Cannabis News Stop the Drug War!
  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  

justice 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)
Author: Debra J. Saunders
Published: Sunday, May 26, 2002
Copyright: 2002 Hearst Communications Inc. - Page D - 4
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/

Related Articles & Web Site:

Crossfire: Do Drug Ads Work?
http://freedomtoexhale.com/cf.htm

A Downer Story for the Media -- Don't Do Drug Ads
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12909.shtml

New Drug Czar Says Ad Campaign has Flopped
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12838.shtml

Critics Decry Ads Linking Drugs, Terror
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12341.shtml


Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help

 
Comment #2 posted by Lehder on May 27, 2002 at 06:24:23 PT
memorial day
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
Memorial Day Item
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
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on May 26, 2002 at 08:21:10