The more people say it's impossible, the more I wonder ... well ... look at cigarettes.
The way the effect was achieved with cigarettes was a blast furnace of advertising and education. Unknown what all that cost but it had a substantial effect on cigarette consumption. Between 1900 and 2011, the highest years were between 1965 and 1975. Note this is per capita rather than total volume of cigarettes as the interest is in individual consumption of cigarettes. The table reveals cigarette consumption per capita today is only about a quarter of it was forty years ago. (infoplease: Cigarette Consumption, United States, 1900–2011)
Some of you have seen the entire process and we don't need the exact year but the campaign began to inform people about cigarettes, put warnings on packaging, etc. It was relentless and hit every possible way to present that information and make damn sure everyone knew it. The warnings are still ignored by some people but that number is about a quarter of what it was at the start.
The technique with both is the same: hook 'em when they're young and they're fucked for life. If Marlboro could sponsor a competitive lesbian wrestling team, they would do it because anything is worth sponsoring if it gets cigarettes in front of kids.
There was a great deal of money spent to prevent cigarette companies from advertising and to educate people, particularly children. This was highly effective but it was relentless and it had to have been expensive.
For a 75% reduction in the use of narcotics, what will you spend. I'm guessing a lot. Unknown how this plays to anyone's politics but that's not important to me just now. If you're doing to do this, it's going to cost money and don't be cheap because it has to be on TV, billboards, radio, every damn place a kid may hear it.
(Ed: what if some media won't carry it?)
Doesn't matter in saturation bombing because it will be more than made up by other media. This is what happened with cigarettes. Why not with narcotics.
(Ed: what about movies glorifying drugs?)
Any movie I've seen regarding narcotics has had a least a subplot of the morality play because you know from the top, that junkie goin' die. I've never seen any glorification in that context and this goes all the way back to "Joe." "Easy Rider" is a fast exception as whatever they were smuggling fit into the gas tank of a motorcycle so that sure as hell was not reefer. Nevertheless, he dies.
There is substantial glorification of reefer but so what. I'm open to whether it's rationalization but I don't believe it's a significant upgrade pathway from marijuana to heroin. I don't feel any more burning need to use heroin that I ever did although I do confess to curiosity and one mistake for which, fortunately, I paid dearly. However, that mistake came after blowin' reefer for, geez, thirty or forty years. So, I really don't believe it's a viable upgrade path and definitely not for so many as we see now.
We've covered previously the massive addiction to prescription pain pills and other types of narcotics and how there is an immediate and obvious escalation from those types of drugs to illegal narcotics. No need to flog that further as the problem exists so what to do about it.
From here at the Rockhouse, we suggest beat the living shit out of it. The success with cigarettes, although not total, is an incredible accomplishment so what say we do that to narcotics.
The anti-drug advertising I've seen has almost invariably been ludicrous because they try to scare rather than to inform. One sample is 'this is your brain on drugs' and people would be screaming laughing over that one. If you want to reach kids, talk to them straight or don't waste their time.
This is a crack addict after one year, two years, three years and follow the disintegration. Sure, it's a scare tactic but it's real. Use it as a fast action slide show and boom, boom, boom one disintegrates. There are all sorts of displays like that and the video would be effortless. It would also be cheap. I don't watch TV but I've not heard any comment about anything of that nature.
Shoot video of heroin junkies when they're really crawling for it. Some may agree for pay to be in a video in exchange. Maybe you show one minute in the life of a junkie.
Don't piss around with that 'brain on drugs' sort of thing because it's childish and stupid. Children are not stupid so what were these supposed to teach.
So, what's yer thinking on that?
The way the effect was achieved with cigarettes was a blast furnace of advertising and education. Unknown what all that cost but it had a substantial effect on cigarette consumption. Between 1900 and 2011, the highest years were between 1965 and 1975. Note this is per capita rather than total volume of cigarettes as the interest is in individual consumption of cigarettes. The table reveals cigarette consumption per capita today is only about a quarter of it was forty years ago. (infoplease: Cigarette Consumption, United States, 1900–2011)
Some of you have seen the entire process and we don't need the exact year but the campaign began to inform people about cigarettes, put warnings on packaging, etc. It was relentless and hit every possible way to present that information and make damn sure everyone knew it. The warnings are still ignored by some people but that number is about a quarter of what it was at the start.
The technique with both is the same: hook 'em when they're young and they're fucked for life. If Marlboro could sponsor a competitive lesbian wrestling team, they would do it because anything is worth sponsoring if it gets cigarettes in front of kids.
There was a great deal of money spent to prevent cigarette companies from advertising and to educate people, particularly children. This was highly effective but it was relentless and it had to have been expensive.
For a 75% reduction in the use of narcotics, what will you spend. I'm guessing a lot. Unknown how this plays to anyone's politics but that's not important to me just now. If you're doing to do this, it's going to cost money and don't be cheap because it has to be on TV, billboards, radio, every damn place a kid may hear it.
(Ed: what if some media won't carry it?)
Doesn't matter in saturation bombing because it will be more than made up by other media. This is what happened with cigarettes. Why not with narcotics.
(Ed: what about movies glorifying drugs?)
Any movie I've seen regarding narcotics has had a least a subplot of the morality play because you know from the top, that junkie goin' die. I've never seen any glorification in that context and this goes all the way back to "Joe." "Easy Rider" is a fast exception as whatever they were smuggling fit into the gas tank of a motorcycle so that sure as hell was not reefer. Nevertheless, he dies.
There is substantial glorification of reefer but so what. I'm open to whether it's rationalization but I don't believe it's a significant upgrade pathway from marijuana to heroin. I don't feel any more burning need to use heroin that I ever did although I do confess to curiosity and one mistake for which, fortunately, I paid dearly. However, that mistake came after blowin' reefer for, geez, thirty or forty years. So, I really don't believe it's a viable upgrade path and definitely not for so many as we see now.
We've covered previously the massive addiction to prescription pain pills and other types of narcotics and how there is an immediate and obvious escalation from those types of drugs to illegal narcotics. No need to flog that further as the problem exists so what to do about it.
From here at the Rockhouse, we suggest beat the living shit out of it. The success with cigarettes, although not total, is an incredible accomplishment so what say we do that to narcotics.
The anti-drug advertising I've seen has almost invariably been ludicrous because they try to scare rather than to inform. One sample is 'this is your brain on drugs' and people would be screaming laughing over that one. If you want to reach kids, talk to them straight or don't waste their time.
This is a crack addict after one year, two years, three years and follow the disintegration. Sure, it's a scare tactic but it's real. Use it as a fast action slide show and boom, boom, boom one disintegrates. There are all sorts of displays like that and the video would be effortless. It would also be cheap. I don't watch TV but I've not heard any comment about anything of that nature.
Shoot video of heroin junkies when they're really crawling for it. Some may agree for pay to be in a video in exchange. Maybe you show one minute in the life of a junkie.
Don't piss around with that 'brain on drugs' sort of thing because it's childish and stupid. Children are not stupid so what were these supposed to teach.
So, what's yer thinking on that?
No comments:
Post a Comment