Tobacco will STOMP YOU FLAT.

Holden here, with a big bottle of Hate-orade for the No Stank You campaign.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for anti-drug campaigns...if they go about it the right way. Whether one smokes or not should still remain a choice, but it's good for the negative health effects to continue to be made known to the younger set so that when the choice is set upon them, they can at least make something resembling an informed decision.

Back in my day, we had the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which, granted, had its own set of problems here and there, but overall, I think it had the right idea. (I understand that a lot of places are beginning to phase it out now...hope they find some sort of replacement, especially considering today's post)

So what on Earth happened?

There's been a resurgence in anti-drug commercials the past couple years, perhaps in anticipation of DARE's phasing out. And for the most part, I haven't had any real beef with them. There's been the "(blank) is my Anti-drug" campaign and the "Above The Influence" anti-marijuana campaign. And then, just this year, came "No Stank You," a new Anti-Tobacco campaign that seems to prefer ditching the previous two's slightly drier approach to a more..."wacky" one. (I'm also told they're unique to the state of Washington, so if you haven't heard of these, well, that's apparently why) And at first, it was okay. Kinda...stupid, but fairly innocuous. The usual staples about tobacco's detrimental effects on tooth and lung health. The two most recent ones, however...augh, how did they get them approved? Here, I'll show you.

Exhibit A:
...annnd hmm. Well...I was going to show you a couple video clips for the best impact but it seems those aren't currently around the internet. Very curious.
Exhibit A anyway, then. One of the more recent commercials asks "whatcha gonna do when they hand you a smoke?" A kid in an alleyway then has an oversize arm dangled next to them, clutching some cigs. I can't say I agree with the advice that follows: "G-G-GO BLIZONKO!" The kid then begins to freak out to further musical repetitions of this questionable solution, culminating in, I kid you not, them taking a large bite out of the offering arm.
Somehow, DARE's approach of politely declining unless pressure is involved seems a lot more...I don't know...tactful? In deference to the consumption of human flesh out of a fiery spite? I know, I know. Kids aren't dumb. Very few if any of them are going to literally flip out and start gnawing them some forearm. But the fact that the suggestion is there, that it's been taken to the extreme of suggestions of actual violence...surely you'll agree that's a little disconcerting.

The other ad in question is a little less worrisome, but still raises an eyebrow of mine. It involves a giant cigar monster chasing and devouring some children, Dune worm style. No dialogue in this one, even. Just a cigar worm eating kids. Not even sure what to really say about that one. Granted, the majority of anti-drug commercials use at least some degree of exaggeration, but I think I can say that's...stretching it a bit.

Now, I recognize the risks of smoking (and for the record, I myself am a nonsmoker) but when an anti-drug campaign seems…not right, it’s usually due to one or both of two things: demonizing the drugs themselves above and beyond what is rational, or demonizing people who do them (as Starlight has stated before of this same subject: “smoking does not make you a bad person.”). And unfortunately one sort of leads to the other. While I understand why anti-drug advertisements focus on the negatives (and don’t have a problem with them doing so), I do think some part of drug informing should include some of the reasons why people do them in the first place. Not as an advertisement for them, no—but if only the negatives are learned, people fail to see why anyone would try any drug, and the rationale must still be figured out. So the simplest conclusion is reached—because they are bad people. Bad people that want to do bad things to themselves. It becomes cyclical.

I’m not making some sort of pro-drug advertisement. I’m not excusing or dismissing people who have honest drug problems. I’m not anti-anti-drug campaigns. But “going Blizonko” ain’t the answer. Go back to the drawing board, Washington…and come up with a say-n0-to-smoking ad that doesn’t involve cigar monsters or cannibals.

(EDIT: I've been informed by my closest companion that No Stank You has allegedly been around since at least 2007, it's not a new campaign. Apologies. I'd only heard of/noticed it this year.)


Holden Out.