Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Talk to Frank (birthday) Do anti-drugs ads ever work?

**helen****helen** Deactivated Posts: 9,235 Supreme Poster
Really interesting analysis from the BBC - would be great to hear your thoughts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21242664

I was particularly struck by this snippet:
Mike Linnell of Manchester-based harm reduction charity Lifeline, believes the campaign may have run its course and the money would be better spent on drugs education at a grassroots level.

:chin:

Has online intervention, advice etc ever worked for you or others you know (e.g. in terms of improving your attitude/relationship to drugs)

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Online advice has been helpful.

    Advice from the Frank website has been downright dangerous. And has now descended so far into the "drugs are bad mmkay" level with their recent promotions on cannabis that they may as well shut the place down.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I believe pro education and less criminalisation.

    Having said that "drugs are bad mmkay" does work sometimes - see Sweden.

    It's the kind of result I dislike, lol. Like how reducing speed limits does reduce accidents almost regardless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Every body I know utterly hates Frank, including my dad who is a substance misuse adviser in the NHS. They're bloody awful... biased, unhelpful, and judgemental.

    They shove "drugs are bad mmkay" down our throats constantly at school, and it has no effect apart from on those who wouldn't take drugs anyway.

    The vast majority of my friends take drugs, and I don't know a single one who has ever been put off by something they're seen in an ad or a leaflet at school. In fact, quite a few of us will sit and read the leaflets at school and just laugh at how ridiculous they are. There's one and on the front in massive letters it says "DRUGS KILL YOU" ... Yea, they can, but they can also give you a truly fucking awesome experience.

    No one ever tells you the other side of drugs... every one just assumes there's a "bad crowd" dragging their children into a dark and evil world of substance. In my experience it isn't like that at all. I'll be the first to admit drugs can cause problems, I spent £3000+ in the past year, nearly died a couple of times... but was it worth it? Yes. Did I have fun? Yes. Would I do it again? Definitely. I know my limits now, and I know how to be more careful in the future.

    Not every one takes drugs to "escape" or because they're depressed. Some people take them because they're a right fucking laugh, and because they enjoy them. Yes, drugs can be dangerous... but so can horse riding, driving, etc etc etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is why drugs should be legalised and regulated. Driving, need a license, riding, need a helmet, aspirin, dosage given. Coke? Who fucking knows what that's cut with...

    Legalise and regulate. Everyone is a winner baby
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote: »
    This is why drugs should be legalised and regulated. Driving, need a license, riding, need a helmet, aspirin, dosage given. Coke? Who fucking knows what that's cut with...

    Legalise and regulate. Everyone is a winner baby

    :yes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They shove "drugs are bad mmkay" down our throats constantly at school, and it has no effect apart from on those who wouldn't take drugs anyway.

    This is, inconveniently, not true. Aggressive zero tolerance has been shown in Sweden to be effective at combating the problems relating to drugs.

    In the US it won't work because there is so little investment in education and health (especially for the marginalised) over there, so it's easier to just regulate and legalise it.

    For the UK my choice would be regulate and legalise, but either way would work. We have made smoking very unpopular in a generation purely with investment in anti smoking campaigns.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy, I was talking about my school. Not Sweden. I think I made it clear in my post it was all my personal experience, sorry if I didn't.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy, I was talking about my school. Not Sweden. I think I made it clear in my post it was all my personal experience, sorry if I didn't.

    I wasn't attacking you, sorry if I came across that way. What I mean to say, is that I too used to believe the patronising 'drugs are bad' was at best annoying and at worse actually harmful because of its disingenuousness. However evidence appears to indicate that this approach can work if there's enough resources to push the message enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    I wasn't attacking you, sorry if I came across that way. What I mean to say, is that I too used to believe the patronising 'drugs are bad' was at best annoying and at worse actually harmful because of its disingenuousness. However evidence appears to indicate that this approach can work if there's enough resources to push the message enough.

    I know it probably works in some places, but it definitely does not work in my school and that's all I was talking about in my post. I never said it wont work any where, I just know from personal experience that among my peers it is an approach that is simply laughed at or ignored.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    To be honest, I think that someone who says "I know there's a not-so-remote chance I'll die but this is fun" is someone who places too little value to their life, and that's a problem.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, I think that someone who says "I know there's a not-so-remote chance I'll die but this is fun" is someone who places too little value to their life, and that's a problem.

    In comparison to the amount of people who take drugs, the amount who die is a tiny number.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    In comparison to the amount of people who take drugs, the amount who die is a tiny number.
    Withdrawn then -I'm only going by information I've read here, and it seemed you thought differently above.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Withdrawn then -I'm only going by information I've read here, and it seemed you thought differently above.

    I'm really confused, what did you think I thought?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    nearly died a couple of times... but was it worth it? Yes.
    This bit seems to say that you think having fun is worth dying. Is it meant to say something else?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This bit seems to say that you think having fun is worth dying. Is it meant to say something else?

    The following bit goes on to say "I've learnt my limits now." From the experiences where I over did it, I learnt my lessons. I meant overall, the good experiences I've had with drugs out weigh the bad and I'd do it all again, taking into account what I've learnt.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    The following bit goes on to say "I've learnt my limits now." From the experiences where I over did it, I learnt my lessons. I meant overall, the good experiences I've had with drugs out weigh the bad and I'd do it all again, taking into account what I've learnt.
    I get it now :)
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    To be honest, I think that someone who says "I know there's a not-so-remote chance I'll die but this is fun" is someone who places too little value to their life, and that's a problem.

    People risk their life all the time in pursuit of fun. Downhill skiing and jumping or a plane with a but of still in a ruck sack are both more dangerous than taking ecstasy, screen house riding has a greater risk of death than taking ecstasy. I don't see much difference.
    Shyboy Sweden may have cut some drug related social problems with a zero tolerance approach but it still had a high death rate than The Netherlands which has one if the most liberal approaches to drug use in the civilised world.
    Sweden had also always had more of a problem with substance abuse. Scandinavian countries trend to have problems with alcohol too, the climate and number of days it's dark means people trends to use substances more irresponsibly.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Posts: 16,688 Skive's The Limit
    Skive wrote: »
    People risk their life all the time in pursuit of fun. Downhill skiing and jumping or a plane with a but of still in a ruck sack are both more dangerous than taking ecstasy, screen house riding has a greater risk of death than taking ecstasy. I don't see much difference.
    How many people have almost died more than once doing any of these things?
    Like I said before, I was only going on information given in this thread. I didn't look up statistics. It seems I misunderstood something, so I withdrew the comment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How many people have almost died more than once doing any of these things?.

    Would like to also point out, the two occasions I nearly died were on completely different substances and entirely my fault. One time was from taking far too much of something, and my circulation in my body slowed down turning me blue, the other time I had a psychotic episode while on a substance and tried to kill myself. I have psychotic episodes any way, so that was probably unrelated to the substance I was on.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    How many people have almost died more than once doing any of these things?

    Lots. My missus breaks horses and does hunter trails, she's been in a couple of nasty accidents that could have been fatal.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Surprised no ones said the "It's my body, why does it matter argument".

    Talk to Frank is what got my interested in drugs. Ironically...
    When I was in Year 7 in school, they had a group of people come in and speak to us. One of them was telling us a story about cannabis, how it made him feel, the effects, the stuff he used to get up too. I was like that doesn't sound to bad, obviously he threw the "I'm super schitzo paranoid now" afterwards.
    And later on in Year 9, someone offered me a spliff I was like yeah, go for it, lets give it a try. Loved it.
    If I'd never had that group come in to us, id of probably stuck with what my parents said which were that "Drugs are bad".

    Also "Frank"'s advice is terrible, not true, scarmongering, they lie or make things to be far far worse than they actually are.
    Skive wrote: »
    People risk their life all the time in pursuit of fun. Downhill skiing and jumping or a plane with a but of still in a ruck sack are both more dangerous than taking ecstasy, screen house riding has a greater risk of death than taking ecstasy. I don't see much difference.
    Shyboy Sweden may have cut some drug related social problems with a zero tolerance approach but it still had a high death rate than The Netherlands which has one if the most liberal approaches to drug use in the civilised world.
    Sweden had also always had more of a problem with substance abuse. Scandinavian countries trend to have problems with alcohol too, the climate and number of days it's dark means people trends to use substances more irresponsibly.

    I agree with this. Also eating/vape (not smoking) cannabis, and taking small amounts of MDMA is perfectly safe and no one has ever died from either. Yes theres the story of that girl who died from drowning, due to MDMA messing with the hypothalamus but any normal person would find it incredibly hard to drink themselves to death.

    If people stopped making drugs special, and taboo, just regulate a safe supply, then things would be so much better. I think heroin, crystal meth etc should be regulated on a much harsher level, but supportive. And not for recreational use either. Although abstination is the only perfect method of getting rid of addiction, as long as you can change your lifestyle and remove drugs from around you.

    Alcohol is legal, not everyone is a raving alcoholic that can't go to work or drive anywhere. And to be fair a lot less people we be drinking, if there were coffee shops. But that's not the point i was making aha! More to the point of, just because it's legal and available doesn't mean, everyone will use it.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,282 Skive's The Limit
    Anti drug advice does not work. Much of it relies on dishonest scare mongering. If you want to get through to people about the dangers of drugs you have to retain some credibility.

    An attitude of zero tolerance like the US is immoral and does not work. A life sentence without parole is never an acceptable sentence for drug possession. The US has made a successful business out of the drug war but an unsuccessful impact on drug usage. It's a class war, a slow burning holocaust for the poor.

    Problematic drug users arent the cause of problems society, they're a symptom of societies problems.
    Weekender Offender 
Sign In or Register to comment.