1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP

US: NEW BILL TO BAN DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS

By Alfa, Feb 17, 2004 | | |
  1. Alfa
    NEW BILL TO BAN DRUG ADVERTISEMENTS

    Congress recently approved a new bill that might affect which
    advertisements students see when they step onto a bus to go to class.

    The new law, which goes into effect Sunday, will revoke all state and
    local grants allowing citizens to run bus advertisements in support of
    reforming current drug laws on buses, trains and subways. While a
    strong push for such a bill was evident in January of 2002, the U.S.
    House of Representatives just approved an action early last month.

    According to a Dec. 9, 2003 press release, many advertisements used to
    educate the public about drug policies or reforms will no longer be
    seen. The bill also grants the government $145 million to run
    anti-drug advertisements this year.

    The grant for the government has caused controversy. According to the
    press release, the controversy stems from court records showing that
    members of Congress created an anti-drug campaign in 1998, costing
    billions of dollars, in an attempt to influence voters to reject state
    medical-marijuana measures.

    Bill Piper, associate director of National Affairs for the Drug Policy
    Alliance, is not in complete agreement with the bill.

    "The government can't spend taxpayer money promoting one side of the
    drug policy debate while prohibiting taxpayers from using their own
    money to promote the other side," he said.

    According to the press release, to reform the bill, the Drug Policy
    Alliance is asking Congress to remove an anti-free speech provision
    from the bill and to eliminate the taxpayer finance spending for the
    government's drug advertising.

    While recent advertisements seen on the Mass Transit District buses in
    Champaign-Urbana typically show restaurants or upcoming school events,
    buses will no longer be allowed to display any advertisements against
    current drug policies.

    However, Tom Costello, assistant managing director at MTD, said he
    does not believe the bill will affect area buses.

    "We have our own local standards," Costello said. "We want to have
    some level of tastefulness in advertisements."

    The MTD also does not permit alcohol or tobacco advertisements to run
    on their buses, Costello said.

    In President George W. Bush's State of the Union address last
    Wednesday, he remarked on reducing drug use, saying, "In my budget, I
    have proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based
    strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs."

    The president also said the purpose of the bill against drug
    advertisements is to help keep children away from drugs.

    According to a 2003 Monitoring the Future study, about 49.5 percent of
    college students admitted to using marijuana during their lifetime and
    19.7 percent of college students said they have used it in the past 30
    days.

    In younger children, 17.5 percent of eighth graders admitted to using
    marijuana during their lifetime. Also, about 16 percent of
    marijuana-related emergency department visits in 2002 involved
    patients between the ages of 6 and 17.

    Gary Cooper, freshman in LAS, said the ban on advertisements will
    probably affect very few college students. He also said he does not
    believe removing the advertisements will help the government's cause
    dramatically.

    "I don't think (removing the advertisements) will help too much," he
    said. "Kids are still going to take drugs with or without the
    advertisements around."

Comments

  1. OccularFantasm
    I had heard something of this maybe a year ago or so, but never thought it would actually get passed. I can't believe their downing drug adds while pushing rx drugs while also allowing about 1000 tampon adds to run on the television every five seconds. With their logic, kids will be getting tampons as the next big hit; but then again maybe thats their big plan. heh
  2. Heretic.Ape.
    silencing the opposition. can't have facts contradicting the regimes policies out there in public.
  3. Bajeda
    This thread is pissed you ripped it out of its comfy grave OccularFantasm.
  4. Beanfondler
    Silencing of political opinion... At least we can thank Christ that the opinion was fundamentally incorrect in that it questioned authority. We're all merely sheep, wolves in the appropriate garb is still our sheppard and that should never be questioned.
  5. OccularFantasm
    Wow, you re right bajeda. I had no idea this thread was so old. I must have read it at some point before, and just never commented or anything. It was on the, um, the some capital letters followed by Feed thing. Its got the little drug forum pic, n it drops down a list of threads. I just assumed they were always new. I should see if there has been any updates on this issue. well, here goes 100 hours of searching the forum, then the search engine.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!