Wasted |
Posted by CN Staff on May 17, 2002 at 20:07:01 PT By Collin Levey Source: Wall Street Journal Why Tax-Funded Antidrug Ads Don't Work--And Some Approaches That Might. There's new evidence out this week about the power of habit to create irrational behavior. On Monday, "drug czar" John Walters announced that according to a new study, some $929 million worth of taxpayer funded antidrug ad campaigns haven't discouraged drug use among children at all. Certain ads apparently achieved the opposite effect, making drug use seem sexier, especially to teenage girls. Then Mr. Walters announced plans to spend even more money on drug ads. True, he made a point of saying he would try to spend it in a different way. But all the money in the world won't make up for the failings of campaigns that treat kids like babies or puppets. Kids aren't buying it and probably never did, even in the halcyon 1950s or whenever the people who dreamed up these campaigns were last in touch with youthful realities. The study itself, conducted by a private research firm and the University of Pennsylvania, asked 12- to 18-year-olds to watch a series of ads and answer questions about whether they had seen the ads and whether they planned to use drugs in the next year. The good news: Some 70% of the kids responded that they did remember the ads. Bad news: Hardly any of them saw the ads as particularly persuasive. "These ads aren't having an impact on teenagers," remarked Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House drug policy office, which wasn't bashful about embracing a study touting the failure of a Clinton-era drug policy. "We've spent millions on these ads and we are not seeing a return on the investment." Here's the problem. Parents and policy makers, naturally, have a tough time putting themselves in the place of a modern teenager to know how that teenager might react to, say, a spot of the latest celebrity girl band, dolled up and telling kids not to smoke pot. Teenagers already know more about these people and their lifestyles than any parent or bureaucrat does. The formula presupposes a starry-eyed idealization of movie and music stars that has been absent since 1959, and it can backfire badly. Britney Spears, star of antismoking ads, was recently caught puffing on camera. That information is not exactly unavailable to Web-trolling kids. Ditto on who's in rehab and who's out--just scroll through TeenPeople.com sometime. One of the greatest challenges for the antidrug campaigners has been to avoid having their message co-opted in a tongue-in-cheek anthem by the very kids they hope to persuade not to use drugs. This is probably a battle government can never win. It shouldn't even try. The famous fried eggs of the "This is your brain on drugs" campaign, one of the best ads the genre ever produced, was nonetheless quickly reproduced as posters wallpapering the bedroom of every teenage stoner in the country. And the best way to know you've pulled into the parking lot of the campus druggie frat is the prevalence of bumper stickers sporting the slogan "D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids off Drugs." Both were campaigns done by nonprofit groups and at least had some staying power in the minds of kids and the society at large. You have to wrack your mind to recall any of the more recent federally sponsored ads, despite the nearly $1 billion tab. Recent campaigns--like "What's your anti-drug?"--come off as dumb and patronizing. Others, by trying to be cool, end up making drugs look cool. Consider a campaign aimed at fighting MDMA, or ecstasy (chemical variations of mescaline and amphetamine that have been synthesized for their "feel good" effects, according to the Partnership for a Drug Free America Web site). With the tagline "Ecstasy: Where's the Love?" it's stylishly shot and stylishly cast with lush young things dancing together in great clothes and having an apparently fabulous time. Then it flashes alternating pictures of a dancing girl and ambulances. It could almost be a trailer for hip new independent film. Guess what? Kids already know drugs are risky. Danger is part of the attraction. You couldn't have designed a more appealing image of drug use if you tried. For what it's worth, drug-war strategies have been getting worse, not better. Nancy Reagan made fighting the crack cocaine epidemic a priority of her time as first lady with "Just Say No." While that campaign too eventually became a punch line for the late-night comedy shows ( and spoofs like "Just Say On--Dyslexics Against Drugs" ), it was more successful than others because it didn't treat teenagers like idiots. It suggested that they were grown-up enough to make a decision themselves. That principle has gotten nowhere in recent years. Efforts to tag Joe Camel with the rise of teenage smoking profoundly missed the point. The translation of the celebrity model is that kids are clay in the hands of the marketing gods. But trends in the schoolyard have a life of their own--more often in reaction against marketing than the opposite. How else to explain the way inner-city kids latched onto Tommy Hilfiger right up until the moment he started trying to appeal to them? Or how rap stars have suddenly made a hip-hop totem of the Cadillac Escalade? If marketing had tried to produce these effects, it would have failed. This is where John Walters's recent re-evaluation of the federal programs will be important. He has remarked that efforts to target kids before they start using drugs may be proving ineffective. His instincts are right, but not in the way he thinks they are. Currently, preteens are presented with a laundry list of dreadful things that can happen to them if they smoke pot, do "club drugs" like ecstasy, or venture as far afield as heroin. Trouble is, the scare campaign lasts only until kids start to observe drugs in action among their peers. When, at age 12 they are told unequivocally that smoking pot ruins your life, that cocaine is instantly addictive and that MDMA will kill you, they believe it. And they will believe it up until the exact moment when their older brother's friend starts smoking dope, to no immediately perceptible harm. One way to sidestep this problem would be to downplay the panic alert and take a page from the pharmaceutical industry's book. An ad that would get kids' attention is one running a real list of the long-term side effects of the drugs that kids are already using. It would bring a little reality to a world where kids are inclined to think no reality applies. More importantly, it would reinforce a message that really works on kids: It's your choice. Be informed, there are consequences. Sure, kids are less motivated by self-preservation than adults. But many are motivated by a desire to please others. And that's another place the drug campaign could get some traction. The University of Pennsylvania study may have found that kids were unimpressed by the latest antidrug campaign, but 80% of parents took note of the ads and claimed they were moved to talk to their youngsters about drugs. That should be a major red flag for federal antidrug efforts. As most advertisers know, ads reach the people who are already in the market for the message. Plenty of studies have shown that the baby boomers, for all their own youthful folly, are often unwilling to inquire about what their kids are up to. Maybe parents are the ones who need some education. Note: Ms. Levey is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays. Source: Wall Street Journal (US) Related Articles & Web Site: Crossfire Transcripts: Do Drug Ads Work? Drug Control Office Ads Entice Kids To Try Drugs Drug Czar Walters' Assertion of Ads' Flop Absurd New Drug Czar Says Ad Campaign has Flopped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #10 posted by Jose Melendez on May 18, 2002 at 15:14:27 PT |
from: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n941/a10.html?397 "What kind of idiot pretends to sagely listen to
all the expert advice then ignores it? Answer: a saboteur." [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by paul peterson on May 18, 2002 at 14:43:12 PT:
|
el toonces (sorry if I misspelled-I forgot already, you know, ADD), did I really see you use that three letter misapprehension of an apparent diagnosis? 1) Attention (much too narrow of a focus), 2) Deficit (damning or what), 3) Disorder (double damning, in case the deficit wasn't bad enough). Well, did you see that ditty by Dr. Feelgood in Oregon, where he said pot HELPS ADD? That was the first time I have ever seen a doctor admit to anything remotely similar to this theory-that I have bee screaming about to the court system in Illinois for about a year for-I lost my livelihood because I KNOW POT HELPS ADD, and I have been teaching judges and police departments about this ever since. Sorry for making a big deal about this, but THIS IS A BIG DEAL, OK? Attention deficit disorder may just be the biggest single category of so-called "mental illness" (imbalance is more the word), and the most "treatable" one at that, with pot, of course (my best treatment was a combination of ritalin + pot, until I went cold turkey for like the last 9 months (to disprove this "addiction" theory and all). Hey, check out my web site if you want, let me know if you like my articles and all. PAUL PETERSON [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on May 18, 2002 at 12:55:01 PT:
|
from: http://www.indiancountry.com/?1018897027 Oglalas plant hemp on rez for third timePosted: April 15, 2002 - 2:30pm EST
MANDERSON, S.D. -- The White Plume clan planted its third crop of industrial hemp April 5, this time with television cameras joining print media. For the third year in a row, the family posed a challenge to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, which destroyed its previous two plantings. |
Comment #7 posted by RavingDave on May 18, 2002 at 11:12:00 PT |
I agree, the issue is with the parents. For all the finger-pointing and denial, most parents can't face up to the fact that they failed to prevent their kids from doing drugs. The fact is that kids lose respect for their parents during their teens, so they need reinforcement at a much younger age. And, they need to be told the truth. One point Ms. Levey missed is the fact that teens probably won't respond to the list of long-term effects of drugs, because most teens don't look past next month. Ask any teen, and he's likely to tell you he'll never grow old - immortality is a given. Telling a teen that he'll get lung cancer if he smokes will have little effect when it probably won't happen until his 50's. After all, that's just ages away, right? Incidentally, I have long attributed my descent into the world of drugs during my teens to the ministrations of Nancy Reagan. Before she came along, I had no intention of ever doing drugs. (Drugs are bad, m'kay?) But, after hearing about a thousand times that I shouldn't do drugs, I began to wonder what the allure was. "Why do they keep telling me not to do this?" I wondered. "Why would anyone want to do drugs if they're so bad? Maybe I should check this out." The one consistent thing every kid is born with is curiosity, after all. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by Patrick on May 18, 2002 at 07:25:40 PT |
I had to look that one up goneposthole!!! Good one! Seems federal officials haven't stopped using it yet and today it is against effecting nearly every citizen. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on May 18, 2002 at 06:58:00 PT |
The ONDCP should tell the truth about drugs and drug use. Beginning with those that cause the most harm: First Tobacco, then alcohol, then the other drugs that are not as well known. They could also give a brief history of the drug 'extirpation'. Not a well known drug today, but was used extensively by the US Army's infantry and calvary during the westward expansion of the United States. It harmed some army personnel back then, but it was particularly lethal to the redman. It was also referred to as 'Trail of Tears' and 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee'. The native Americans back then used their own anti-drug, often referred to as 'Little Big Horn'. It turned out to be a very effective tool to alleviate the problems associated with the chronic use of the drug, 'extirpation'. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 18, 2002 at 06:13:46 PT |
You're welcome el-toonces! Sounded kinda cool though! LOL! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by el_toonces on May 18, 2002 at 06:03:30 PT:
|
...that was like magic! Now that I know you can fix errors generated by my ADD, you better get the satellite hooked up because my mistakes can keep you so busy you won't have time to even do the loads of laundry you have been accustomed to getting in while pages load:) LOL! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by el_toonces on May 18, 2002 at 05:40:24 PT:
|
...are needed since most on the right (i.e., those who read the WSJ regularly) don't really care about compassion or medical use so much as saving money. I just recently got my capitalist Uncle to stop drug-testing employees in his factory, but not by appealing to any sense of justice he feels. Rather, I got him to see he was wasting money he was not recouping in contracts with the government or other entities that require certification as "drug free workplace." We often have use the arguments that WORK, not the ones we like:) [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by qqqq on May 18, 2002 at 03:13:46 PT |
...Last nite,,I saw the latest anti ad.....I couldnt believe it!......I am not joking..This was an ad by PFDFA,, and it was showing Native Americans,,Indians,,with scenes of modern Indian kids,interspersed with scenes of Indian kids prior to when the US massacred the shit out of them!...At the end of the commercial,,it said something like,;"My heritage,that's my anti-drug."..............I am not kidding... .I was appalled!..The fuckin' bastards have the gall, to try and make an anti-drug ad,using Indians!!!The same government that slaughtered natives of this continent,is now wasting millions on absurd experiments in anti-drug ads!!......SON OF A FUCKIN' BITCH!!!.. ....What are we to expect next?..."Kenny Boy" Lay,,saying,;"Money,,that's my anti drug.",,,, ,,or dubya himself, saying;"Oil,,,that's my anti-drug."...........Or,,maybe a really fat person,feasting on fried chicken,and donuts, ,,,;"Food,,that's my anti drug.",,,,,or,,,,a cop,,sayin' ;"Law enforcement,,that's my anti drug.".... [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |