cannabisnews.com: Drug Czar: Anti-Drug Ads Too Soft, Ineffective
Drug Czar: Anti-Drug Ads Too Soft, Ineffective
Posted by CN Staff on June 08, 2002 at 19:59:54 PT
By Derrick DePledge, Enquirer Washington Bureau
Source: Cincinnati Enquirer
Anti-drug messages from pop stars like Mary J. Blige and the Dixie Chicks are fine, but the White House drug czar wants the government to send much stronger warnings to young people about the risks of getting high. Newer ads that link casual teen drug use with international terrorism and other blunt, unambiguous themes soon may dominate the government's anti-drug media campaign, pushing out softer approaches that have achieved mixed results.
John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, described the government's five-year, $930 million ad campaign as ineffective last month and promised changes if Congress extends financing for the program. His comments, in newspaper and television interviews, surprised many who worked on the ad campaign and upset several Republicans who wonder if Mr. Walters inadvertently may have undercut the government's anti-drug message. Two House committees have scheduled congressional hearings this month on the ad campaign and expect Mr. Walters to testify about his remarks. I'm really at a loss, said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who co-chairs the House speaker's drug task force. I would just hate if the message coming from our drug czar is that we ought to back off on our media campaign. Mr. Portman and other lawmakers agree with Mr. Walters that the government should send the strongest anti-drug message possible but not with his dismissal of the ad campaign, which he had criticized before taking the job as President Bush's drug policy adviser. The ad campaign began in 12 cities in 1998 and expanded nationwide in an attempt to influence behavior among young people and their parents. The government has formed partnerships with community groups, corporations and entertainment and sports figures, and the media has matched federally financed advertising with free air time. The campaign's goal is to educate young people about drug use, prevent young people from experimenting with drugs especially marijuana and inhalants and encourage occasional drug users to stop. The campaign also urges parents to talk with their children about the dangers of drugs. A review after the second stage of the campaign in June 1999 found an increase in the number of young people who said the ads made them less likely to try drugs. A comprehensive study completed in October 2001 found that the campaign with spots that include music and sports stars had no significant effect on young people. However, the study did find evidence that parents who watched the ads were more likely to talk with their children about drug use and monitor their children's behavior. Tom Riley, a spokesman for the drug czar, said Mr. Walters wanted to confront the negative findings publicly before drug-legalization activists seized on the study as proof such ads are a waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Riley said the administration supports $180 million in federal money for the ad campaign next year, the same amount it received this year. But Mr. Portman said the drug czar's comments might make it harder to defend the campaign in Congress. He took a report that had mixed results and focused on the negative, said Mr. Portman, a close ally of the Bush administration. He left the impression that anti-drug ads don't work. I think he's wrong. I think they do work. Mr. Portman said a similar ad campaign from the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati has produced promising results. A recent survey of more than 67,000 students found those who saw the ads most often had the largest declines in monthly use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Paul Zimmerman, a Procter & Gamble researcher who designed the student survey, said the biggest influences on children's behavior were their parents and church. But he believes the anti-drug ad campaign makes a difference. It's very meaningful, he said. I'm confident it's having a measurable effect. Source: Cincinnati Enquirer (OH)Author: Derrick DePledge, Enquirer Washington Bureau Published: Saturday, June 08, 2002 Copyright: 2002 The Cincinnati EnquirerContact: letters enquirer.comWebsite: http://enquirer.com/today/Related Articles & Web Site:Crossfire: Do Drug Ads Work?http://freedomtoexhale.com/cf.htmDrug Czar & Safeway Team Up http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13024.shtmlDowner Story for the Media -- Don't Do Drug Adshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12909.shtmlKids, Drugs and Bureaucrats http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12901.shtmlDrug Czar Walters' Assertion of Ads' Flop Absurd http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12851.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #13 posted by freedom fighter on June 10, 2002 at 14:55:54 PT
For Pete's sake
Who among you have ever heard of someone saying, " I stopped smoking evil weed because of the ad?"It's your hard earned TAX money at work.sad!ff
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Jose Melendez on June 10, 2002 at 04:47:32 PT
Don't need another? Or just this particular one?
"We have enough legal drugs out there. We don't need another one,"The above comment ignores (or perhaps counts on general ignorance of) one simple fact: New drugs are being approved every month.
see:http://www.fda.gov/cder/da/da.htm#latest
for the list of new drugs approved by the FDA.PAMIDRONATE DISODIUM
TORSEMIDE
OXAPROZIN
BUSPIRONE HCL
CYCLOSPORINE
PAMIDRONATE DISODIUM
AMMONIUM LACTATE
IDARUBICIN HYDROCHLORIDE
IDARUBICIN HCL
...and that's just the "Approvable Original New Drug Applications"...for May 2002!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by qqqq on June 09, 2002 at 13:29:50 PT
...a gruesomely fabulous recipe...
.."Once, when I was in the Army, I combined some blond hash from the Netherlands with Crown Royal and Coke, plus my
usual tobacco cigarettes--cannabis, alcohol, tobacco and caffeine..."
........Saturday Nite Special!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2002 at 09:11:24 PT:
Great Comment, goneposthole
Cannabis, the most effective medicine known to man which has anti-neoplastic properties, to be made legal for everyone's benefit just is not going to happen in a free country. Sorry, that is just the way it is.I love the irony of that statement, and so true it is in many ways. Of course, I wouldn't take the time to write at all if I were entirely fatalistic about our chances of changing the law, but I believe that for the most part you are correct. This so-called "free" country is really only free to those who do exactly as they are told by the corporate oligarchy. I think you intended your comment as a compliment (I take goofiness very seriously), and I will receive it in that spirit. So, thank you very much.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by goneposthole on June 09, 2002 at 08:41:02 PT
You're goofy, Dan B
Cannabis, the most effective medicine known to man which has anti-neoplastic properties, to be made legal for everyone's benefit just is not going to happen in a free country. Sorry, that is just the way it is.War of any kind buys yachts and polo horses. Those jokers sitting in the Monocle with their thousand dollar suits
are going to see to that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2002 at 06:51:50 PT:
One Too Many? Part 2
(continued)So, let's look at the above article in light of the argument that cannabis could actually mitigate the harmful effects of hard drugs like alcohol and tobacco. Anti-drug messages from pop stars like Mary J. Blige and the Dixie Chicks are fine, but the White House drug czar wants the government to send much stronger warnings to young people about the risks of getting high. Enter backstage at a Mary J. Blige or Dixie Chicks concert, and I guarantee that you will experience the aroma of cannabis being smoked. When these people talk about using drugs, they really don't mean cannabis because to them cannabis isn't a drug at all. They understand that cannabis is a benign substance when compared to things that really are drugs, like alcohol and tobacco. That's why you'll hear these stars talk about "drugs," but never about cannabis in particular. I'm really at a loss, said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who co-chairs the House speaker's drug task force. I would just hate if the message coming from our drug czar is that we ought to back off on our media campaign. . . . The campaign's goal is to educate young people about drug use, prevent young people from experimenting with drugs especially marijuana and inhalants and encourage occasional drug users to stop. The campaign also urges parents to talk with their children about the dangers of drugs. (emphasis mine)Rob Portman would "hate it" if the government stopped wasting our money on harmful and destructive ad campaigns because he is supported by the prison industry, just like every other politician in Washington, and is probably in the pocket of the advertising agencies who create these ads. Enough said about that. Now for the more juicy paragraph.I can fully understand why people would want to keep kids from experimenting with inhalants; those things can quickly, and by the time a person realizes that he or she has had too much, that person is already brain damaged or dead--much like the effects of too much alcohol. But guess what? Inhalants are legal. In fact, they are promoted to such an extent that almost the entire population relies on a particular inhalant to get to work every day. Both the president and vice president are heavily invested in this particular inhalant--gasoline. Many (perhaps most) of the other inhalants out there are derivatives of petroleum as well. So, if the government really wants to crack down on the use of inhalants, they had better start by finding better sources of fuel and cleaning agents than highly toxic petroleum. Interesting, though: wouldn't it be nice to see an advertisements that says, "If you buy petroleum products, you are supporting terrorism." At least such an ad would be more true than the ones connecting illegal drugs with terrorism.But the real pisser here is that the other substance they target--the real target of their campaign (when was the last time you saw a commercial against inhalants?)--is cannabis, which, as many of us have said countless times before, has never killed anyone!!! As I mentioned in Part 1, making cannabis legal would actually mitigate the harmful effects of already-legal alcohol and tobacco. The government has to know this . . . so why are they stonewalling? Why are they openly telling lies about this plant? Perhaps they simply want to protect their interests in inhalants--er, I mean petroleum.And so you have a statement that kills two birds (sorry birds, only an expression) with one stone: (1) What we really want to do is prevent people from using less harmful substances in favor of heavily lobbied legal ones (alcohol and tobacco), and (2) in the meantime, we want to look like we're doing something about the biggest danger of them all, petroleum, which is of course in the best financial interests of everyone in the Bush Oil Administration.Transparent, aren't they?Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Dan B on June 09, 2002 at 06:28:22 PT:
One Too Many? Part 1
"We have enough legal drugs out there. We don't need another one," he says.This quotation, from Lehder's comment (quoting the USA Today article; Lehder would not make such an assertion himself, perhaps not even in jest), is without a doubt the most ridiculous and stupid of all the prohibitionists' arguments. The logical fallacy is obvious: if two legal drugs are bad, three must be even worse. It's a straight numbers game to them; relative harms of these substances are not a factor to be considered. And, they ignore this consideration at their own (and their children's) peril.If a society allows two of the most harmful substances known to humanity to be legal, yet makes a less harmful substance illegal, that society effectively promotes the use of more harmful substances over less harmful substances. Can anyone not understand the stupidity of such an approach? Does everyone in this country really want his or her children growing up to believe that it is better to use substances that can and will kill you than to use a substance that has never killed anyone?Prohibitionists say things like, "Well yes, but people who use marry-joo-wanna also use too-baccy and booze, and that makes 'em more dangerous." I'd like to start a registry of people who will voluntarily commit to using cannabis, to the exclusion of alcohol and tobacco, as their drug of choice, should cannabis become legal. I would bet that millions of Americans would agree to such a commitment, and the health of the country would improve as a result. Even without the commitment, the harmful effects of the other two substances would be mitigated by the introduction of a less harmful substance into legality. If one adds cannabis to a tobacco cigarette, the cannabis serves to mitigate the tobacco's negative effects. If one uses cannabis and alcohol at the same time, one quickly becomes aware of the reduced amount of alcohol required for achieving a state of inebriation--at least, that has been my experience. Once, when I was in the Army, I combined some blond hash from the Netherlands with Crown Royal and Coke, plus my usual tobacco cigarettes--cannabis, alcohol, tobacco and caffeine--and quickly became incapacitated, unable even to walk three doors down to my room in the barracks. Because of this incident, I never combine alcohol with cannabis. I also quit smoking tobacco, which has added years to my life, I am sure. And I rarely have caffeine. Experience has taught me that all I want to use is cannabis. I expect that the same would happen for anyone else who tries to add toxic substances to his or her cannabis use, and vice versa.(to be continued)Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Lehder on June 09, 2002 at 05:46:59 PT
Watch 'em run
Mr. Portman and other lawmakers agree with Mr. Walters that the government should
send the strongest anti-drug message possible... like, " if you possess drugs, or if someone says that you might have drugs, then the government will ruin your life and maybe shoot you and murder your family."The campaign also urges parents to talk with their children
about the dangers of drugs. Parents should talk with their childrens' jailers, shcool disciplinarians and probation officers about the drug war, piss testing, strip searches and Ritalin. We should move right up, step on the toes of their shoes, and send much stronger warnings about the risks of messing with our children and the Constitution. Remind these pigs and their sows that misdemeanors are legal. We've heard the same crap over and over for thirty years, and we've always backed down. When they've said, "Marijuana is a dangerous drug. We can't have it legalized," we've tried to be reasonable, to present facts, to present reasoned arguments that take a little more effort than a sound byte, and then we were told, "You just want to get high," and then our kids were jailed.We don't have access to mainstream media, and we'll have to spread the message one-on-one, nose to nose: Get off my kid's back. When the idiots tell us, "there are already too many legal durgs, we can't have another," we've got to tell them: "That's an extremely ignorant statement. We need cannabis re-legalized. Millions demand it and so do I."We've got to say so in the teller's line at the bank, at the grocery store, at the theatre, all over. We've got to quit being timid and say it in their faces, one-on-one and loud enough to be heard. Take a chance on embarrassing yourself; you might be surprised how many sympathizers you have. People are sick of seeing their kids treated like criminal morons. We've got to let drug warriors know that our kids are not as stupid as their kids, and send a strong message to our children that we care what happens to them in school and that they are not just fodder units for the drug war.When the drug warriors tell you, "You just want to get high" or "You're soft on drugs" or "You want drugs in the schools" then you tell them, nose-to-nose, "That's a really ignorant statement. Get off my kid's back." You're going to find out that you're speaking for a lot of people, people all around you. Watch the pigs run.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by freedom fighter on June 09, 2002 at 02:16:56 PT
SirReal,
I wondered if those who were in survey got paid too!Would you be suprised if someone got paid in $$ to lie?not!!ff
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by p4me on June 08, 2002 at 23:20:58 PT
Maybe they really need the money
Here is the link to the USA/Gallup poll of 8/23/2001 that has the 34% number for those for legalization of MJ:http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/23/marijuana-full.htm This comes from that article:But Robert Hussey, executive director of the California Narcotics Officers Association, says the fight against legalizing marijuana for medical or recreational use is still worth waging. "We have enough legal drugs out there. We don't need another one," he says.Hussey agrees that medical marijuana has given momentum to advocates of legalization. "They've chosen this issue to get their message out, and they've had money to back it up in (voter) referendums," he says. "We haven't been able to get our message out."Maybe Congress will give you a billion$ for the next five years. They are corrupt enough to carry on the war with the American people and support the black market that furnishes you with that big paycheck and federal benefits.Busch's favorability rating fell from 77% to 70% all in one week according to Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020607b.aspThe Zogby polls should be furnishing some new numbers regarding marijuana issues sometime in the near future (I mean they are only going to call about 1000 people and it is not like there is a tremendous thirst for those numbers- I just cannot get along with anybody) Anyway they have a neat graph and Busch's numbers for 5/30 were already at the 70% figure. It will be interesting to see what the new numbers are: http://www.zogby.com/1
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on June 08, 2002 at 22:24:41 PT
It's so Bolshevik
We can propagandize and prohibit our way out of any problem in the world.Just cut Trostky's head out of the picture and he goes away forever.Uh huh.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by p4me on June 08, 2002 at 21:38:55 PT
get that money to the media
You know that every Sunday morning the television shows fight for Congressmen that have something to say. Congressmen maynot have the bully pulpit but they have 535 other pulpits to speak from. Why don't they just take to the airwaves and say what needs to be said. "Whatever you do, just don't smoke" should come out of one of 535 mouths if they want any credibility with any of the people besides the morons of society. Until they legalize marijuana it would be impossible for them to gain credibility with me no matter how much money they spend.You better bribe the media because otherwise they will have to try to induce people that actually are interested in news and analysis that have abandoned their rags. Then where would the politicians and their lies and fraud upon the American people hide. Cough up the money Congress it is not yours anyway.The big issue in the next campaign is health care and Congress can not change that. Marijuana is the ideal recreational drug and Congress cannot change that either. And marijuana has many medical values and sick people in Africa and America alike can have all they want as soon as we get rid of the corrupt and/or blind politicians that now stand in the way. The dam has 65 years of water in it and there are leaks all over the world. There are leaks like me that cannot be fixed no matter how much money is spent on the cause.1
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by SirReal on June 08, 2002 at 21:30:32 PT
Riiiiight
"Mr Portman said a similar ad campaign from the coalition for a drug-free Cincinnati has produced promising results. A recent survey of more than 67,000 students found those who saw he ads most often had the largest eclines in monthly use of drugs alcohol and tobacco."Should read....A recent survey of more than 67,000 students found that the lie told to them through the commercials....the one that says that they, as citizens of the U.S., may be responsible for terrorism...was really all they needed to hear to realize that they too best lie on the survey, deny any drug use, in order to protect their little behinds from these wolves in sheeps clothing.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment