Entertainment desk
< December 12	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 13

anti-drug videos

why is it that anti drug videos over exagerate so much? can't they just tell the straight truth? ps.there hillarious though!

The truth about anything is usually pretty boring. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the way that most teenagers connect with the world, psychologically speaking. Most drugs are not harmful in the short term; but are devastating if used for long enough. Heroin, Meth, cocaine, etc. all do some pretty nasty stuff if taken for years and years; and they're also all fairly addictive. However, a single use of any one of these drugs is unlikely to be very damaging. And that is the crux of the problem when trying to get teenagers to understand the dangers of hard drugs; psychologically teenagers don't often think in terms of "twenty years down the road"... They live in the here and now. Show them a picture of a 20-year heroin user, and they cannot identify with that. So it is unlikely to affect them in any way; seeing what someone's life is like after 20 years of heroin use, and most teenagers feel nothing about that. To relate to teenagers, you need relate to them in ways that affect them NOW. So advertising has to focus on what drugs can do to teenagers NOW, and thus have to exagerate the short-term effects of hard drugs. Which is not to say that hard drugs are harmless; their addictive nature means that an often cavalier attitude towards hard drugs in the short term can lead to long term addiction, the effects of which aren't noticable until its too late to do anything about it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a more realistic anti-dope video along the lines of "we got stoned, no-one died, no-one started a fight, we just sat around" - then the actor saying that he wasn't doing the same tonight as he'd decided it was more fun to get out there and do something exciting. Exxolon (talk) 05:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did particularly like that one... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, introspection and insight is just so boring. Better to go out and play football. -- noosph e re 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration ? Are you telling me that "Reefer Madness" isn't a totally factual documentary ? StuRat (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. But even with weed, some people have a particular sensitivity to it, and find themselves in hospital with a truly horrible psychotic episode after smoking a small amount that most other users would take in their stride. There's no way to know whether a first-time user will find themselves in this situation or not until they do it. OR prevents me from revealing my evidence, but I know whereof I speak. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it happened to me one I went to see fantomas and the melvins and got so high I lost three days and was freakin the hell out bithing the heads off rats s Wochende (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody around here was so high on marijuana he ripped out his own eye. [1] Adam Bishop (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you, perhaps, withdrawing from severe alcohol dependency? -- noosph e re 09:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]