PDA

View Full Version : Explore Space Not Drugs



maryellenandtom
2002-Dec-16, 09:36 PM
The NASA website includes a prominent antidrug message, called Explore Space Not Drugs (http://www.explorespacenotdrugs.com). It can be found from the NASA home page (http://www.nasa.gov) by following the links NASA for Kids (http://www.nasa.gov/kids.html) or Educational Resources (http://education.nasa.gov).

This doesn't seem particularly odd. Antidrug messages show up in all sorts of places. (They're springing up like weed!) What surprised me was that NASA is required by law to include the antidrug message. This was a provision of the 2000 NASA authorization (PL 106-391). Sorry, that was a typo, it should be "weeds".

Also interesting is that all Federal agencies were required to include antidrug messages on their websites, by the Children's Health Act of 2000 (PL 106-310). Despite this, the two government websites that I use most often - the Food and Drug Administration (http://www.fda.gov) and the Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov) - have no such messages.

So it appears that NASA is doubly blessed. They have a specific obligation not imposed on any other individual agency, and the general Federal obligation is apparently not enforced. There must be some political history behind this. Does anyone have any insight? If not, does anyone have a good conspiracy theory? What could NASA be doing pertinent to its mission with the resources used on the antidrug message?

The laws cited above are codified at 21 USC 801. Public Laws and the US Code are available online through the Government Printing Office (http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/index.html), which also does not have an antidrug message.

- Tom

Donnie B.
2002-Dec-16, 11:29 PM
Wow, that NASA antidrug message changed my life! I was thinking about taking drugs, but then I saw their banner and decided to explore space instead.

But then I found out that it takes years and years of studying math and physics to become an astronomer.

And to be an astronaut you have to be in great health, have perfect eyesight, and be lucky enough to get selected from scads of applicants.

Then I thought, well, I'll just explore space on my own. I went out and shopped for telescopes at the store... man! They're not giving those things away!

So I dropped acid.

Thanks, NASA!

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Russ
2002-Dec-17, 12:00 AM
I think this obligation is punishment that stems from the several failures NASA had on projects associated with Mars. Somebody figured out that in order for a project to run for five years with one team to be working in metric units and the other in ancient Outer Mongolian, and nobody noticed(!) they all had to be on drugs.

Having been cought with their noses in the "candy bag" so to speak, they had to agree to some pretty sophisticated punishments. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

How's that for a conspiricy theory??
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

Argos
2002-Dec-17, 11:04 AM
To prevent the use of drugs is not the role of NASA. The use of drugs is a private issue.

I get very annoyed (and worried) by the attempts of governments to get deeper and deeper inside our private affairs, nowadays.

I'm warning: if you were to compile all the efforts currently being done by governments agencies to control our lives (censoring Internet, pressing upon drugs and tobacco users, intercepting communications, forbidding branches of scientific research)you'd get to the conclusion that we're about to enter a gloomy totalitarian era. I really don't like what I see looming on the horizon.

Tune in.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-12-17 06:07 ]</font>

kucharek
2002-Dec-17, 11:12 AM
IIRC, Gene Kranz wrote in his book that the things that kept Mission Control running were caffeine and nicotine... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Harald

kucharek
2002-Dec-17, 11:15 AM
Instead of using a rather cryptic statement by Buzz Aldrin, an open word about his alcohol problems would have looked more honest.

Harald

Russ
2002-Dec-17, 08:59 PM
I agree with Argos. Governments of the wold still haven't learned that you cannot legislate morality. It must come from the individual.

I know I stand on a very controversial platform on this point. IMHO all drugs should be made totally legal. Everything that has been captured to this point should be set out on tables at the post office, for anyone to pick up as they please.

Some things I've learned from the prohibition of the 20's & 30's here in the USA.

The number one benefit of this would be to take all of the money out of the drug business. Prohibition experience shows that would at least slow down people killing each other over the vast somes of money now in the system. Second, it'd get most of the people stupid enough to consume the stuff out of the gene pool and out of the prison sytem.

I know this is a hard and harsh stace to take but sometime tough love is what is required.

tracer
2002-Dec-17, 10:03 PM
You fools! Don't you see? Substances like marijuana, peyote, and psylocibin must be bad for you because they are illegal, while substances like alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are obviously good for you because they're perfectly legal! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Remember kids: Don't do drugs. Get drunk and smoke yourselves to death instead.

liglats
2002-Dec-18, 12:32 AM
Scotland has a couple of quangos set up to promote drug awareness and other health issues where. Government agencies, corporations and individuals can pledge support to these groups without having to go to the expense of setting up their own anti drug schemes.

Far be it from me to try to dictate policy to another government (at least until I am Ultimate Dark Overlord - he he he!) but it might be a better use of resources if NASA and other agencies offered their support to a central anti drugs body. At least this way the message that is delivered would come accross in a commmon format.

P.S - QUANGO = QUasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisation - for those who don't follow UK politics (but who does?!?!?)

Fruh-Batz
2002-Dec-18, 12:13 PM
NASA: Hey there, don't take drugs! Why don't you explore space instead?

(some guy on (insert name of funky stuff here)): Whoa, what you think we're doing?

(sorry, couldnt keep it)

kucharek
2002-Dec-18, 01:49 PM
On 2002-12-17 19:32, liglats wrote:
P.S - QUANGO = QUasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisation - for those who don't follow UK politics (but who does?!?!?)


Uh, I've to check my "Yes, Minister", but IIRC, the books opinion about QUANGOs isn't that good... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kucharek on 2002-12-18 08:51 ]</font>

tracer
2002-Dec-19, 02:32 AM
On 2002-12-18 07:13, Fruh-Batz wrote:
NASA: Hey there, don't take drugs! Why don't you explore space instead?
ME: Because it still costs about $10,000 per pound to send me into low Earth orbit, and no one but astronauts and a few super-rich tourists ever get to go there anyway! Duh!

browndwarf
2003-Aug-07, 02:50 PM
I heard something about Carl Sagan advocating the use of cannabis...

Kaptain K
2003-Aug-07, 06:31 PM
. . . (They're springing up like weed!) What surprised me was that NASA is required by law to include the antidrug message. This was a provision of the 2000 NASA authorization (PL 106-391). Sorry, that was a typo, it should be "weeds". . .

That's not a typo, That's a Freudian slip. :wink:

tracer
2003-Aug-08, 03:46 AM
all Federal agencies were required to include antidrug messages on their websites, by the Children's Health Act of 2000 (PL 106-310). Despite this, the two government websites that I use most often - the Food and Drug Administration (http://www.fda.gov) and the Patent and Trademark Office (http://www.uspto.gov) - have no such messages.
Well, it'd be kind of weird if the Food and Drug Administration had an anti-drug message...

AK
2003-Aug-08, 10:48 AM
I heard something about Carl Sagan advocating the use of cannabis...

Yes. I was just reading a book that quoted him directly... but unfortunately, I left it on the coffee table of our cabin in California on my vacation last week. :/

The gist of this particular Sagan quote was that when you get high and write an idea down, the fact that it seems absurd in the cold grey light of dawn is a failure of perception. In other words, he thinks any and all stoned nonsense is profundity itself. I'm no enemy of marijuana, but I do think that's a bit silly. I, for one, don't do my best thinking in such a state.. .

Argos
2003-Aug-08, 01:25 PM
I used it in youth (saying it better, when I was younger. :)), and I should say that it really gave me important insights on some things. Some ideas I had under its influence even made me earn money. There are drawbacks. The most noticeable (and harmful) of them is the lazyness that takes on the user (ok, I donīt thing your lungs appreciate it that much). That could ruin carreers. But I never had major problems with it.

And I think the debate on Cannabis is severely affected by non-scientific premises, authority arguments, prejudices, etc. It is the poorest debate (on an important issue) currently taking place on the planet Earth.

Gremalkyn
2003-Aug-08, 01:29 PM
Are you familiar with the anti-hemp from early 1900's? I forget the specs, but the oil companies had a problem with people using hemp. I will look for it, but it is almost time to go home.

Mary Jane got all tied up in the hemp (haha) "problem" due to variations in the plant.

tracer
2003-Aug-08, 03:42 PM
Just don't go saying that hemp would solve all our problems (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_131.html), is all.

mike alexander
2003-Aug-08, 11:53 PM
ME: Because it still costs about $10,000 per pound to send me into low Earth orbit, and no one but astronauts and a few super-rich tourists ever get to go there anyway! Duh!

Wait a minute... at $10000/lb, why not send GRASS into orbit? You could still make a profit if....

All right, all right. But the message thing is just too stupid, anyway.

"Kids, when I'm flying the Shuttle I don't need a messed-up head! And YOU don't need one either! Stay sober when you pilot your spacecraft!"

wedgebert
2003-Aug-09, 03:46 AM
I don't know about NASA, but I think Microsoft is one company that needs some sort of anti-drug campaign.

Get on Xbox Live for a few minutes and you're likely to see dozens of people named after drugs and once you get in a game (and thus have voice communication) most people spend their time talking about getting high than talking about the game.

I weep for the future sometimes...

ToSeek
2003-Aug-09, 01:37 PM
I think Wolf should do a "This is your brain on Planet X" image.

Colt
2003-Aug-09, 01:46 PM
I weep for the future sometimes...


Don't worry, there are a few young people who will carry on. :D -Colt

Kaptain K
2003-Aug-09, 07:15 PM
The younger generation has been "going to the dogs" at least since the time of Socrates! :roll: Don't forget that the same people that are now bemoaning the degeneration of the current youth are the "flower children" that were decried by the previous generation! :roll: And, they were the bane of their parents. :wink: And so it goes. 8)

Colt
2003-Aug-09, 11:42 PM
Yeah, at least I'm not a hippie. :P -Colt

Kaptain K
2003-Aug-10, 03:32 AM
I am - and [darn] proud too! \:D/

Argos
2003-Aug-11, 02:11 PM
Yeah, at least I'm not a hippie. :P -Colt

Hey, hippies are cool!

KK turned the issue very clear in its post about the conflict between generations. I make his words mine.

David Hall
2003-Aug-23, 08:27 PM
I've moved away from many of my former Libertarian views, but one of their ideas I have kept is their hands-off view on drug use. At the very least, I think if all the money now spent on prohibition were instead spent on quality education and rehabilitation, many of our current problems would all but disappear.

I highly recommend reading Peter McWilliams' Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm). His section on drugs (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/303a.htm) is especially interesting reading.

Lunnalkann
2003-Aug-23, 08:42 PM
To prevent the use of drugs is not the role of NASA. The use of drugs is a private issue.

I get very annoyed (and worried) by the attempts of governments to get deeper and deeper inside our private affairs, nowadays.

I'm warning: if you were to compile all the efforts currently being done by governments agencies to control our lives (censoring Internet, pressing upon drugs and tobacco users, intercepting communications, forbidding branches of scientific research)you'd get to the conclusion that we're about to enter a gloomy totalitarian era. I really don't like what I see looming on the horizon.
&lt;font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Argos on 2002-12-17 06:07 ]&lt;/font>

The problem with Tobacco/alcohol is that it costs taxpayers money. The smoker needs to go to the hospital, and probably cannot pay it, thusly putting the load back on the government and thusly on the taxpayer. That's why I support the efforts against alcohol/tobacco, to at least for them to pay for the health of the smokers/drinkers instead of the taxpayer. Or to the potential users so they won't cost so much later on.

sarongsong
2003-Aug-24, 07:28 PM
What could NASA be doing pertinent to its mission with the resources used on the antidrug message?
Aerial surveillance, maybe? Drug experiments/testing in space?
I can just see the recruitment ads now...

Ripper
2003-Aug-24, 08:48 PM
The thing is, it should not cost the taxpayer money. If you ever try to get health insurance the first thing they ask you is if you smoke. If you do, you pay a lot more. Somewhare some socialist managed to convince enough people that health care was the goverment's responsibility, and therefore the government has authority over it. Of course the taxes on tobaco and alcohol are sky high. So much so that in California, part of the revenue shortfall is due the the reduction in the number of smokers in recent years. As far as I am concerned, if you want to smoke, smoke. I am just not going to hang out with you. Oh, and pay your own damn medical bills. I have a kid to feed.

mike alexander
2003-Aug-25, 12:41 AM
Type II diabetes has a high correllation to being overweight. Too much salt can lead to hypertension. Lack of exercise can lead to cardiovascular problems. Lack of money can lead to no medical care. Genetic predisposition can lead to a slew of conditions too horrible to mention. And old age leads to reduced strength, increasing infirmity, arthritis, a statistically high and increasing likelihood of cancer, stroke and myocardial infarction. And death, eventually. Why should I pay for any of that? My mother was on dialysis for almost five years before she died, but she died anyway. NOBODY eats up the medical moola like those old codgers. What a freakin' waste of money. And here my kid's school district is short of dough. Although why we should pay for education is a mystery to me, since everyone who gets educated eventually grows up, gets old and dies. In fact, why should I pay for ANYTHING that does not give me a tangible, immediate personal benefit?


My own, somewhat irascible viewpoint is: that's part of civilization.

End of diatribe. My apologies.