May 16, 2002

8:21 AM

Anti-Drug Ads are NOT Working:John P. Walters, the new U.S. drug czar, says survey data show the government's anti-drug advertising of recent years have failed. He goes on to say that they may have even led some youngsters -- particularly girls aged 12 to 13 -- to experiment with marijuana (more inside).
posted by Irontom (29 comments total)

Here's a link to the Wall Street Journal article that this summary is based on: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1021319906212621960-search,00.htm.

Unfortunately, I can't tell if it's right or not, because I am not a subscriber. Can anyone help with this?
posted by Irontom at 8:23 AM on May 16, 2002

The five-year-old, $929 million program is unusual among public-health advertising in that it is funded by taxpayers, rather than non-profit groups or through free public-service spots on television.

My, that's fantastic. I love shelling out money for something that I don't support and that doesn't work. Great.
posted by Hackworth at 8:26 AM on May 16, 2002

Some of those ads made me want to go out and get drugs. Almost as bad as those damn truth ads make me want to start smoking.

Anybody else notice that the terrorist anti-drug commercial could easily be a legalize drug commerical if you just replaced the end with a note about money going to the government instead of dealers/terrorists?
posted by dig_duggler at 8:34 AM on May 16, 2002

"(Walters)....speculates that if an ad answers a question that a child doesn't have, there's a chance you'll excite his or her curiosity. "

Yeah, right. Adults shouldn't 'tempt' children with honest information???
posted by niceness at 8:37 AM on May 16, 2002

This is news? It seems pretty much like common sense to me - after all, "Reefer Madness" and all the other over-the-top drug propaganda movies have been stoner icons for over fifty years. Trying to demonize drugs with anti-drug ads and propaganda didn't work then, and it ain't working now.
posted by yhbc at 8:40 AM on May 16, 2002

Humorous: some people will actually be surprised by this.

Sad: This guy will lose his job if he's not careful.

Sadder: US government will still believe that it was just a marketing failure, and not glaring evidence of policy failure.
posted by yesster at 8:42 AM on May 16, 2002

It took 5 years for the government to figure out that telling a kid he's not allowed to do something will make him want to do it?
posted by tomorama at 9:07 AM on May 16, 2002

so if these anti-drug ads aren't working, maybe we need more of them?

(only the true messiah would deny that he's the messiah)
posted by muppetboy at 9:27 AM on May 16, 2002

Now if only they'd figure out they could make good money by selling drugs, instead of pissing away endless resources trying to keep them from being used.

It is absolutely impossible to absolutely control drug use, so it'd be far more sensible to attempt to regulate it appropriately.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:27 AM on May 16, 2002

a msnbc article on the same subject, which is provided by the wall street journal.

Mr. Walters was openly critical of the ads even before taking office, and argued that the advertising effort was in dire need of an overhaul. Now, he said, he is armed with survey data that support his suspicions that the campaign hasn’t worked.

it's nice when your survey data matches your pre-existing opinion.

note: walters isn't critical of anti-drug ads in general. just the current batch that have been running. and he can fix it.

just give him some more money, please.
posted by lescour at 9:28 AM on May 16, 2002

I think the criminal justice and public health aspects of the drug war need to be separated out in this discussion. i agree with most everyone else here that the "drug war" in the sense of spending billions on catching drug smugglers, dealers, and users and throwing them in jail for years if not decads, is insane and totally ineffective. Clearly, the enforcement end needs massive reform. However, that doesn't mean that trying to convince people not to do drugs is a bad idea from a public health perspective. Governmnet efforts to curb the smoking rate have been successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams, all without making smoking illegal. And while drug use and addiction probably costs the public less than smoking, it still costs us all a lot. It is a major cause of homelessness, chronic unemployment, welfare dependency, child abuse and neglect, not to mention thousands of deaths a year from overdoses and accidents. So what's so bad about the government trying to encourage people not to do them?
posted by boltman at 9:37 AM on May 16, 2002

i like the "i support terrorism by buying drugs" commercials. to me, that just means you should be growing them yourself.
posted by bliss322 at 10:23 AM on May 16, 2002

On the other side, I actually really like Truth anti-smoking ads. They're clever, they don't get all preachy, and they work.
posted by ph00dz at 10:26 AM on May 16, 2002

I think what we need is a rapping spokesbeast. Maybe a hippo or rhino with a backwards baseball cap? I think the kids will finally get it. "Yo man. Drugs Are Baaaad. Peace. Out"

Compare the amount of money poured into anti drug/alcohol ads against what is poured into real treatment and effective prevention techniques and one can see the massive policy failure here. Its time to reverse gears and rethink this strategy altogether although I'm with boltman; any education is better than none.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:33 AM on May 16, 2002

I remember an anti-tobacco campaign when I lived in Arizona which was apparently created by kids.

Guy and girl are watching a horror movie. The girl is transfixed on the screen and munching popcorn as her boyfriend spits his tobacco juice into a large soda cup. As the music indicates something terrible is about to happen, she grabs his cup and raises it to her lips... Then a scream.

"Tobacco: Tumor-causing, teeth-staining, smelly, puking habit"

The ads were funny in a gross kind of way and it had everyone was talking. "Did you see the new one?? It was nasty!"

I hear it was a pretty successful campaign and I found a few of them here.
posted by whtsherbkt at 11:11 AM on May 16, 2002

I want to see ads with soccer moms that say "I support terrorism because I drive my SUV".

At least it'll be more accurate.
posted by billder at 11:51 AM on May 16, 2002

Here ya go billder. : ) An SUV take on the terrorism/drugs ad. :) (flash)

Mark Fiore has all kinds of groovy little flash cartoons on his site.
posted by dejah420 at 12:41 PM on May 16, 2002

It is a major cause of homelessness, chronic unemployment, welfare dependency, child abuse and neglect, not to mention thousands of deaths a year from overdoses and accidents.

Anybody got any data that actually backs this up?

Personally, I doubt it.

Closer to subject... this would seem to indicate very little "positive" effect from our country's increased spending.
posted by theRegent at 1:14 PM on May 16, 2002

"Anybody got any data that actually backs this up?"

i wonder that too. seems much more likely that the causation is reversed... homelessness, chronic unemployment, welfare dependency, child abuse and neglect and other home-grown horrors probably cause drug abuse and not the other way around.
posted by muppetboy at 3:09 PM on May 16, 2002

Anybody else notice that the terrorist anti-drug commercial could easily be a legalize drug commerical if you just replaced the end with a note about money going to the government instead of dealers/terrorists?

The current commercials already say 'legalize drugs' with no changes needed -- if you understand that prohibition is what makes the drug trade so profitable to criminal elements.
posted by Dirjy at 5:54 PM on May 16, 2002

Now if only they'd figure out they could make good money by selling drugs

i thought the government had this figured out with the whole nicotine addiction/taxation deal? *wistful look* i remember when cigarettes were $1.50 a pack...

from what i understand the government taxes even illegal drugs...or maybe that's just the Arizona state government. this looks like it has some information on that, and here's a picture of the stamps.

I remember an anti-tobacco campaign when I lived in Arizona which was apparently created by kids.

these still run every once in a while. they're very effective in that they get the point across that smoking cigarettes/chewing tobacco/etc. is just really gross most of the time.

i remember seeing packs of kids running around everywhere in tucson sporting the black shirts with the slogan (tobacco: tumor-causing, teeth-staining, smelly, puking habit). we called the lil' buggers 'tumor-causers.'
posted by carsonb at 6:21 PM on May 16, 2002

i wonder that too. seems much more likely that the causation is reversed... homelessness, chronic unemployment, welfare dependency, child abuse and neglect and other home-grown horrors probably cause drug abuse and not the other way around.

obviously it can work both ways, but it's hard to imagine a heroin addict holding down a job for very long. and look at what opium did to China in the 1800s.
posted by boltman at 7:02 PM on May 16, 2002

Here ya go billder. : ) An SUV take on the terrorism/drugs ad. :) (flash)

Warning: Blatant self-link approaching

My take on the "I helped" ads.
posted by Neale at 7:05 PM on May 16, 2002

boltman: I think the problem is that it's just not as simple as illegal drugs causing those problems, and people who see the ads know it. There are legal drugs that cause serious problems, and there are illegal drugs that don't (other than problems related to them being illegal to begin with, e.g. violence in trafficking). For the government to actually launch a campaign that got specific about the effects of all the popular drugs and compared them to each other, would be for them to admit that a) the situation is actually quite complicated, and b) that in some cases they have criminalized the wrong drugs. And perish the thought that they should admit that.
posted by bingo at 7:12 PM on May 16, 2002

bingo: i agree that there isn't much logic to which drugs are criminalized and which aren't. it basically comes down to tradition and what the public is willing to accept. and yes, alcohol is worse for you than pot. but that doesn't mean pot's not bad for you. the way i see it, the government should be trying to discourage people from using (or at least abusing) all drugs, legal or illegal. If patriotism persuades people to not do drugs, great. use it. If an egg in a frying pan works, great. use it. the bottom line is that less people in our society using drugs is A Good Thing.

my problem with legalizing pot is not that i think stoners should be having their lives ruined by the justice system, but i worry how it would affect social mores about pot use. would we wind up with as many stoners as we have alcoholics? how many people don't smoke pot because they just have some vague notion that it is somehow bad because it is illegal? so, i'm all for decriminalizing it to a large extent, but i can't bring myself to actually support legalization.

as far as the ads go, if they don't work then obviously they're a waste of money. but just because one series of ads doesn't work doesn't mean all ads about drugs are doomed to fail. we're all shaped by our environment and clever and persistent advertizing does eventually get drilled into our subconscious. those AT&T carrothead ads are annoying as hell, but i'll bet most of us know that damn number, don't we?
posted by boltman at 11:33 PM on May 16, 2002

my problem with legalizing pot is not that i think stoners should be having their lives ruined by the justice system, but i worry how it would affect social mores about pot use. would we wind up with as many stoners as we have alcoholics?

Lets look at the facts:

Last month use of cannabis (marijuana) by high school seniors: 
18.1%  in the Netherlands (1996); 
23.7% in the U.S. (1997). 

Any lifetime use (prevalence) of cannabis by older teens (1994): 
30% in the Netherlands; 
38% in the U.S. 

Any lifetime use of cannabis by 15 year olds (in 1995): 
29% in the Netherlands; 
34% in the U.S.; 
41% in the U.K. 

Heroine addicts as a percentage of population (in 1995): 
160 per 100,000 in the Netherlands; 
430 per 100,000 in the U.S. 

Murder rate as a percentage of population (in 1996): 
1.8 per 100,000 in the Netherlands; 
8.22 in the U.S. 

Incarceration rate as a percentage of population (1997): 
73 per 100,000 in the Netherlands; 
645 per 100,000 in the U.S. 

and finally:

Per capita spending on drug-related law enforcement: 
$27 per capita in the Netherlands; 
$81 per capita in the U.S. 
posted by niceness at 3:45 AM on May 17, 2002

Wonders when Walters is going to realize tired old anti-pot propaganda like his Washington Post op-ed piece, "The Myth of 'Harmless' Marijuana," doesn't work either. (I posted a link to that in a thread last month but I really don't want to look it up or post it again.)
posted by StOne at 6:31 AM on May 17, 2002

some states have lowered youth tobacco usage with ads. Wish I wasn't to lazy to find stats for this.

Louisville needs an anti-litter campaign.
posted by mecran01 at 7:48 AM on May 17, 2002

boltman: those AT&T carrothead ads are annoying as hell, but i'll bet most of us know that damn number, don't we?

I know it, but because the ads annoy me, I would never use it. I think that my attitude in this respect is not uncommon, especially among us social deviant types who like to smoke pot.

the way i see it, the government should be trying to discourage people from using (or at least abusing) all drugs, legal or illegal.

Even if we stick with the word "abusing" there, as opposed to "using," the situation is still complicated. What do we mean by "all drugs"? What about pennicilin? I presume you're talking about recreational drugs. Heroin and crack fall squarely into that category, but most other illegal drugs don't. In fact, many drugs used recreationally are actually legal to use in some circumstances.

For example, I take amphetamines every day. They're legal; I have a prescription for them. However, without the prescription, they would be "speed." The issue for me is that many people who take these drugs as "speed" are taking them for the same reasons I'm taking them, they just have trouble believing that it's possible to actually get them legally, under the guidance of a doctor who will help you decide which kind of speed is right for you, and how much you should be taking. And that is because, in my opinion, the government is barraging the public with idiot anti-drug campaigns that, again, purposely refuse to either define drugs or to differentiate between different types of drugs. How do you think the many thousands (millions?) or people who are living better lives because of prozac, paxil, ritalin, etc. feel about that retarded "x is my anti-drug" campaign? It's a joke!
posted by bingo at 8:31 AM on May 17, 2002