Your Tax Dollars on Drugs |
Posted by CN Staff on May 26, 2002 at 08:21:10 PT By Debra J. Saunders Source: San Francisco Chronicle A new report released by the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy verifies what savvy readers already knew: National Youth Anti-Drug Media campaign ads -- which cost U.S. taxpayers almost $1 billion over five years -- don't work. What's amazing is that the Drug Czar John P. Walters readily acknowledges this fact. The study showed that the anti-drug ads might actually have increased marijuana use among girls -- although Walters' office believes that bit of data may be inaccurate. Still, Walters agrees with the study's main finding -- the biggie -- that the ads do nothing to reduce teenage drug use. Life imitates Christopher Buckley's satirical novel, "Thank You for Smoking" (Random House, 1994). Its tobacco lobby anti-hero comes up with an anti-teen smoking campaign to take political heat off his industry. In reality, the campaign is designed to get kids to smoke more, and it works as teens rebel against an authoritarian voice telling them not to smoke. I remember similar ads when I was a kid. There were anti-smoking ads and anti-smoking lectures from teachers and adults in my family (many of whom smoked). When adults asked, I always told them I wouldn't smoke. And I stuck by that line right up until the day I inhaled. (FYI, I wisely quit in my 20s.) Duh. Scolding, nagging and lecturing won't stop a kid from doing drugs. Either a kid won't, or a kid will -- and the determining factors are complex and personal. That's why most anti-drug ads are a waste of money. Walters doesn't quite see it that way. He's decided the ad campaign is sufficiently worthless that he won't ask for more funding to continue it. But he sees hope in ads targeted to help parents keep their kids away from drugs. One problem. The study says: "The evidence does not as yet support an effect of parent exposure on youth behavior." It could be that it doesn't matter if parents talk to their kids and monitor their behavior. Or it could take time for the message to filter through, with the first step being to change parental behavior, and the second step being a consequent change in teen behavior. As Walters spokesman Tom Riley noted, advertising "wouldn't be a trillion- dollar industry if people believed that ads don't make a difference." And since the study was conducted, Walters has pushed a different kind of drug ad, as in the controversial spots that tell kids that drugs are linked to terrorism and crime. "Where do terrorists get their money?" one spot asked. "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." "A lot of people hate them," Riley noted, but Walters wanted "to plant a new idea and to generate discussion." And the ads did receive a lot of attention. Still, just as I question whether nagging ads work, I have to question any study on the effectiveness of drug programs that rely on the answers of teenagers who know what adults want to hear. And what about people lying to themselves? Some 82 percent of a group of parents of teens ages 16-18 told researchers they had talked to their kids about drugs in the past six months; yet only 48 percent of kids that age reported the same conversation. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/05/26/ED188210.DTL Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Related Articles & Web Site: Crossfire: Do Drug Ads Work? A Downer Story for the Media -- Don't Do Drug Ads New Drug Czar Says Ad Campaign has Flopped Critics Decry Ads Linking Drugs, Terror Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #2 posted by Lehder on May 27, 2002 at 06:24:23 PT |
dedicated to two friends who served in vietnam and died as 70-pound skeletons, wasted by the malignant effects of agent orange so that powerful white people might have more money. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by Rambler on May 27, 2002 at 05:58:25 PT |
Country or Government? by Paul Hein Memorial day is again upon us, reminding us that hypocrisy and
sentimentality, not to mention naďveté and gullibility, are with
us to stay. Someone with the title “White House Commission on National
Moment of Remembrance” has written a letter to Dear Abby
reminding us to “reclaim Memorial Day for the noble and
patriotic purpose for which it was intended.” How is this to be
accomplished? All Americans are “to pause and reflect for one
minute--at 3 p.m on Memorial Day, in remembrance of those who
have died to preserve our freedom.” If you’re driving, turn on
your lights. The playing of Taps is recommended at public
events. This will remind us of the two million men and women who
“have sacrificed their lives to defend and preserve this
precious land of hopes and dreams.” The writer concludes with
the hope that Abby’s readers will “join together in solidarity
with those whose grief is fresh and deep, to express their
gratitude to the men and women who have died that we might live
in freedom.” Well, there’s one thing to say for this bit of fluff: at least
it didn’t refer to sacrifices for our country, although we can
be sure that the weekend will not pass without our hearing that
expression many times: the brave men and women who gave their
lives for our country. What nonsense! Our country was never at significant risk in any
of our legitimate (i.e., declared by Congress) wars, and in the
subsequent unlawful military adventures, the risk to the U.S.
mainland was even less. Millions of American men and women (how
many women?) have died fighting, but they were fighting for
their government, not the country. Franklin Roosevelt admitted,
in a letter to Colonel House, that the American government has
been owned by “certain financial interests” since the days of
Andrew Jackson. It was to protect those interests that doughboys
died in WWI, and the consequence of WWI was WWII, in which
additional hundreds of thousands died. Those killed in Korea or
Vietnam weren’t defending our country, either. That these slain
soldiers were brave is not the point: of course they were. Going
off to fight, knowing that you might very well die in the
ensuing battle, requires courage. But it is doubtful that any of
those prepared to make the supreme sacrifice could tell you what
they were sacrificing for, in anything but the most general
terms: “We’re fighting for freedom,” or “to preserve the
American way of life.” Well, you can’t expect a man facing death
to be clear-headed. Were they fighting and dying to preserve our freedoms, as
suggested by the “White House Commission on National Moment of
Remembrance?” What freedom was threatened by the Kaiser, or
Emperor Hirohito? Yes, if we had lost the World Wars, American
would have been occupied by German or Japanese troops, and we’d
have had to take our orders from them. Instead, we take them
from Americans. Orders are orders! Does the language matter? Japanese and Germans took orders from Americans during their
occupation (our troops are still there, more than half a century
later) but today, they take their orders from their own, in
their own language. So did our erstwhile enemies loose their
freedom? When people fight for their freedom, it is against
their own governments that they fight. Today, my freedom is
curtailed by my own government, not that of Saddam. Propaganda, of course, is the way governments speak to their
subjects. It is not surprising that we find this sort of
meretricious tripe being circulated on Memorial Day. Simple
straightforward speech is inconsistent with government
objectives. You can hardly expect our rulers to admit that they
delight in war, and are perfectly willing to accept American
deaths to further their hegemony. No, the frustration lies not in our rulers’ hypocrisy, but rather in the pathetic acceptance of it by Americans, who continue to believe that our dead soldiers died fighting for our freedom, or to protect our country. This much can be admitted: They did not die in vain. But the purpose for which they gave their lives was not, and is not, the preservation of the country, or the maintenance of our freedoms! May 27, 2002 [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |