|
|
| Anti-Marijuana Ads May Lead to Marijuana Use |
|
Posted by CN Staff on May 31, 2006 at 08:22:02 PT By Joseph W. Bateman Source: SLC Globe 
Utah -- Birds chirp as a fully dressed toddler wanders toward her backyard pool. With no one else around, she drags her pool toy behind her and places it inside of the pool. Leaning over the edge of the pool, the little girl tries to get her toy back. A narrator starts to speak: "Just tell her parents you weren't watching her because you were getting stoned. They'll understand." The screen fades to black. This ad is similar to the prior spots which compare marijuana smokers to terrorists. Others claim smoking marijuana will lead to rape or make people go crazy. These commercials have the clear aim of preventing marijuana use. The purpose might be clear, but the results measuring the effectiveness of these ads are shrouded in controversy. Numerous government evaluations of the anti-marijuana media campaign have shown the advertisements as ineffective at reducing drug use among teens. Two of the five studies concluded that the ads might lead to an increase in teen use of marijuana. These conclusions including a more recent study published in the May edition of "Addictive Behaviors" magazine are leading drug war critics and taxpayer groups to call on Congress to slash funding for the ads. "I don't know what's more outrageous; that our government wastes hundreds of millions of dollars on ineffective ads calling marijuana smokers terrorists, or the fact that the White House ignores study after study that shows that their drug control strategy is misguided and unsuccessful, yet it continues to fund this unproductive ad strategy," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. The most recent study in "Addictive Behaviors" entitled "Explicit and Implicit Effects of Anti-marijuana and Anti-tobacco TV Advertisements" concluded that the exaggerated fear-based and inaccurate advertisement creates a "boomerang" effect. Instead of getting teen viewers to take the position offered in the ads, this "boomerang effect" causes teens to rebel against the stated message since it is counter to the knowledge teens already possess regarding marijuana. "Exposure to anti-marijuana advertising might not only change young viewers' attitudes [positively] toward the substance, but also might directly increase risk of using marijuana," warns the study surveying the reactions of 18 to 19-year-old college students after viewing the Whitehouse's anti-marijuana commercials. Created by President Reagan nearly eight years ago, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established to define national priorities and objectives regarding drug control programs. The goals of the programs are to reduce drug use, manufacturing, and drug related crime. The anti-marijuana commercials are part of ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media campaign at a cost of $119 million dollars for the fiscal year 2005. Together, the ONDCP partners with organizations such as Partnership for a Drug Free America to create the ads. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America did not return requests for comments regarding the most recent and prior studies evaluation the effectiveness of the anti-marijuana ads. The ONDCP does confirm the independent evaluations within the "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2006 Budget Summary" report calling them "reliable data sources." "The results of the independent evaluation (managed by National Institute on Drug Abuse) detected no connection between the program advertisements and youth attitudes and behavior toward drug use," the report reads. Drug war critic groups such as the Drug Policy Alliance are using this information as a rallying call for Congress to eliminate funding of these anti-marijuana ads. Using their website, www.drugpolicy.org, the group is urging supporters to contact congressional representatives to transfer the funds to drug treatment instead of advertisements. "From the start, the Bush Administration's ad campaign has been about taxpayer-funded propaganda, not prevention," said Piper. "Congress needs to eliminate this ineffective program and shift the funding to drug treatment which has been proven to work." The Drug Policy Alliance is one of the leading organizations working on alternatives to the war on drugs. The mission statement states "a drug policy based not upon fear, prejudice and punitive prohibitions but rather science, compassion, public health and human rights." Note: Ads might appeal to rebellious teenagers by giving them something to rebel against. Complete Title: Boomerang Effect: Anti-Marijuana Ads May Lead to Marijuana Use Source: SLC Globe (UT) Drug Policy Alliance CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #20 posted by mayan on May 31, 2006 at 18:29:01 PT |
| FoM, you might find this interesting... EXCLUSIVE: BOBBY KENNEDY JR. TO QUESTION 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN MAJOR ROLLING STONE FEATURE ARTICLE! http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002891.htm [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #19 posted by ekim on May 31, 2006 at 18:26:55 PT |
| Larry King now [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #18 posted by ekim on May 31, 2006 at 18:26:05 PT |
| Larry King now [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #17 posted by charmed quark on May 31, 2006 at 15:12:43 PT |
| I was thinking about some comments I made earlier. In 1968, I was first getting interested in the cannabis laws. Cannabis at that point had been illegal for 30 years, since the 1938 Stamp Act. As a youth, that seemed like forever to me, some law made up in the dark ages during Prohibition. There were a lot of trends happening that led me to believe these archaic laws would soon be reversed. There was the new science indicating it was less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. And there was its spread to the middle class. I figured politicians wouldn't want to be supporting laws that led to the arrest of the children of their core constituents. And there was a loud call, for the first time, by politicians and scientists, for reform of these laws. I figured the laws would soon be changed. Then Nixon started the "drug war". I figured it was just a speed bump in the reform process. Especially when the study he commissioned for the drug war recommended decriminalization. President Carter came along and actively promoted decriminilization. I figured that would be the final straw. Nope. Then Regan sorta ramped up the war again. And so on. It's now been 38 years since 1968. A longer period than cannabis was illegal before 1968. It's hard to believe. It had been illegal for 30 years in 1968. Now it's been illegal for 68 years. When I realize this, I feel there is no hope, at least before I die and most of the people I know die. Who would hard thought, back in 1968, that cannabis would still be illegal in 2006. I guess it's time for a younger generation to worry about prohibition and the disaster it's been for our society, a generation who hasn't lost hope due to a lifetime of blocked reforms. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #16 posted by Truth on May 31, 2006 at 14:39:35 PT |
| This is the kind of ad I want to see.... http://gallery.marihemp.com/album12/board_auth_5 [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #15 posted by OverwhelmSam on May 31, 2006 at 13:41:17 PT |
| Interesting Clips http://www.escapetocanada.ca/clips.html [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #14 posted by Hope on May 31, 2006 at 12:57:49 PT |
| I've had mockingbirds that whistled Neil Diamond tunes. Crows are mimicers, too, as I understand. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #13 posted by FoM on May 31, 2006 at 12:53:03 PT |
| I believe it too. My dogs sing along to Neil. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by Hope on May 31, 2006 at 11:20:46 PT |
| Wow. EJ...that's so neat. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by E_Johnson on May 31, 2006 at 10:45:59 PT |
| I'm sitting on my patio with my laptop playing Living With War and I swear there's a crow sitting in a tree over me singing along with Neil. Cackling and cawing to the music, I swear. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Sam Adams on May 31, 2006 at 10:44:35 PT |
| How about "I got high and my government turned fascist". "I got high and didn't pay attention, and the government raised my taxes and gave it to the police to stand around on overtime details" "I got high and the government took away my civil rights" Iraq: "I got high and we attacked another country" Katrina: "I got high and the government let me drown" [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 31, 2006 at 10:27:37 PT |
| Thank Neil! LOL! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by Hope on May 31, 2006 at 10:19:15 PT |
| FoM...you're a regular slogan machine lately. That's good. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #7 posted by CorvallisEric on May 31, 2006 at 10:05:18 PT |
| ... in the realm of political reality. They are really directed toward opinion leaders - both adults and teenagers - and voters. They probably succeed in influencing non-users without strong opinions. They affect the social climate by promoting a wedge between users and non-users and by conflating use with abuse. They certainly "preach to the choir" to keep prohibition supporters energized. If they also succeed in getting more children to use drugs (of all kinds), so much the better. The successful outcome is more money and power for the bureaucracy that runs the show, limited only by ever-increasing budget deficit and public disgust with things that don't work in the real world. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 31, 2006 at 10:01:16 PT |
| Don't need no more lies. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by afterburner on May 31, 2006 at 09:59:15 PT |
| "Created by President Reagan nearly eight years ago, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)" has through its blantant propaganda and misinformation been nothing more than a tool to ramp up the War on (Some) Drugs. Proponents of smaller, more responsive government call your Congressmembers and Senators and demand an end to this bloated and unwelcome federal agency. Time to clean house. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Hope on May 31, 2006 at 09:54:04 PT |
| I just don't know when. That's where my "faith" is. But I can dream. And hope. And certainly...I am a patience adept. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Hope on May 31, 2006 at 09:52:32 PT |
| God knows I hope. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by Hope on May 31, 2006 at 09:50:57 PT |
| No reason not to. It can give you a good feeling...which makes your body produce positive body chemicals...to say the least. Dream on, sweet friend. We can still dream without really counting on things. We in the Drug Policy Reform activist movement are good at not counting on things, very much. We learned the hard way, too many times. Counting on something often can leave you devastatingly disappointed...there for I expect nothing so I will not be disappointed...but I can dream. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by mai_bong_city on May 31, 2006 at 09:19:54 PT |
| i'm going to contact my reps and ask that the funds be diverted to treatment, and heck - how about cannabis consortiums and co-ops in the states they represent - a darn good idea....
we've known this all along, the lies, 'propoganda', in essence, isn't it? they thought all the little children were dumb and blind, i suppose. any fool knows that once you lie to somebody, they will suspect everything hence. i am waiting for the day they come out with the truth all around.....admit mistakes, misleadings and downright falsity......bush and the whole nine yards.
the lucky thing now is the internet for research, resource, and fact. it is up to every individual to form their own conclusions, i believe, by thoroughly reading everything they can get their hands on - facts mind you, science - not some gubmint squire or oxy-addict radio host.....
ah, if only. sorry, i was dreaming again.
[ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |