Talk:Just Say No
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why the POV?
"any other condemnable idea/entity that one group supposed it was plausible to "say no" to"
sounds funny. To suppose something is plausible is ridiculous. Basically the author is saying that he thinks the whole campaign was based on the ridiculous presumption that we should say no to certain things. I'm changing it.
- I like the new wording better so I see no reason to change it, but I believe the original author was trying to convey that the issues that were commonly targeted by "just say no" campaigns were not the sort that could be solved by simply saying no. - Kuzain 06:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sounds like it was working
If "it is arguable that drug use has significantly grown since", then maybe we shouldn't have stopped this campaign! The campaign makes a lot of sense; a person dumb enough to try some of that stuff is really in need of a very simple reflex response. AlbertCahalan 05:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC) thi is a stupid muva fukin page drugs are goooood
-
- No, you see; the campaign was a failure because it didn't statistically lower drug use, so there's no reason to believe continung the campaign would suddenly become successful. Telling people to ""just say no" totally ignores the reasons people do things like try drugs and have premarital sex (because *GASP!* it's fun) If something seems like a good time to young people, an old woman telling them not to do it won't stop them (if anything, it makes it more enticing to do something 'forbidden').
-
- Contrary to what Nancy Reagan wants you to think, not everyone who has done a drug recreationally has had their lives ruined, not everyone who has had premarital sex has gotten pregnant or contracted an STD. If you ask me, someone who believes everything the Government's told them about drugs is the "dumb" one.
-
- If you watch this Peter Jennings ABCNews story (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yt6PHhOZ32g) on the origins of MDMA and it's growing popularity (which is a fine piece of objective journalism), you'll see how the Government has a vested interest in exaggerating the dangers of certain drugs (such as MDMA, which the Government once claimed could cause Parkinsons disease, a claim they have since redacted when it was revealed that the tests they based their data on had been faked, this information is in the video)
-
- The Government basically didn't like that people were taking MDMA, enjoying it, and then living normal lives. This screwed up everything the Government said that drugs will leave you jobless, homeless and hopelessly addicted. When people start realizing that a drug can be enjoyable and not harmful enough to make them want to stop (such as, say, alcohol or tobacco, two deadly substances that are perfectly legal) then they start questioning the Government's other claims about illegal drugs (like what happened when the Gov't overturned Prohibition because of public outcry).
[edit] Questions
What year did it start, and was it a TV-only campaign? --Galaxiaad 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
