That's genius if you're preaching to the choir, PETA. I'm sure every vegetarian who already does all they can for animals will have a good chuckle.

In the meantime all normal humans with kids who come to this website with an open heart and mind will understandably take offense to being called "drug pushers" and will never come back again.

Then you've lost an opportunity to inspire someone to become a vegetarian.

Posted by: Maya | May 8, 2007 05:19 PM

Okay, I hate people who whine and complain and never offer alternative solutions. So I'm sorry I did that. Here is what I think:

*Maybe PETA can ask people to write in and ask, "What inspired you to become a vegetarian?" I'll start: Howard Jones - lol it was a long time ago but his message was all positive - I stopped eating meat only because of him.

* And perhaps a photo contest? Ask your vegetarian PETA supporters to cook a vegetarian meal for someone, anyone, even a simple fruit salad or something, and take pictures and send them into PETA. Extra points if you make a vegetarian meal for a non-vegetarian.

Posted by: Maya | May 8, 2007 05:35 PM

That's hilarious (and yet true)! Adults are so focused on teaching the country's youth not to smoke and not to abuse substances, yet they feed animal-derived (crap) foods to their children. I do agree somewhat with Maya; people will be offended by this ad, as people are often offended by the truth.

Posted by: Cuckoo4tofu | May 8, 2007 06:37 PM

I agree with Maya.

Posted by: Canaduck | May 8, 2007 07:00 PM

Maya: Why do you think they pulled it?

Posted by: Quwen | May 9, 2007 12:49 AM

I think it's pretty funny! Plus PETA says alot of offensive things when it comes to their vegetarian ads so I think this one is the least of their worries.

Posted by: Ariel | May 9, 2007 01:11 AM

Great idea. One problem is that, and I know the Centre for Consumer Freedom love exploiting this is that you fail to mention WHY people are doing this to animals. Many people will believe you are trying to make "ma and pa" farmers look evil. The campaign needs to specify that this is NOT done by local farmers, but by large agriculture companies, it is done to save money and that your proverbial 'beef' is with the large agriculture companies, not the local farmers.

Posted by: AnimalLib | May 9, 2007 02:41 AM

That is one of PETA's greatest efforts to associate meat with drugs. Of course, they should have placed a warning label: "This Article Does Not Relate to DRUGS". But heck, Parents STILL don't get the message to going vegetarian.

Great Campaign anyway!

Posted by: RabidLeroy | May 9, 2007 04:24 AM

hilarious!

Posted by: jdawg | May 9, 2007 08:56 AM

While I think it's clever & funny, I must say that it'd be better off without the "drug pushers" line ... as stated above, it's insulting to possible "converts" and gives our opponents more reason to say "LOOK! Peta IS crazy and DOES hate everyone who doesn't go vegan!" I certainly don't want that!

Posted by: Rochelle | May 9, 2007 09:25 AM

Thanks for backing me up, guys, in your comments. (Canaduck, I've seen your comments before, always enjoy reading them...)

Quwen, good question. I've never known PETA to be "shy" about anything! So I'm not sure.

When I was in college and working at my first animal shelter, I got mail from a rather obscure animal rights group. I was excited to see what they had to say and to support them.

Well, I opened the envelope and the first thing I saw was a huge photo of an elephant that had had its entire face chopped off with a machete. It gave me nightmares for years. I'm not kidding. The message inside basically told me that I was a sadistic jerk if I didn't send them money to help save the elephants.

I was so angry that I told everyone on campus about the letter and that group went on the blacklist of many college students.

If you want ideas for campaigns, maybe you should visit the websites of highly successful organizations and notice that they usually have proactive, positive messages that will make people feel like opening their wallets instead of giving them nightmares.

Posted by: Maya | May 9, 2007 11:54 AM

Maya, I agree that organizations should always initially put forth positive campaigning efforts that "don't give people nightmares." However, for those who don't want to know, those who try to turn away, the people who dispose animal rights literature without even reading it or taking it seriously are the ones who would do well by having some nightmares. Their patterns of ignorance and tendencies to believe that life is just a big Disney animated fairy tale need to be broken by the nightmarish awakening that millions of animals are forced to endure every day. There are various types of people out there, and so various campaigning tactics are necessary to address animal rights issues in an effective way.

Posted by: Cuckoo4tofu | May 9, 2007 12:27 PM

i like it. it's think it's cute and clever.

Posted by: Colleen | May 9, 2007 01:54 PM

Cuckoo4tofu, (great name) I'm glad we're having a discussion about this.

I have to say, it's not really true. Most people do not live in Disenyland. Look around you. Katrina, school shootings, wars, Bush, suffering. Leukemia, skin cancer and lung cancer are skyrocketing. Most people ARE NOT living in Disenyland. Most people have at least one tragedy in their lives on a regular basis.

It's very easy and convenient to think of people who make animals suffer as some kind of over-privelleged, protected snobs. But you and I both know that most people are not like that.

The reason so many animals are suffering is because there are so many other problems in the world and people feel overwhelmed. The attitude of "I'm going to cure those people of their ignorance" is dangerous and counter-productive.

Think of your own life. Think of a charity that you don't have time for, like a charity to buy instruments for the musicians who lost everything to hurricaine Katrina.

Now, you care, but you don't have instruments to give. Imagine they write you a nasty letter and make you feel terrible for not donating. Isn't that obnoxious, to make you feel guilty just because you don't happen to have a guitar to donate?

Wouldn't it be better for the charity to send you photos of Louisiana musicians playing music together on a sunny day on someone's porch? It sounds hoakey, but I bet you would then be inspired to give them money and read about the cause.

That's just hypothetical. Of course you may have given money to that very cause, but it was just an example.

I'm not trying to preach to you, just trying to suggest another scenario ;) Please visit me on my blog sometime. Peace.

Posted by: Maya | May 9, 2007 01:55 PM

I like the ad.

Maya, who is offering no alternatives? Peta is full of animal product alternatives. At a first glance, I don't think meat eaters want to read about tofu and veggie dogs. Get their attention with a good slogan. That's what the Vote No to Pot (roast) line does.

Posted by: Jaclyn | May 9, 2007 02:14 PM

hahaahahaha loves it!!!

its amazing. so funny and clever. very tongue in cheek. i say plaster that billboard in san francisco in the Haight District!!!!

Posted by: Lucas Solowey | May 9, 2007 02:49 PM

There are a lot of good and thoughtful comments today from everybody. Thanks for your compliment, Maya--I enjoy your posts as well, and your blog is really interesting.

Posted by: Canaduck | May 9, 2007 03:51 PM

Haha, I chuckled when I read the blog title! I think it is clever and funny.

I do think SAY fits better in place of VOTE though.

While I don't see anything offensive with the actual slogan.. I do see how "Parents who feed meat to their children are drug pushers to their own kids" could offend. While vegetarians would obviously know this is referring to the antibiotics given to the animals.. I VERY HIGHLY DOUBT a non-vegetarian will get this and/or not get offended.. (esp. coming from PETA.)

Just that one sentence.. but good slogan!

Posted by: K | May 9, 2007 09:28 PM

Maya:

Let me rephrase my earlier statement: people tend to pretend they live in Disneyland when it comes to certain situations that are more in their control, where they are playing a part in doing harm. I am not talking about school shootings or a death in the family, but rather circumstances where people have the ability to make alternative choices to the choices they are already making (for instance, where they can choose to buy vegan products over animal derived/exploited products, can choose to buy conflict-free diamonds over blood diamonds, fair trade/union made clothing over sweatshop made clothing, etc.). People generally try to ignore what happens behind closed doors in big businesses so that they don’t feel guilty about the purchases they make. In this case, it is justified to show them evidence of what happens behind the closed doors of industries that exploit animals and humans, and, yes -- it will often be graphic and unsettling. You mentioned charities, and even charities use graphic images and videos to spread awareness of their cause, and to get donations. I am in no way supporting or referring to the “you’ll burn in hell if you don’t donate” type campaigns, but campaigns showing the facts. More people will donate to food drives for third-world countries if they see the starving people for themselves, and more people will convert to vegetarianism if they see proof of the abuse that goes on in livestock farming. However, this is not to say that campaigns should limit themselves to negativity; they should also show the positive result of gaining people’s support. As I have said before, there are different people out there and different campaigning tactics should be used. Also, campaigns shouldn’t be so harsh that they turn people away, but then they shouldn’t be so sensitive to the public that they are not taken seriously. There should be a balance of negative and positive, and showing people the bad -- and then the good that comes from their support -- is the best way a campaign can have success.

Posted by: Cuckoo4tofu | May 10, 2007 12:29 AM

Well said, Cuckoo4tofu, I feel the same frustration when people have the means to simply choose a humane product and don't. I'm going back to school for conservation biology so I deal with that frustration every day. But I think progress is possible.

I believe that whether or not negative campaigning works is a simple matter of scientific proof. Here in Massachusetts Deval Patrick was told that, quite simply, attack ads work. He still refused to do them. He won. He is now the first black governor in the state of Massachusetts.

I do have to say that most people don't need proof forced on them. You'd have to be brain dead and living in a cave to not know that factory farming is cruel and bad for your health.

If you don't believe me, visit the food blogs (like Michael Ruhlman's) they discuss this stuff every day.

People know about circuses, dog abuse etc. Now they need to hear about alternatives that are accessable, enjoyable and fit into their schedule. Shoving nasty images in their face will give them the perfect excuse to remain in denial. Fun and creative images will get their attention.

I agree with you completely that charities do need to show real images of suffering somewhere in the literature so people can be well informed. That's really important. I just think that putting it on the front page is a mistake. :) Peace!

Posted by: Maya | May 10, 2007 12:13 PM