Hugs Not Drugs is about parents educating their children against drugs (http://www.hugsnotdrugs.com/index.php/history); please explain the resemblance you see.
“Hugs, Not Drugs”
and
“Hugs, Not Bullets”
Resemblance? Pretty obvious idiocy, isn’t it? Or am I just *cynical*, after all those feel-good/do-nothing/spend-a-billion-$/no-results worthless programs?
The “Drugs” idiocy sure didn’t work, and the “Bullets” stupidity probably won’t, either. Someone forgot to tell the addicted kids and the drug dealers about the “Drugs” ad campaign, and they’ll forget to tell the narco-terrorists about the “Bullets” idiocy campaign, too. $10 says we can count on it.
Maybe I’m just jaded with liberal, feel-good stuff like that. My bad, I guess, JSNTN.
It is stupid because it implies that parents have a choice between hugging their kids and giving them drugs. Not that many parents are inclined to give their kids drugs, and some of the best-loved kids end up on drugs. Kids really need discipline more than namby-pamby touchy-feely “be nice to them and they will do whatever you want.” That doesn’t work worth a damn.