The television ads from the Office of National Drug Control Policy anger me.

It's not that I'm pro-drug, it's the fact that they use fallacious, manipulative, hypocritical arguments to make their point.

For example, the first Nick and Norm ad: Believe the assertion that drug money funds terrorism because it's true. That's an argument? "Because it's true"? How about some documentation? Some facts? Something other than "because we say so"?

The second Nick and Norm wasn't much better. (It seems to me the current administration doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of funding terrorists, given its gift of $43 million to the Taliban, which gave aid and support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.)

The "pot can get you pregnant" ad during the Superbowl was simply ludicrous, but the hypocrisy of the "War on Drugs" is beautifully exemplified by the "Four Cigarettes" ad (Link to QuickTime movie).

According to this latter commercial, one joint contains as much tar as four cigarettes; so if that's a bad thing, why not stamp out tobacco use while we're at it?

Let's take a look at the government's own statistics. 14,000 drug-related deaths (all drugs, not just marijuana). 81,000 alcohol-related deaths. 430,000 tobacco-related deaths. Judging by the number of annual deaths, tobacco is over 30 times more deadly than all "drugs" combined (including things like crack and heroin). Alcohol (which, let's face it, is a drug) is over 5 times more deadly.

Yet the government is warring on marijuana, and leaving these demonstrably deadlier vices alone. Apart from the obvious fact that the government profits every time someone buys a bottle of alcohol or a pack of cigarettes, and they don't get any tax money when a stoner buys a nickel bag, what's the logic behind this?

Apparently there isn't any, which is why they have to resort to fallacious reasoning in their ads.