Jack in the Box targeting stoners...again

[PtldPlatypus]

I guess there have been several "munchie meal" commercials targeting stoners, but I've just caught the most recent one.

[video=youtube;Qiva0agp2B0]

Sure, the tide is turning in favor of legalization, but this still strikes me funny. Are there any other companies or products that are specifically targeted toward people because of their choice to engage in (presently) illegal activity? Should there be any regulation of such marketing?

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

Kind of off topic but is that baby food on that burger?

 

[jlprk]

The life-destroying, overfunded legal system of haters should also control the entertainment media?

I have never made such a link. Blows my mind. Why, that would be totalitarian.

Must be conspiracy thinking if it's beyond my own capabilities.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The life-destroying, overfunded legal system of haters should also control the entertainment media?

Don't think that's quite what I was saying.

Television commercials are already regulated. TV commercials for cigarettes no longer exist. Consumption of alcoholic beverages cannot be depicted in commercials. What I'm asking is certainly not outside of that realm.

Also it should be noted that I'm not even saying that it should be impermissible to obviously target stoners; I'm just asking the question. I wish I could come up with a truly analogous corollary. What if a shoe company commercial showed a purse snatcher getting away because he was wearing the right sneakers? Or cosmetics showing a minor making herself look old enough to buy booze without getting carded? Would anyone have any problems with those? Clearly those are different because they show the product aiding the criminal activity rather than just being favored by those engaging.

 

[PDXFonz]

2 things

I don't eat jack n the box but that is probably pretty good if you are into that stuff when you have the munchies.

I've never met anyone who acts like that when they are stoned...

 

[MARIS61]

I see no drug use reference at all.

It appears to be making fun of philosophy majors, IMO.

 

[MickZagger]

I don't think they're necessarily targeting stoners. They just like to make really stupid cheesey commercials.

[video=youtube;K8CTBk-lx9k]

 

[Minstrel]

I think that's the key. They never reference pot or stoners...they simply use goofy stereotypes which people can disagree over whether they signify pot consumption or not. How do you regulate that?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think that's the key. They never reference pot or stoners...they simply use goofy stereotypes which people can disagree over whether they signify pot consumption or not. How do you regulate that?

Not sure, sounds tough to prove. But I think it was proved that tobacco companies were targeting kids and got heavily sanctioned for it. Some controversy about Joe Camel . . .

 

[jlprk]

Next time Sly calls something a conspiracy theory, I'll bring up Joe Camel. What a ridiculous stretch the government made.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I don't think they're necessarily targeting stoners. They just like to make really stupid cheesey commercials.

Sure dude. You have to be intentionally obtuse to think that these commercials aren't supposed to be depicting stoners.

[video=youtube;y-zAdijbyiE]

[video=youtube;NYwZfWcokyI]

Of course, it's not like this is anything new--they did the same thing with their 2 tacos for 99 cents promo several years ago.

[video=youtube;7lsvFX1AWTc]

[video=youtube;r5rlbOqQq7w]

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think that's the key. They never reference pot or stoners...they simply use goofy stereotypes which people can disagree over whether they signify pot consumption or not. How do you regulate that?

If they were to make a rule saying it's not OK, the FCC could then simply unilaterally decide whether a commercial meets a certain standard. It's kind of the way they work.

But nobody here apparently wants to actually address the question of whether or not the government should regulate commercials that appear to target illegal activity, so I guess it matters not.

 

[jlprk]

The issue you really want to argue is whether the economic system should have zero power to compete with the political system when the economic system senses that the government has been in ruthless error for decades, and profit is available from the vast majority of Americans who know this.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The issue you really want to argue is ...

I'm so thankful that you're here to tell me what I really want. I'll let my wife know that she can take a vacation.

 

[barfo]

Targeting stoners isn't illegal. Being stoned isn't necessarily illegal either. Lots of medical marijuana users, completely legal. For that matter, TV stations in OR reach homes in SW WA, where it is legal to be stoned. I wonder if Jack in the Box is expanding in WA and CO?

barfo

 

[jlprk]

I'm so thankful that you're here to tell me what I really want. I'll let my wife know that she can take a vacation.

Have her work on your totalitarian impulses. I often argue for government against board Libertarians, who want government subsidiary to Big Business. In this case, I'm arguing that the economic system should not be held hostage by the ruthless, wrong, government.

As for you, you haven't differentiated a big picture scenario yet to argue for. Instead of distinguishing the separate forces at play, you just see all the colors merged. You need to try acid. The first trip is the greatest experience of your life.

 

[Further]

I agree it's depicting stoners, but they are comical and who they target might not be stoners, but just youth who like funny commercials.

But even if they do target stoners, it doesn't show them doing the drugs and unlike the joe camel referenced earlier, targeting stoners to eat is very different than targeting children to do an addictive cancer causing illegal action (smoking under age).

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Have her work on your totalitarian impulses. I often argue for government against board Libertarians, who want government subsidiary to Big Business. In this case, I'm arguing that the economic system should not be held hostage by the ruthless, wrong, government.

As for you, you haven't differentiated a big picture scenario yet to argue for. Instead of distinguishing the separate forces at play, you just see all the colors merged. You need to try acid. The first trip is the greatest experience of your life.

The thing is, I'm not advocating anything. You seem to want to argue against a position you presume I hold, when I haven't actually taken a stance of any kind.

You assume too much.

 

[jlprk]

Actually, I'm already burrowing deep inside your mind.

Nice! Lots of empty room in here.

 

[riverman]

I blame North Korea for all of this. They are calling Jack in the Box a terrorist organization that is threatening their sovereign right to live on bugs and stale water. Seth Rogan is rumored to be producing these adds

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I agree it's depicting stoners, but they are comical and who they target might not be stoners, but just youth who like funny commercials.

But even if they do target stoners, it doesn't show them doing the drugs and unlike the joe camel referenced earlier, targeting stoners to eat is very different than targeting children to do an addictive cancer causing illegal action (smoking under age).

SAN DIEGO (AP) - A woman who suffered kidney failure after eating a bad Jack in the Box hamburger reached a $7.5 million settlement with the chain's parent company.
Angela Noble, 19, of Idaho, underwent a kidney transplant to save her life after eating a hamburger contaminated by the E. coli bacteria nearly four years ago.


Targeting kids to eat Jack in Box is targeting kids to do an addictive cancer causing action.

 

[Further]

SAN DIEGO (AP) - A woman who suffered kidney failure after eating a bad Jack in the Box hamburger reached a $7.5 million settlement with the chain's parent company.
Angela Noble, 19, of Idaho, underwent a kidney transplant to save her life after eating a hamburger contaminated by the E. coli bacteria nearly four years ago.


Targeting kids to eat Jack in Box is targeting kids to do an addictive cancer causing action.

OK, you convinced me, my argument is totally flawed.

On a side note, kids shouldn't catch butterflies cause they could trip and twist an ankle.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

OK, you convinced me, my argument is totally flawed.

On a side note, kids shouldn't catch butterflies cause they could trip and twist an ankle.

It was a joke

 

[Further]

It was a joke

I know, my first line was written "OK, you convinced me, my argument is totally flawed." and if I had left it as that, it would have played with the joke, but then i just added my second line and ruined it. I'll rep your joke, talk to denny about getting a few of my reps taken away.

EDIT, I must spread some rep around. I like too much of what you have to say.

 

[Run BJM]

Sure, the tide is turning in favor of legalization, but this still strikes me funny. Are there any other companies or products that are specifically targeted toward people because of their choice to engage in (presently) illegal activity? Should there be any regulation of such marketing?

I've always been fascinated by Swisher Sweets. Seems blatantly obvious whenever I buy them or see someone else buying them that they're obviously using them for weed. I'm sure they began as your run of the mill cigar company but most of their business these days must come from weed smokers.