If you watched the Super Bowl
last Sunday, or watched it just for the commercials, you may have
seen some of the new anti-drug
ads. One shows a man on the subway who is confronted by the ghosts
of the people he "helped to kill" because he used drugs.
Another commercial that aired during the big game depicts a couple
waiting for the results of their teenage daughter's pregnancy test.
Apparently, her pregnancy had something to do with a lack of judgment
caused by her use of marijuana.
There are many other anti-drug ads (at least thirty more) that include
references to terrorism, including murders, kidnappings and rapes,
plus others that show sexual assaults, car accidents involving little
girls on bikes, etc. The slogans of these commercials are usually
something like "Drug money supports terror" or "Marijuana
can affect your judgment."
Drug money may, in fact, fund terrorist organizations and marijuana
does affect one's judgment. But isn’t alcohol
a much more dangerous substance, especially for teenagers? Don't situations
like those depicted in the ads occur mainly due to alcohol use? When
only 2.1% of high school students have tried cocaine, how can they
be accused of helping to fund a terrorist organization in Colombia?
The point is that although these ads do contain elements of truth,
the facts are greatly exaggerated and the ads are an example of propaganda
at its worst. Like any advertisement, the anti-drug/anti-terror ads
rely on sensational claims and heavy persuasion in order to get their
point across.
The new anti-drug commercials are sponsored by various government-funded
organizations, primarily the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) and the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (NYADMC) which fund the "truth:
the anti-drug" campaign. These groups seek to "help kids
and teens reject substance abuse by influencing attitudes through
persuasive information" (www.drugfreeamerica.org). But are these
persuasive advertising tactics legitimate? How much truth is there
in these persuasive tactics? Is our nation comfortable with fighting
the war on drugs by using exaggerated and misguided propaganda instead
of facts? Should these anti-drug groups use ads that hold individual
Americans responsible for international terrorism? We hope not! Arguments
against these ads are not meant to support drug use in any way. Some
of the crimes and actions included in these anti-drug commercials
can indeed be related to drug use. However, NYADMC's ads seem to be
relying on inspiring guilt and fear among teenagers, rather than teaching
teens the facts and consequences of drug use.
To borrow a sound bite from President Bush, "if you quit drugs,
you join the fight against terror in America." The logic is that
an individual's choice not to use drugs will mean that less money
will go to terrorist
organizations and terrorist groups will crumble as the demand
for drugs falls. It sounds like a good idea, except for the fact that
the United States’ demand for drugs hasn't lessened significantly
in the last several decades, despite the war on drugs. Clearly, past
anti-drug campaigns and tactics have been largely unsuccessful. However,
anti-drug groups today still seem to be relying on scare tactics that
resemble those from the 1950s.
Because these ads are aimed at teens, marijuana seems to be the most
relevant symbol for drugs as a whole. However, if the goal of NYADMC
and PDFA is to explicitly link drug use to terrorism, then the anti-drug
commercials should use cocaine
as their example. The "Truth" campaign’s website (www.theantidrug.com)
cites multiple instances of terror in Colombia, the largest importer
of cocaine to the United States. If anything, these campaigns should
mostly focus on heroin,
since the majority of our country's heroin is imported from Afghanistan.
Teens are being misled into believing that the use of marijuana will
help to fund international terrorist organizations in countries such
as Colombia and Afghanistan. This consequence is unlikely, especially
considering that almost all marijuana purchased in the United States
is produced in North America.
After decades of fighting a losing battle, our government seems desperate
for the quick fix to our country's drug problem. The new anti-drug
ads target teens as naive members of a society that has been shaken
by terrorism. These ads take advantage of the fear of terrorism that
many Americans face. Although the drug trade in the United States
is not an individual problem, these ads imply that individual Americans
are responsible for international terrorism and other crimes. The
scare tactics used in these ads are our government’s way to shift
the blame from their own losing battle against the drug trade. The
teenagers that these ads target may not be aware that these are nothing
more than TV commercials, bent on persuading and influencing viewers
whether they contain truthful information or not. Keeping teens off
drugs is a cause worth fighting for, but lying and exaggerating to
deter them is not the way to win the war.
