scurge of addiction. Of course if we decriminalized and took the megaprofits out of drug running we couldn't use it to fund such foreign policy adventures as the Contras in Nicaragua and the Afghan rebels agains the Russians, who later became the Taliban. Contras and Cocaine Opium, Afghan Resistance & Russians
Treating all "drugs" generically is stupid. As far as I know, not much pot comes from the mid-East or any other terrorist havens. Also, does anyone else think it's ironic that the ad was sandwiched between a million Budweiser commercials? Your drugs are bad, mine are ok.
I was think the same thing. I was also thinking that anyone with a CD, savings bond, checking account, savings account, etc supports terrorism since terrorists/mafia/etc use banks to store/launder money. So everyone who uses a bank is going to hell...
