Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising department of the illegal drug industry?

[Bogan]

Are the entertainment industries the unofficial advertising departments of the illegal drug industries? I say that they most definitely are. it is odd that we as a society have no trouble at all recognising that the images displayed and the messages transmitted in advertising campaigns promoting tobacco to young people, will cause young people to take up smoking. But then we allow the entertainment industries to do exactly the same thing and advertise illegal drugs to young people, and we can not see the clear double standard?

Researchers were heartened during the 1980's decade, when statistics indicated that drug use among young people was in gradual decline. This downward trend was for all classes of drugs except amphetamines and crack cocaine. This was believed to be in response to various government sponsored anti drugs advertising campaigns targeted at young people, like Nancy Reagan's moderately successful (and much sneered at) Just Say No campaign. This appears to reinforce the concept of just how effective advertising can be. But researchers in most Western countries were alarmed when legal and illegal drug usage among young people began to climb again during the mid 1990's. But what really began to grab their attention was the pattern that was developing The ages of first time users of drugs like heroin and cocaine had dropped, and young teenagers and adolescents from priveleged social classes, were being admitted to rehab. centres or dying of drug overdoses.

This trend was completely different to past experience. Overdose deaths from heroin, had most commonly been linked to urban ghettoes or urban barrios, and the ages of the people who died was most commonly in their late 20's to late 30's. These people had usually had a history of chronic substance abuse, both legal and illegal, which had eventually led to a progression of increased dependence upon heroin, amphetamines or crack cocaine. The increase was for every kind of legal and illegal drug. Marijuana, who's use had been gradually reducing, was making a comeback. In addition, the ages of first time users had dropped to 10 and 11 year olds. Some of these children were coming from the priveleged social stratum where such behaviour from small children was unheard of. The upward trend in marijuana use, was a trend repeated for heroin, crack cocaine, amphetamines, LSD, tobacco, binge drinking and even inhalants such as glue, aerosols and solvents.

This alarming trend coincided with a period, when the entertainment industries began to openly glamourise the use of illegal drugs. Hollywood movies began to quite openly depict illegal drug usage as normal, everyday, teenage and adult activity. Scenes were shown in movies where a progression of young role model stars, began to smoke, snort, guzzle, inject, gulp and inhale a wide variety of drugs, and even give instruction on the social etiquette for doing so. Music lyrics openly sang the pleasures of a wide variety of illegal drugs, giving the young and immature the unmistakable message "Just do drugs, everybody does it".

A wide variety of music magazines conducted interviews with famous pop stars who openly talked about their favourite drugs, and the misadventures that they had experienced while high as a kite. Eric Clapton was gushingly enthusiastic about heroin, saying "I still feel that to be a junkie is to be a part of an exclusive club. That's another reason for taking heroin, because it is like surrounding you in cotton wool. Nothing bothers you whatsoever. Nothing fazes you in any way." Books were published, detailing the lives of past and present pop stars, which informed the young of the central role that drugs had played in the wonderful lifestyles that these people led. "Getting wasted" and doing something absolutely idiotic, was seen as the fun behaviour of cool, creative people. Young people could even check which drug that their favourite popstar took. Ecstasy for Eminem, "Special K" (an animal tranquillizer) for Marilyn Manson, glue sniffing for Liam Gallagher, LSD for Ozzy Osbourne, and cocaine for Sir Bob Geldoff. But for most of them it was heroin. Pop stars continued to die of overdoses to the extent, that it almost became a popular way to go. Sid Viscious and Andy Gibb. Jonathan Melvoin (smashing pumpkins), Brent Mydland (grateful dead), Kristin Pfaff (hole), Johnny Thunders ( new york dolls), Gary Thain (uriah heep). Phil Lynot (thin lizzy) Lou Reed remarked of his fans, Half the people turn up at my concerts, just to see if I will drop dead on the stage. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, did just that, when he overdosed on stage and was pronounced dead where he lay.

Popular music magazines aimed directly at young people, do not have any classification system to prevent them being sold to minors. These magazines contain articles which present the taking of illegal drugs, as a social norm for the young and trendy. The magazines feature articles about new, fashionable nightclubs, full of 20 something party people ,who were "dancing with their arms in the air, clutching their water bottles." The music magazine MUZIC, even had an article that showed how the drug ecstasy had influenced the evolution of music, by mellowing out the rappers and toning down their lyrics and music tempo's. Another music magazine, MINISTRY, did a "road test" on the notorious "date rape" drug GBH for it's young readers, who were calling themselves the E Generation. But nowhere in these magazines was there any mention of the social consequences. No mention that the drugs were illegal. No mention of the side effects or health considerations. No mention of the physical or psychological damage from the long term abuse of powerful drugs. It was if the lives of the magazine publishers, the lives of the pop stars, and the lives of the young people dancing in the clubs, existed in a moral vacuum. They presented a playground world that was not really part of their community, where the example that they set for children was someone else's responsibility.

Two high profile suicides and a score of others, seemed to point to the dangers of depression caused by long term drug abuse. Kurt Cobain and Michael Hutchence, both noted for their high ingestion of controlled substances, joined the list of casualties. But at least their deaths showed that these indulgent, hedonistic people were not completely useless. They could at least be used as bad examples. In the movies, filmmakers produced a rash of movies where drug ingestion by teen heroes was displayed as hip. STUDIO 54, a disco movie about a famous nightclub, starring teen idol Neve Campbell and Mike Myers, was heavy with cocaine use. In LAST DAYS OF DISCO, Chris Eigerman lines up cocaine and snorts it down. In WHATEVER, a high school movie about two seniors who are alienated from their families, the boys appear in scenes where school kids party like mad, smoke pot and snort cocaine. In FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, Johnny Depp and his sidekick Dr Gonzo, are absolutely shit faced the whole movie. They take every drug known to the drug culture, as well as a couple of unknown drugs. Ether and human pituitary hormone.

Three movies in particular deserve especial critiscism, for their irresponsible portrayals of youth drug abuse. PULP FICTION is an R rated movie which was particularly popular with young people. It included a music score of popular pop music and aging teen idol John Travolta, along with rising teen star Uma Thurman. The movie was heavy with drugs and violence and it presented both of these activities as a social norm for young, exciting, street wise people. Uma Thurman snorts up cocaine in the ladies room of a restaurant, and later mistakes some of Travolta's high grade heroin for some more coke. She snorts it up and accidently goes into overdose. The efforts of Travolta to revive Thurman before she dies, is presented as an amusing comedy.

TRAINSPOTTING is another film which deserves the greatest condemnation. This is a pro drug movie which presents the entire lifestyle of heroin abusers as a comedy. Naturally, the movie producers, film critics and assorted literati predictably claimed that it was a masterpiece. They also maintained that it was an anti drugs film, because it contained a couple of scenes which were repulsive. But this seems to be a standard reply when films are criticised for glamourising drugs. The movie was even nominated for an Oscar, for best screenplay. The movie also had scenes of under age sex and characters advising each other how to cheat the social security system.

The first ten minutes of the movie are nothing more than an outright commercial for heroin. The movie begins with the voice -over- sneer of the lead character, Renton, dumping on the School-Work-Death existence of respectability, for a "true and sincere junk habit". He continues on, "I choose not to choose life, I chose something else. The reason? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you have heroin". The scene changes to a filthy apartment, and the character "sick boy" injects his girlfriend. The scene is shot as a sex scene, with sick boy looking deep into his girlfriends eyes, as he injects her and pushes the plunger. Renton speaks about the pleasures of heroin, stating "think of the best orgasm you ever had, multiply it by a thousand and your not even close" With such a ringing occolade, is it any wonder the kids are not curious and are trying it out?

CLUELESS is another movie, rated MA which means 15 years or older. But it was a movie extremely popular with adolescent girls and even added a new saying to the English language, "As if." The movie is a standard teen flick with a junior high school setting in Bel Air, where the children of wealthy people live a pampered, indulgent lifestyle. The plot revolves around the efforts of two girls, Cher (played by Alicia Silverstone) and Tai, to improve the social graces of a"clueless" new girl. Cher gives the girl a makeover and instructs her in how to be a popular girl. Instruction is given in all areas of school girl etiquette including when to smoke marijuana. The new girl is solemnly instructed by Cher and Tai. It is one thing to spark a doobie and get laced at parties", .........but smoking marijuana at school was uncool. The girls then attend a youth party and Alicia Silverstone gets promptly shit faced.

Here we have a movie aimed at children and instructing them in the proper social etiquette of drug use. No wonder younger and younger children are curious about drugs and want to try out even hard drugs straight away. By taking drugs, they are symbolically partaking of the lives and lifestyles of their role model heroes. A slew of other movies have also been released with drugs playing either a leading part, or a totally unnecessary part of the plot. PERMANENT MIDNIGHT, HIGH ART, and THERES SOMETHING ABOUT MARY. All of these movies simply present casual drug ingestion as a normal part of life and none of them have focused in any way, on the long term debilitating effects of these drugs. TV too, has now featured drug scenes by high profile celebrities. One episode of ROSEANNE showed the lead actress and her husband smoking pot in the toilet of their family home.

As if fantasy were not enough, pop stars and movie stars continue to be arrested for drug possession and driving under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs. Robert Downey Jr, has been charged and locked up so many times for drugs, the prison authorities are thinking of installing a revolving door on his cell. In any other field of human endeavor, the use or abuse of performance enhancing or recreational drugs is simply not tolerated. Drug samples and urine tests are part of the facts of life for high profile sporting and athletic stars. But different rules apply to the entertainment industries. Nobody knows why.

To make things even worse, these movies, high profile arrests and drug overdoses coincided with a promotion of Heroin Chic by the fashion industry. Pale, glassy eyed, emaciated models, with black rings around their eyes, stared down from bill boards everywhere you looked. Calvin Klein, fresh from the success of his Paedophile Look ads, in which half dressed adolescents imitated post coital blues and little boys and girls romped in their underwear, needed to find a new way to grab consumers attention, spark a controversy and sell more shirts. Klein's tasteless lead was followed by Benetton and their "We On Death Row" campaign, where condemned murderers looked mournfully at the public from billboards. Benetton claimed that it was genuinely concerned about capital punishment. But fed up retail stores did not buy it, and major US quality chain stores began to refuse to stock Klein or Benetton clothes until their advertisers grew a brain.

But just to make sure that the kids know that adults are not really serious about drugs, and the whole thing is just a big joke. There is a wide range of clothing with drug logo's, clothing brands with drug names, and massive range drug paraphernalia, available in any flea market.

The expected explosion in drug use, led by children, could well be the beginning of an appalling social catastrophe in the years to come. This will doubtless be used by drug advocate organisations like the Greens Party, that the drug war is unwinnable and that this is proof that these drugs should be legalised. Such a ridiculous notion could only be concieived by people who have smoked too much of the weed they wish to legalise. We have not won the drug war because we are not serious about cleaning up the main instrument that is promoting it.

[lisa jones]

Bogan

1. The examples used in your OP are OVER 20 years old.

2. Also heroin isn't the major drug problem of today. It's crystal meth etc. And these 2 drugs are VERY different in how they affect an individual. As a mum I had to learn all this (to watch out for signs within my own teenagers and their friends). Heroin apparently makes you feel drowsy and sleepy whilst crystal meth triggers hyper aggression.

3. I have no idea why you bother with these types of topics. They're so passé.

[lisa jones]

Bogan, I don't want you to think I'm trying to undermine your topic in any way. Here's something more recent on the subject matter.

https://americanaddictioncenters.org/bl ... -addiction

This article is dated March 2022.

Note : There are hyper links in the above article which redirect you to research papers. I've scanned it quickly and will read it closely in a few moments.

[Bogan]

Of course it is 20 years old, Lisa, I originally wrote it from source material 20 years ago. But what it says is still very relevant to today. There are still people today who do not think that the entertainment industries have any effect on human behaviour. My task is to show to them that they are clearly wrong. 20 years old or not, the submission I wrote is a compelling article which I think clearly display the link between the entertainment industries and srious criminal behaviour. I would have stayed on my previous topic on this subject, but that topic appears to be dead in the water. Nobody is seriously trying to debate that one. So, I started another topic to keep it going and get the naysayers thinking.

[lisa jones]

Of course it is 20 years old, Lisa, I originally wrote it from source material 20 years ago.

1. Where did you do that?
2. Was your English (spelling and grammar) better than it is now?

[Bogan]

You want the full story? I was coming home from a club rabbit hunt near Wagga Wagga in my old G60 hunting car, when I wondered why everybody was looking at me askance, everywhere I went. It was only when I got home that I found out that Martin Bryant had massacred 35 people, including two little kids, and seriously wounded a couple of dozen more.

As usual, the fake news press attacked guns and gun owners as the reason for the growing problem of massacres, both in Australia and overseas. I genuinely thought that this was a load of crap. The central question which nobody in the media would ask, was why was it that this sort of behaviour had never happened previously, when firearm laws were almost non existent?

I myself had lived through a time when schoolboys, usually in Army cadet uniforms, had travelled on buses and trains carrying Lee Enfield .303 rifles and nobody batted an eyelid. I was one of them, and when we got to school we stacked the rifles up against our classroom walls. Many suburban men's hairdressers sold firearms as a sideline. Petrol stations and corner stores in rural areas sold ammunition. Firearms could be rented or purchased without any registration or gun license, through second hand goods publications like "Trading Post." I myself walked into a gun store and purchased my first rifle at aged 16.

So Lisa, what fascinated me, was since I knew it was not the mere availability of guns which was the problem, then what was it?

This began my near obsession with finding out. I imported several books from the USA which examined how the media was leading children astray. I already had an appreciation of that because in High School, I read the excellent books on applied Psychology by Vance Packard. His book "The Hidden Persuaders" is a classic and it's conclusions are timeless. I also began collating other books and pamphlets from any other source that examined the question of whether the media can, and does, affect people's behaviour. The answer is a resounding YES!!!!

But even today, on other debate sites I contribute on, I find that most people simply refuse to believe it. One reason is, they have been conditioned by the media to think that way. My aim is to try to deprogram those who are unable to fathom just how much influence the media has over their unconscious thoughts, opinions, and actions.

The reason why kids today are killing kids, is because our culture has changed, and the media is the inventor and the propagator of this new culture.

Culture is different in every society. Culture does not cause behaviour. Culture is a guide that teaches the individuals of each society how they should behave in different social situations. Throughout the ages, storytellers, folk tales, shamans, religious leaders, ceremonies, and wise old people, nurtured the culture of their people, and passed on to the young, the skills that the younger generation would need to propagate the continued existence of their society. This culture may have represented thousands of years of accumulated wisdom that had slowly evolved over time. The people who were the custodians of this culture, did not consider themselves mere entertainers, but if they were entertaining in passing on their vital knowledge, so much the better.

But we are living in a time of rapid technological and social change, and the values, attitudes, and social norms, which have defined the culture of Western society, is being radically redefined. It is being redefined by intellectual elitists, who are only concerned with their own internationalist social theories, and their own financial self interest. It is also being redefined by powerful multimedia institutions who are only concerned with their quarterly balance sheets.

Today's mass media, can no longer be considered as just a means of entertainment, or a medium for simply transmitting information. It is now so influential in modern society that it is displacing the traditional institutions which have long disseminated the traditional cultural conditioning that has always guided people's behaviour.

The notion that art, literature and filmatic creativity should not suffer the from heavy handed censorship is a noble one. By giving creative people the freedom to explore social issues, our society can evolve by critically examining it's long accepted values, as changing times alters the basic premises upon which current values and attitudes are built. But this worthy idea has been perverted by cynical capitalists, who market a youth culture that does not make the slightest pretense to artistic merit. It is merely a tool where young people have their culture dictated to them, by an industry that is only concerned with it's own self aggrandisement. Adolescents and young teenagers are encouraged to defy parental authority by highly paid media executives. Well heeled artists, their polished promoters, and marketing managers, are no longer pushing the boundaries of accepted taste, they have moved way beyond that boundary. They are now busily digging away at the foundations of family values, upon which the whole of our western society is built

In feudal societies, foppish aristocrats maintained a stranglehold upon the wealth, and abrogated their responsibilities to share this wealth with all the people in their communities. Like the aristocrats of yesterday, the entertainment media of today has too many wealthy media barons, too many self cantered vulgarians, and too many drug addled fools, who claim to own the culture of their own people. This culture they claim, is entirely their own property, a plaything which they, and only they, can interpret. Not surprisingly, their interpretations seem to be solely for their own benefit. With all the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, they emphatically proclaim, that the people to whom this culture rightly belongs, have no right to define it's composition. In making this assertion, they are usurping the authority of the Government, church, parents, and community leaders, to define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour to our youngest generation.

Sorry if my grammar (and especially my punctuation) is not up to scratch. I got a C in year 10 for English Comprehension when I left school. Us electricians are not renowned for our literary skills.

[J o h n S m i t h]

The central question which nobody in the media would ask, was why was it that this sort of behaviour had never happened previously, when firearm laws were almost non existent?

It's a question the media didn't ask because they aren't so stupid so as to claim that gun massacres never happened before TV.

[Bobby]

Bogan,

Half the people turn up at my concerts, just to see if I will drop dead on the stage.
Steven Tyler of Aerosmith, did just that, when he overdosed on stage and was pronounced dead where he lay.

Bullshit - he's alive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Tyler

[UnSubRocky]

Bogan,

This topic was done to death many years ago. It was concluded that the media industry actually reduces the likelihood that criminal activity occur.

Reasons:
1. People are distracted by their entertainment from going around creating their own entertainment. That includes illegal activity.
2. People are reminded by depictions in the media that there are dangers in society. That prepares people psychologically to avoid or counter effect the problems in real life.

The number of movies I have seen in the last 25 years of brutal violence and drug use has actually encouraged me to do what I can to discourage people from getting into crime and drugs. Why anyone would want to go from being a law-abiding citizen to a drug user after being exposed to one or more entertainment mediums is beyond anyone's understanding. Perhaps you can explain your mindless attempts to deflect away from gun control laws, Bogan.

[Bogan]

Unsubrocky wrote

Bogan, This topic was done to death many years ago

If you don't like the topic, it's a free country, (despite Section 18C) take a hike. I think Lisa likes it? All I need is one intelligent pupil.

Unsubrocky wrote

It was concluded that the media industry actually reduces the likelihood that criminal activity occur.

Concluded by who? The fake news press ? The same ones who hobnob with the stars in nightclubs, gala nights, and acting award presentations? They are all part of the same celebrity caste, Mr Rocky, and they all scratch each others backs. They all have the same idea that they are the smart ones, different from the peasants, and that they should all look out for each other. Class loyalty, you know? The funny thing is, unlike you, they really do know that the entertainment industry is creating never before seen before instances of serious criminal behaviour within their own societies. But they don't care. They will never care until some young gunman walks into a school of their own kids in Bel-Air or Hollywood High and starts gunning down their own kids.

Just like the tobacco companies, the entertainment industries and their celebrity class peers, will deny to the death that the entertainment industry can not affect people's behaviour and cause problems in their own societies. Just like the Tobacco Industries before them, who also claimed that their own product did not have any ill effects. They deny it because they are making fantastic amounts of money out of it. The entertainment elitists and their friends are not going to let the rivers of gold stop flowing just because they know that it is harming their own society, any more than Big Tobacco did. They all live in mansions and gated communities away from the hoi polloi anyway. But they must love you ma-a-a-a-te?
If you stop and listen very hard, you can hear them laughing their heads off at your statements.

Unsubrocky wrote

Reasons:
1. People are distracted by their entertainment from going around creating their own entertainment. That includes illegal activity.
2. People are reminded by depictions in the media that there are dangers in society. That prepares people psychologically to avoid or counter effect the problems in real life.

Sorry ma-a-a--ate. I find those explanation vacuous and simplistic. You can not justify that logic with any reasoned argument. They are just stand alone declarations that some people may be silly enough to believe? But they are hardly convincing. Try writing 350 words proving your two premises and I will write 1000 proving mine. From the examples I gave above in my first post, it is screamingly obvious that people's behaviour is affected by the media. If you think that it isn't, then that idea is vehemently opposed by the advertising industry, who say the exact opposite. If you think that the media has no effect on human behaviour, then answer me just two crucial question. Do you support the advertising industry putting advertisements for alcohol and tobacco on children's TV. and in children's comics and magazines? If not, how do you reconcile your contradictory positions?

Unsubrocky wrote

The number of movies I have seen in the last 25 years of brutal violence and drug use has actually encouraged me to do what I can to discourage people from getting into crime and drugs. Why anyone would want to go from being a law-abiding citizen to a drug user after being exposed to one or more entertainment mediums is beyond anyone's understanding. Perhaps you can explain your mindless attempts to deflect away from gun control laws, Bogan.

Movies can entertain us because we live within very complex societies where laws exist for almost everything we do. There are law libraries for every state and federal government, and laws governing the running of government departments themselves. There are boating laws, fishing laws, gun laws, car registration laws, motor vehicle laws, pet laws, food processing laws, tax laws, the list goes on and on. In a society where almost our every move is regulated, there exists a sneaking fascination for the actions of movie star heroes and especially criminals who simply ignore every law there is. 'Even "good guy" heroes are always depicted as misfits who usually ignore authority and do whatever is necessary to get there way.

This is no accident. Violent movies in particular are engineered by clever people to appeal to low IQ, low status young males who may harbour deep resentments they are powerless to act upon. The violent entertainment industry knows it's customers. These are the vary same ones who are prone to engaging in revenge massacre behaviour. Constantly reinforcing the idea among dumb young men that Real Men are violent men, who get even with there enemies like their on screen heroes and mow them down, and who's actions attract the romantic attentions of the most beautiful young women, is most definitely not what an enlightened society should be putting in their stupid heads.

What you see, Mr Rocky, as a mature adult as entertainment, which makes you laugh because it turns the usual rules of society on their head, a young and stupid man can see as a script for displaying to the world that he is a Real Man, and not to be messed with.