Too bad crack doesn't do the kind of cosmetic damage that meth does. Making ads against it would be much easier.

(Reply) (Thread)

The comment thread there is a little disturbing, as well.

(Reply) (Thread)

the video ads are no where near as disturbing as the bus ads. fwiw.

(Reply) (Thread)

While I don't doubt that the ads have had an effect, the statistics are a little misleading. Most of the state and federal laws restricting pseudoephedrine sales were passed in 2005-2006. It's really damn hard to get the supplies to make meth without alerting law enforcement these days, so it's not as readily available.

(Reply) (Thread)

You know what we get here in Indiana?

Abstinence ads. "If you don't talk to your kids about sex, she will." (Where she is, so far as I can tell, a girl/young woman dressed somewhat more conservatively than the typical IU freshman.)

(Reply) (Thread)

These are great.

The mention in the post about more graphics anti-drunk-driving ads reminded me of a show we used to put on at a local high school when I was an EMT -- just before prom season we'd stage a drunk-driving accident scene on the football field complete with mangled cars, fake blood, and "victims" in prom wear hanging halfway out the windshield. The most effective part, however, was "extricating" a baby doll from the back seat with a tape of a baby crying playing the whole time.

(Reply) (Thread)

yeah when I was in high school and we'd see those, I thought they were the funniest thing going.

I'm sure the adults all thought they were Very Effective. And maybe they were for other segments of the school, but most of the people I knew who drank in high school thought it was pure hilarity.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I admit to an extreme case of bias on these. My younger sister has spent the last 8 years on meth, which also led to prostitution, her having a kid by her 45+ year old dealer when she was 19, multiple arrests, and her recent stint in jail and finally rehab.

While these images may be graphic, and in many cases disgusting, they are also, at least in my experience, TRUE. And maybe if my sister, when she was 16, had seen these as a hint of what her life would become, maybe she wouldn't had spent so much time destroying herself with this fucking poison.

(Reply) (Thread)

Well, this is from your friend who likes poodles and is anonymous. As you know, I am a recovering meth addict. I spent several years strung out on meth, as a daily user, in my late teens. I got clean when I was 20. This was in the very beginning as crystal meth began to really take over crack as a drug of choice on the west coast.

When I went through treatment, they didn't really know how to help me through detox because the substance was relatively new.

At any rate, as you also know, I married a heroin / crack addict in recovery. And, I've used all of the above. So I've had first (very, very first) hand knowledge of it all.

A highly addictive substance is a highly addictive substance. The damage physically might be different, even the collateral damage to relationships & family might be different depending on the route you take. But the answer is always the same. Is it "easier" to quit meth than to quit crack? Is it "easier" to quit heroin, or is heroin just more of a long-term maintenance option because it doesn't destroy your liver as quickly?

I think there is an apologist mentality about meth addiction right now. Same type of thing you saw about crack in the late 80s & early 90s - same type of thing about heroin in the 50s actually. That it's too hard to quit, that people "can't" quit.

There is a lot of new research to support different, lingering, impulse control issues with meth, and crack. The longtime sponsor of my ex husband (who works with addicts high-level developing treatment strategy) tells me one of the answers is to simply dope newly "clean' people on impulse control drugs until they get a couple years under their belt.

All I know is: I'm so grateful to be clean. It was really by some type of grace (and 700 12 step meetings) I managed to crawl through those first couple years and become a productive member of society. Because I had a shit, crap attitude and a death wish for the most part. Presumably I have little lasting physical damage although - - if I die of liver failure at 59, we'll maybe think differently about it.

(Reply) (Thread)

I think if these ads keep kids from trying meth, they're worth the discomfort.

Canada is much more aggressive about its drunk-driving ads. This website has some that have run in the past. They are not as graphic as the website claims: no blood, no gore. But they are still startling and shocking.

http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2006/02/icbc-counterattack.html

(Reply) (Thread)

Hm. On the one hand they are properly shocking, etc. Good for the voters and all that.

However I remember the whole LSD craze back in the 70's. Remember you would take one tab of LSD, rip your eyeballs out, jump off buildings, and so forth. Oddly enough when I took acid I had none of these effects, instead I had a great long discussion with Mr. Plant and a good long chat with me.

Ok, for awhile I was convinced the cops were right outside, but that was just **** fucking with me using a red and blue light :-) But really, no mental break, no total wipe out, no images of Grandma crawling up my leg with an Axe in her mouth, and so forth...

CZ

(Reply) (Thread)

First of all, I think meth is a horrible drug and that message should get out. I think the best way to do that is to tell people true stories about meth users and where that took them (rather than these type of general scare ads). A&E's show Intervention is particularly powerful if you've ever seen it.

I also think the 45% figure is complete bullshit, you just don't see that sort of change in programs like this over the short term and anti-drug programs (just like abstinence programs) have a long history of dishonesty. (although to criticize my own point it does like there are large natural swings in drug use or their methodology is poor).

For one thing, according to this article in a Montana newspaper the rate of meth use had dropped significantly in the years before the ads even ran, from 13.5% of Montana HS students saying they tried meth in 1999 down to 2.8% in 2005. And so we're supposed to assume that any further drop was due to the ads and not a continuation of the already existing downward trend?

http://missoulanews.com/index.cfm?CFID=1632273&CFTOKEN=32847826&do=article.details&id=533B1A41-2BF4-55D0-F1FB64E83ABDBD8B

So yeah, I'm sympathetic to their cause, but I also believe this sort of dishonesty is counter-productive in the long term.

ETA: I looked through the report at http://www.montanameth.org/documents/YRBS_Report.pdf and found this little gem on page 20. In the 2008 (sic), 3% of Montana teens admit to having tried meth, a number that has remained essentially stable since 2005.

So the use in the 2008 study is the same as in the 2005 study (which they call the benchmark year) but they also say use is down 45%?!

ETA2: I found the study they're using to support the 45% drop. What's interesting is that it shows big drops in a number of areas including smoking, pre-age 13 smoking, use of chewing tobacco, binge drinking, drinking on school property, etc (although somethings like pot use were up).

It also support the idea that meth use was dropping significantly before the program even started. Why not just take credit for the drop in all these risky behaviors while they're at it? It's hard for me to believe that the CDC putting their stamp of approval on this is anything other than politics.

http://www.opi.mt.gov/PDF/YRBS/Trend07HS.pdf

Edited at 2008-05-06 06:01 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

Wow. Powerful stuff! I watched the videos, but I actually think the still images are more powerful. But the videos are pretty heavy too, especially the last one.

(Reply) (Thread)