cannabisnews.com: Debating The Drug Ads Debating The Drug Ads Posted by FoM on February 05, 2002 at 17:52:13 PT Staff and Wire Reports Source: San Francisco Chronicle The Bush administration took a new approach to the war on drugs yesterday with Super Bowl advertisements that linked the illegal narcotics trade with terrorism. If you buy drugs, you might be helping to finance terrorist activities, the advertisements warned, the first time the link between drug activity and terrorism had ever been used in a government-sponsored anti-drug ad. Until yesterday, the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy typically ran ads that focused on how users harm themselves, the classic example being the "this is your brain on drugs" advertisement with an egg sizzling in a frying pan. The new approach has sparked a range of reactions from drug treatment experts. "It's a cynical, cheap shot to take in the current political environment," said Matthew Briggs, an assistant director of New York's Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates changes in drug laws. "To make it sound like a kid who smokes pot is responsible for putting cash in the hands of Osama bin Laden is ludicrous." The two Super Bowl ads, which cost nearly $3.5 million to place during the widely watched Fox television broadcast, claim that money to purchase drugs probably ends up in the hands of terrorists and narco-criminals. "Where do terrorists get their money?" says one of the ads, which portrays a terrorist buying explosives, weapons and fake passports. "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." About half of the 28 organizations identified as terrorist by the State Department are financed by sales of illegal drugs, according to the drug office. The two 30-second ads (which aired three times before and during the game) were funded by the drug office's $180 million advertising budget, the largest of any government agency. The ads kick off a four-to-six-week nationwide campaign, which also includes ads on radio and in 293 newspapers, an augmented Web site -- http://www.theantidrug.com -- and teaching materials to be distributed to middle and high school students. John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, estimated the campaign's cost at $10 million. "Considering that Americans spend over $60 billion on (illegal) drugs a year, this is a pretty well-leveraged investment," he said. ADDICTS WEREN'T WATCHING Chris Canter, the director of the Walden House Foundation in San Francisco, which offers a variety of drug treatment programs, said he didn't object to the ads, but felt they missed the target audience. "My initial reaction is that I thought it was kind of compelling," Canter said. "But when you think about it, probably your most problematic addicts aren't watching the game anyway." Canter said he thought the government's previous ads warning users about the harm they do to themselves were more effective. These ads, he said, seemed motivated by the current political climate. "It seems like everybody is trying to link everything to terrorism," Canter said. "This ad, I felt, missed its mark. It was not money well spent." Briggs added, "There is something very disturbing about the fact that the federal government is spending almost $3.5 million to blame nonviolent Americans for funding terrorism when . . . people who need drug treatment can't get it." Walters, who was chief of staff under former drug czar William Bennett, defended the new approach. TERRORISM LINK "We're not blaming Americans for terrorism, we're blaming terrorists for terrorism," Walters said. "We're telling Americans that if they use drugs, they should be aware that some of that money is being used to support terrorism in many cases." Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the drug office contacted New York advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather, asking for ideas on how to link the war on drugs to terrorism in an ad campaign. The drug office knew the Taliban was partially funded by sales of opium, which can be refined into heroin. What followed, said British film and commercial director Tony Kaye, who produced the ads, was unprecedented fact-checking between the drug office and government agencies, including the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, CIA and the Departments of Defense and State. Details down to the price of AK-47 assault rifles, featured in one ad, were debated. "The FBI said, 'Is the price retail or black market?' " said Alan Levitt, chief of the drug office's education division. WEB PAGE REFERENCE Each line of dialogue is explained by a story on the agency's Web page. For instance, in one of the ads, a teenage actor says, "I helped kill a judge." On the Web page, that line is linked to a drug-related killing in South America. The ads were shown to teenagers in focus groups. The teenagers showed "a strong decline in intention to use" drugs after seeing the ads, Levitt said. And, he said, parents called them a "powerful way to initiate conversations" with their children. Chronicle staff writer Ray Delgado and the Washington Post contributed to this report. Note: Government's TV campaign linking terrorism to narcotics trade provokes outspoken reactions.Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Published: Tuesday, February 5, 2002 Copyright: 2002 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 2 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Site:Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.lindesmith.org/White House Anti-Drug Ads Super Bowloney http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11919.shtmlAnti-Drug Media Blitz Plays on Terror Fear http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11917.shtmlNew Pitch in Anti-Drug Ads: Anti-Terrorism http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11912.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 06, 2002 at 10:04:14 PT boppy I wonder the same thing. Maybe someone else would know and could answer us. I want to respond but am afraid too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by boppy on February 06, 2002 at 09:45:53 PT I am not paranoid but... FOM, tell me, if I send my opinion that will end up at the White House via email, who is to say that these email messages that aren't in support of the ads won't be tracked by DEA people or other government strong arm agencies to their source? I try to call as little attention to myself as possible which isn't very helpful to our cause but it really intimidates me to do this. My opinion may not be really informed on this topic. What say you, oh wise one? [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on February 05, 2002 at 20:41:49 PT Send an Instant E-Mail Response On Super Bowl Ads Super Bowl Ad Out of Bounds Click here to send message -- http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=12761&afccode=MPP001Your e-mail will be sent to: President Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20500 Additional Information: Click below to view the Super Bowl ads. Please note, you may need to install QuickTime in advance. http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/ihelped.mov http://www.mediacampaign.org/multimedia/ak47.mov Contact information and links for advocacy group(s) working on this issue: Drug Policy Alliance 4455 Connecticut Ave, NW #B-500 Washington, DC 20008 http://www.drugpolicyalliance.org/ Marijuana Policy Project P.O. Box 77492 Capitol Hill Washington, DC 20013 http://www.mpp.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by ekim on February 05, 2002 at 20:36:29 PT: Schafer Commission Quotations From: Kevin Zeese DISTRIBUTE WIDELYFriends:March 22 is the 30th Anniversay of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. The Commission, known as the Shafer Commission after its Chair Governor Raymond Shafer (R-PA), recommended decriminalization of marijuana. The Commission was appointed by President Nixon and Congress (Nixon appointed a majority and the chair).Below are some quotations developed by Keith Halderman The page numbers refer to the paperback edition with the white cover.page 3 "President Nixon has frequently expressed his personal and official commitment to providing a rational and equitable public response."page 7 "Isolated findings and incomplete information have automatically been presented to the public, with little attempt made to place such findings in a larger perspective or to analyze their meanings."page 23 "An accurate statement of the effects of the drug is obviously an important consideration, but it is conclusive only if the effects are extreme one way or the other."page 29 "We ask the reader to set his preconceptions aside as we have tried to do, and discriminate with us between marihuana, the drug and marihuana, the problem."page 36 "No valid stereotype of a marihuana user or non-user can be drawn."page 41 "The most notable statement that can be made about the vast majority of marihuana users - experimenters and intermittent users - is that they are essentially indistinguishable from their non-marihuana using peers by any fundamental criterion other than their marihuana use."page 42 "Young people who choose to experiment with marihuana are fundamentally the same people, socially and psychologically, as those who use alcohol and tobacco."page 44 "The most common explanation for discontinuing use is loss of interest."page 61 "No significant physical, biochemical, or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marihuana smoking."page 67 "That some of these original fears were unfounded and that others were exaggerated has been clear for many years. Yet, many of these early beliefs continue to affect contemporary public attitudes and concerns."page 73 "In sum, the weight of the evidence is that marihuana does not cause violent or aggressive behavior; if anything marihuana serves to inhibit the expression of such behavior."page 75 "In short marihuana is not generally viewed by participants in the criminal justice community as a major contributing influence in the commission of delinquent or criminal acts."page 77 "Some users commit crimes more frequently than non-users not because they use marihuana but because they happen to be the kinds of people who would be expected to have a higher crime rate."page 78 "Neither the marihuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety."page 79 "The few driving simulator tests completed to date have generally revealed no significant correlation between marihuana use and driving disabilities."page 79 "Recent research has not yet proven that marihuana use significantly impairs driving ability or performance."page 84 "No reliable evidence exists indicating that marihuana causes genetic defects in man."page 88 "No verification is found of a causal relationship between marihuana use and subsequent heroin use."page 92 "Concerns about marihuana use expressed in the 1930s related primarily to a perceived inconsistency between the lifestyles and values of these individuals and the social and moral order."page 93 "Concerns posed by an alternate youthful lifestyle are extended to the drug itself."page 96 "Most users, young and old, demonstrate an average or above-average degree of social functioning, academic achievement, and job performance."page 102 "It is unlikely that marihuana will affect the future strength, stability, or vitality of our social and political institutions."page 112 "The salient feature of the present law has become the threat of arrest for indiscretion."page 125 "Young people would have more respect for the law if marihuana were made legal."page 125 "So many people are using marihuana that it should be made legal."page 130 "Marihuana's relative potential for harm to the vast majority of individual users and its actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it."page 130 "We suspect that the moral contempt in which some of our citizens hold the marihuana user is related to other behavior or other attitudes assumed to be associated with the drug."page 151 "In general, we recommend only a decriminalization of possession of marihuana for personal use on both the state and federal levels."page 167 "Recognizing the extensive degree of misinformation about marihuana as a drug we have tried to demythologize it. Viewing the use of marihuana in its wider social context, we have tried to desymbolize it."page 167 "We would de-emphasize marihuana as a problem."Keith [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 05, 2002 at 20:09:29 PT JR Bob Dobbs Thanks for the heads up! US Seeks To Help Colombian Troops Defend Pipeline http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11926.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on February 05, 2002 at 19:43:14 PT National Public Radio U.S. Opposes Jamaicas Bid to Legalize Marijuana http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/me/20020205.me.14.ram [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on February 05, 2002 at 19:17:11 PT War On Terror = War On Drugs = War For Oil U.S. Seeks to Help Colombian Troops Defend Pipeline:http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=WTXTABEEPXRNUCRBAELCFFAKEEARKIWD?type=worldnews&StoryID=572858 [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by aero on February 05, 2002 at 19:08:11 PT who are the real terrorists? i've got a much better line to throw at americans:if you pay your taxes, let it be known to you that you are supporting many terrorist organizations!case closed :) [ Post Comment ] Post Comment