Talk:Just Say No/Archives/2013

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)


 * 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').


 * And, may I suggest one more point of failure in this campaign - it was based on an opinion or a belief that when kid is taking his first hit or shot - the drugs are always voluntary offered by some good Samaritan. I mean, all those PSA drug dealers on the streets and school "pushers" of age 14 were like: c'mon, try it, yo gotta try it, please smoke some pot - so it looked like people who created all the advertisement for the campaign didn't know how life works, and when you don't leave White House without a set of bodyguards, no wonder you'd have no Idea what is the life of a common teenager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.230.207 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 video was removed, what a "surprise".
 * 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.

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)

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)
 * Please don't bother people with the facts. "Facts are funny things", and nobody wants to be bothered with them. Viriditas (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim
A reduction, however, in the use and trafficking of illegal drugs by adolescents was seen during the height of the campaign.
 * And no evidence whatsoever that the reduction was due to this campaign. In fact, the claim that "marijuana went from thirty-three percent of high-school seniors in 1980 to twelve percent in 1991" has absolutely nothing to do with this "campaign" and everything to do with the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, at which point the boats and planes stopped delivering cannabis to the United States. No, I won't connect the dots for you. Do the research. Viriditas (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know was marijuana actually produced in Afganistan, from what I know it was more of a hash country, hash is a more traditional cannabis product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.230.207 (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Original research removed
''A reduction, however, in the use and trafficking of illegal drugs by adolescents was seen during the height of the campaign. ''

Unsourced material
'' In 2007 Justin Lee Collins presented a one off show on Channel 4 with the aim to reunite the 1986 Grange Hill cast and organized for them to perform 'Just Say No' one more time. Several former cast members also revealed that during a trip to the White House, as part of the UK campaign, they did in fact smoke cannabis.''
 * Removed pending sources. Viriditas (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Where is the section detailing the satire this campaign drew? I was a teen at the time of this campaign and remember it largely because of the amount of satire it generated in the "Just say no to Nancy" vein. --fbonds —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)