Talk:Just Say No

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Why the POV? 2 sounds like it was working 3 Questions 4 Effectiveness 5 Just say no, except for Contra funneled cocaine?

[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).

People don't stop doing things because they're forbidden. When alcohol was banned in the USA during prohibition, alcohol consumption actually went up compared to the pre-prohibition era. Simply telling people to stop using drugs clearly doesn't work, and neither does a legal ban. They don't address any of the root causes of drug use (wanting to feel more mature, wanting to do something anti-establishment, wanting an escape from depression etc). I think drugs are awful (and I include alcohol and tobacco in that), I wish people wouldn't use them at all, but there's absolutley no practical way for me to stop people taking drugs if they really want to, even if I was running the government. The only way to reduce drug use is to deal with the things that make people want to take drugs in the first place, such as depression, social isolation, insecurity at school etc. --212.146.47.250 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, but even if you were to deal with the root causes of people taking drugs recreationally, it wouldn't stop everyone becuase not everyone takes drugs to escape depression or to 'feel mature' or for negative reasons. Some people genuinely enjoy certain drugs. I recently read an article by Carl Sagan (http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html) where he talks about smoking cannibus for the first time after thinking it was 'awful' and realizing that it actually enhanced his life and altered his perceptions in a positive way. It's like Bill Hicks said; If you really hate drugs, why not throw out all your albums and burn all your books and stop looking at art, because almost all of it was done by people on drugs. Freud frequently did cocaine and formed the basis for modern psychology, The Beatles did everthing under the sun and created some of the best rock music of our time, Francis Crick did LSD and he discovered the double-helix structure of DNA. Could these geniuses actually have been onto something? People have been doing drugs before society was as it is now, in ancient times people were getting high. Sure, when it turns to addiction, and when drugs become and end unto themselves, it can ruin lives. But that's life, we all gotta live it the way we see best for us.

[edit] Questions

What year did it start, and was it a TV-only campaign? --Galaxiaad 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness

Can someone describe the effectiveness of this campaign? Worthlesspeon (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to elaborate on what exactly you are looking for? yes, the article does need expansion, so can you provide a general outline of what you want? Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just say no, except for Contra funneled cocaine?

Why hasn't anybody authored commentary about the epic hypocrisy that existed during this slogan's heyday? While Nancy was running around the country telling kids to "just say no", Ronald Reagan was illicitly funding the Contras in Nicaragua (from treasonous sales of arms to Iran), a notorious drug running paramilitary group who murdered 30,000 civilians.

The Contras of course played a key part in the surge of cocaine entering the United States in the 1980s; in turn crack cocaine emerged as the cheap drug of choice for inner-city youth that decade. In particular, the testimony of Fabio Ernesto Carrasco on Contra drug lord Eden Pastora and his dealings with George Morales (Columbian drug lord under indictment for cocaine trafficking) is very damning for the Reagan administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.130.2.14 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)