Culture South Dakota’s governor defends ‘Meth. We’re on it’ campaign - South Dakota proudly claims it's on meth.

South Dakota’s governor defends ‘Meth. We’re on it’ campaign

ZPZgWH1F.jpg


7a30773c-18e1-41e3-ab29-5a512b921339-Meth._Were_On_It._Images_3.jpg
1515148b-2d9a-4751-b912-b612a4defb48-Meth._Were_On_It._Images_1.jpg


SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota sparked online guffaws Monday by rolling out an anti-drug campaign featuring people saying, “Meth, I’m on it,” and the governor said the backlash proves the effort to raise awareness is working.

The nearly $1.4 million campaign aimed at tackling the state’s methamphetamine epidemic includes $449,000 paid to the Minneapolis-based ad agency that created the tagline. A press release for the campaign said it uses “impactful, even shocking” images of South Dakotans to try to communicate that meth should be tackled by everyone.

The images featured the words, “Meth. I’m on it.” over photos of people in cowboy hats, in a coffee shop or on a football field.

“We didn’t want this to look like every other anti-drug campaign,” said Laurie Gill, the Secretary for the Department of Social Services, which oversaw the campaign.

Many on social media joked about the images making it appear the people in the photos are on meth.

One Twitter user posted, “It seems that if I’m on meth, I can live to a ripe old age, eat in restaurants, play football with my pals, and have a family. That sounds much better than the life I’m having now. Somebody get me some meth.”

Another Twitter user posted: “Surprising anti-meth campaign in South Dakota. With the theme ‘Meth. I’m on it,’ what could go wrong?”

Gov. Kristi Noem defended the campaign, posting, “Hey Twitter, the whole point of this ad campaign is to raise awareness. So I think that’s working ...”

Noem, appearing in a video for the campaign, said South Dakota’s meth problem is “growing at an alarming rate.” According to the state’s Department of Social Services, the number of 12- to 17-year-olds who reported using meth in the last year is double the national average. The state has also seen the number of people seeking treatment for meth addiction double from 2014 to 2018.

The ad campaign includes a website, billboards and TV ads that will run through May. Gill said the price paid to Broadhead Co. to produce the ads was justified considering that meth addiction is on the rise in South Dakota.

“This is a huge issue,” she said. “And we’re willing to do what we have to do to get people on it.”
 
Half a million dollars spent on advertising when that money could have gone to drug treatment. Wouldn't be surprised if the advertising people were friends with the Governor because that screams corruption.
Not disagreeing with your point about waste of funds, but drug treatment is also largely a waste as well. Your life is probably pretty shitty to use meth, even shittier to get caught (people are great at ignoring the obvious when it's easier), and doesn't stop being shit just because you're in treatment you may not want. Drugs cause permanent neurological changes, and it's very hard to save even those who want to get better. Most drug treatment is pretending we can fix broke brains like you can glue a broken plate back together. You can't; some things are just permanently destroyed.
 
I might unkindly suggest that the level of awareness amongst South Dakota's young folks of how to use meth and who to buy it from is in fact part of the problem. The awareness of meth amongst the target population is already very high.

@moocow an interesting starting point re the breast cancer "awareness industry" is found here https://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/resources/before-you-buy/ Beware the pinkwash
 
Since the Truth commercials were funded by cigarette companies I have a theory that the commercials were deliberately made to be obnoxious so as to work as counter-influence.
They have to pay for them, not directly make them.

The federal government is big tobacco. They make the majority of the money off it.

So you may be right that the "truth" ads might be deliberately ineffectual, but it's at the behest of the us gov, not tobacco companies.
 
They have to pay for them, not directly make them.

The federal government is big tobacco. They make the majority of the money off it.

So you may be right that the "truth" ads might be deliberately ineffectual, but it's at the behest of the us gov, not tobacco companies.
I mean any kind of faggy busy body morality play shit is gonna be really ineffective.

If these things were meant to be effective they would need to be honest about drugs and such.

The anti pot ones are especially hilariously bad.
 
WTF are you talking about

I presume @Tasty Tatty was talking about that infamous 2014 Burger King 'Gay Pride' Burger promo:

That Burger King ad started an annoying trend. Fast-forward a few years, and we're now getting stuff like this:
 
I might unkindly suggest that the level of awareness amongst South Dakota's young folks of how to use meth and who to buy it from is in fact part of the problem. The awareness of meth amongst the target population is already very high.

@moocow an interesting starting point re the breast cancer "awareness industry" is found here https://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/resources/before-you-buy/ Beware the pinkwash
God I hate pink washing, and how hard it is for me to not accidentally donate to it. My old company, which had a list of sexual harassments and OSHA violations a mile long was literally kept in business by their contracts with Susan G Komen foundation.

Fuck that whole organization in the ass with a rusty metal dildo.
 
On the other hand, the South Dakota tourism board must be absolutely fuming right now since their state looks like it's full of meth addicts
What's funny too is I think they're only less than one percent higher than the national average when it comes to meth users, so it's not like they're loaded with meth addicts. Their awareness program sure makes it sound like they're full of meth heads though.


 
But I already know about meth, I watched Breaking Bad.

So what if they did "start a conversation" about meth? The conversation is likely to be "haha SD made itself look like it's full of meth heads" more than anything productive.
 
If these things were meant to be effective they would need to be honest about drugs and such.

The anti pot ones are especially hilariously bad.

Pot is legitimately terrifying in its cognitive effects IMHO.

Heavy pot smokers irreversibly lose intelligence, this is incontrovertible.

Edit to add: if you rate me dumb, I've read the literature, have you? Not like it's hard to do a pubmed search of "cannabis" and "IQ".
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo