Review Findings Contradict Drug Czar's Rosy Views 1/23/04

Review Finds Anti-Drug Campaign Works on Parents (Sort Of) But Not Kids -- Findings Contradict Drug Czar's Rosy Views 1/23/04

Just a little more than a month ago, John Walters, head of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP, the drug czar's office -- http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov) was loudly boasting that his $150 million a year youth anti-drug ad campaign was responsible for reducing mar1juana use among kids. Based on the most recent figures from Monitoring the Future (http://www.monitoringthefuture.org), one of three widely used measures for tracking drug use levels, Walters proclaimed the ad campaign at least partially responsible for an 11% decrease in mar1juana use among teens canvassed in the survey. (The numbers were 19.4% in 2001 and 17.3% in 2003, an actual difference of 2.1 percentage points. But an 11% decrease sounds more impressive.)

Monitoring the Future lead investigator Lloyd Johnston guardedly seconded that opinion, as did Dr. Glen Hansen, acting director of the National Institutes on Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov). But a study commissioned by NIDA and released Monday has come up with startlingly different results.

Here are what Johnston, Walters, and Hansen said last month:

Johnston: "It is quite possible that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, which communicates the dangers of mar1juana use, has had its intended effect. We have definitely seen a change in that direction." -- Monitoring the Future press release, December 19.
Walters: "Teen drug use has reached a level that we haven't seen in nearly a decade. This survey shows that when we push back against the drug problem, it gets smaller. Fewer teens are using drugs because of the deliberate and serious messages they have received about the dangers of drugs from their parents, leaders, and prevention efforts like our National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign." -- ONDCP press release, December 19.
Hanson: "A message is getting out there." -- ONDCP press release, December 19.
Neither Monitoring the Future nor ONDCP returned DRCNet's calls for comment this week, nor has ONDCP issued any press releases on the findings released this week.
The four-year, NIDA-commissioned study of the ad campaign by the University of Pennsylvania's Walter Annenberg School of Communications and the research group Westat had to say this week:

Effects on youth: "There is little evidence of direct favorable Campaign effects on youth, either for the mar1juana Initiative or the Campaign as a whole. The trend data in mar1juana use is not favorable [although different measures, such as Monitoring the Future, show different results]. In any case, youth who were exposed to more Campaign messages were no more likely to hold favorable beliefs or intentions about mar1juana than are youth less exposed to those messages, both during the mar1juana Initiative period and over the course of the Campaign."

Effects on parents: "Overall, there is some evidence of favorable Campaign effects on four out of five parent belief and behavior outcome measures, including talking with children about drugs, doing fun activities with children, and beliefs about monitoring children. The evidence for the Campaign's effects on monitoring behavior was much weaker. The lack of influence on monitoring is a concern because... it is the parent behavior most associated with youth non-use of mar1juana. In addition, there is no evidence for favorable indirect effects on youth behavior or beliefs as a result of parent exposure to the Campaign."

The NIDA-commissioned study released this week will be the last independent audit of the anti-drug media campaign. Following similar previous analyses of the campaign's lack of success, ONDCP maneuvered to end funding for such independent evaluations. Instead, the campaign will be evaluated by campaign co-conspirators, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

"This independent evaluation confirms what has been obvious for some time: The government's anti-mar1juana ads are a complete failure and a staggering waste of taxpayer money," said Steve Fox, director of government relations for the mar1juana Policy Project (http://www.mpp.org) in a Monday press release. "Hundreds of millions have been spent on these ads already, and Congress may soon authorize over $1 billion for the campaign over the next five years. We urge Congress to pull the plug on this propaganda," Fox said. "At the very least, Congress must demand reinstatement of the independent evaluations. Having the Partnership for a Drug-Free America evaluate its own ad campaign is like having Halliburton audit its own federal contracts."

"This study just confirms that the campaign isn't working," concurred Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of mar1juana Laws (http://www.norml.org). "The only independent scientific evaluation of the campaign shows no impact on those kids who have seen more ads than others, and in some cases, those kids who have seen more ads actually show a more pro-drug attitude than those who haven't. Not only does the campaign not work, it is sometimes even counterproductive," he said.

Armentano also had some criticism of Monitoring the Future's Johnston. "Johnston was not looking specifically at the ads' impact; he simply noted the downturn in use and attributed it to the ad campaign. But he didn't ask if the people he polled who reported lower use were actually influenced by the ads or had even seen them. That is not scientific," Armentano said.

As for action from Congress, Armentano wasn't optimistic. "If we had reason to believe that Congress would base its decision on appropriating funds for the campaign on the results of scientific evaluations, I would be optimistic," he said. "But Washington is completely uninterested in whether it actually works; instead, it's full speed ahead." Still, Armentano added, the anti-drug ad campaign had already seen its funding slashed from $200 million a year to $150 million a year after earlier doubts were raised. "It's not a slam dunk for the drug czar, but I've been to these appropriation hearings and I've seen Walters get up and say 'we're getting dramatically positive results, the ads are working,' and Congress says 'sounds like you're doing a great job.' They didn't question him."

The anti-drug ad campaign has been widely criticized, ridiculed, and even parodied, as well as repeatedly being found ineffective. But, in a sign of corporate collusion with conservative prohibitionists, CBS has pronounced the ads non-controversial and will once again run them during the upcoming Superbowl. CBS has denied air time for paid commercials from organizations including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and MoveOn, the anti-Bush grassroots organization, on the grounds that they are advocacy ads. But the drug czar's propaganda is okay.

The report, "Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, 2003 Report of Findings," is available at http://www.mpp.org/pdf/Westat0104.pdf online.

 

At least we won't have to put up with any of these pesky independent reviews of the media campaign anymore. The congress decided not to fund the reviews partly because they keep coming back and bashing the media campaign specifically and the drug war in general.

When are we going to wake up and come up with a system that ACTUALLY reduces drug use rather than just "sending messages."

 

As long as nobody can offer up an effective response, it is my duty to continue to point out the failures in the single biggest waste of money that this country has ever engaged in.

 

Show me the numbers, not the SOU transcript. According to every study done, there has not been a real decrease in drug use since the drug war began.

 

Did you read the very next sentance?

"Walters proclaimed the ad campaign at least partially responsible for an 11% decrease in mar1juana use among teens canvassed in the survey. (The numbers were 19.4% in 2001 and 17.3% in 2003, an actual difference of 2.1 percentage points. But an 11% decrease sounds more impressive.)"

Walters can throw out any numbers he wants, but the sad fact remains that the only way the drug war can remain running is through propaganda and skewed numbers. The actual numbers in the studies showed a 2% decrease and yet Walters claimed an 11% decrease.

I would invite you to defend prohibition if that is the policy that you support. I will state again that prohibition has caused more harm than drugs ever have and that we could have a much more effective drug policy if we regulated the market and taxed the sale of these substances so that drug users themselves pay the social costs involved in drug use. Why should I have to pay for people who use drugs (I pay for interdiction, arrests, prosecution, and incarceration along with treatment for indigents)? Why should you?

 

LOL. That is a good illustration of how drug policy in this country works.

Great point. Personally, I think the money from the WOD should be used to pay down the debt first, before being returned to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, but I agree that the states should be free to set their own drug policy. Through strict oversight and scientific study, we can find out what policies best meet the goals of reducing availability to minors and reducing overall drug use.

I believe that federal prohibition (defined as banning a particular substance) of drugs should be ended with a system of regulation set up that allows the states to experiment with their own drug laws in order to find the policy that works best to meet the above goals.

Regulating drug sales will reduce the harms inherent in drug use DRASTICALLY. Before we banned these substances, almost nobody ever died as a result of drug use. Nobody had to steal to support their habit when the habit didn't cost them $100 and up per day. I would invite you to look at the statistics from Australia, Afghanistan, and Switzerland. The following is a quote from a fellow anti-prohibitionist in Australia:

"Australia did not prohibit heroin until 1953.

Bureau of Statistics data shows that in 1951, while heroin was still legally prescribable by doctors, Australia was using 5.25 Kilos of heroin per million of population, and deaths by overdose were 0, ZERO, NIL!

>From 1953 onwards heroin was prohibited. It could not be manufactured, imported, possessed or used.

Yet its use steadily increased, and deaths by overdose increased in step, until by 1998 Australia was using 330 Kilos of illegal heroin per million of population and deaths by overdose were over 900 per annum.

At a street price of $400 to $600 per Kilo, the profits from this black market were enormous and could be used for any nefarious purpose the profiteers desired - certainly including terror.

Study the opium production statistics of Afghanistan, the worlds biggest producer over the years since heroin was first prohibited by USA and then by Europe, and you will see the connection between prohibition and opium production.

Where was it that Osama bin Laden holed up? The Afghan Tribal Territories, that's where, and it was from there that September 11 was planned.

Look at the Swiss statistics from the 1980s on. You will find a steadily increasing overdose toll until they changed their tactics in the early 1990s, and provided clinics in which 1147 seriously dependent users were selected for a heroin maintenance trial, in which this cohort could receive for a charge of 15 Francs per week a negotiated supply of clinical grade heroin to be consumed on the premises under supervision.

The removal of those seriously dependent users from the black market halved their death by overdose rate and lowered property crime in the areas of the clinics by 90%.

It is clearly prohibition that feeds the terrorists, and a lot of more traditional nasties as well."

I am not saying that heroin is safe to use, it remains one of the most dangerous chemicals in the world. What I am saying is that prohibition (of any dangerous substance or behavior) is like dumping a ton of napalm on a pile of burning leaves. Not only does it not solve the problem, but it increases the harm done in HUGE ways.

 

In that case, I invite you to look at the Libertarian platform regarding drugs.

http://www.lp.org/issues/relegalize.html

Yes, I would prefer that our drug policy be based on numbers, statistics, and hard data as opposed to propaganda, distortions, and outright lies.

Nope. Here are a couple for you. Have you ever worked on psychiatric chemical dependancy units? Have you ever formally studied drug use and abuse?

REPORTED use of mar1juana went up as users were comfortable telling the truth. I am sure that pot use by adults rose, but if you look at the statistics (the ones I have are from 1997-2001), you will also find that use by minors in the Netherlands is HALF what it is here. With a strong system of regulation (instead of the hodge-podge of unenforced laws because of the UN-forced prohibition), we could DRAMATICALLY reduce availability to kids, which will be the first step towards reducing overall drug use.

Actually, it is highly likely that in a regulated market, crack cocaine use would virtually end as crack was created so that street dealers would have a cheap, portable, easily measured dose of cocaine that was highly addictive. In a regulated market, people could make crack from legally purchased cocaine, but would be far more likely to ingest it in much smaller doses as they did when it was legal (before 1914, it was part of the original Coca-Cola recipe and was also mixed in wine).

How can you say that given the information on Australia I quoted above? When drugs could be acquired legally before 1914, we had virtually no problems and people did not overdose left and right. People were able to find their own "happy medium" and left to their own devices, most people will make responsible choices.

By regulating sales of drugs, we will be able to educate drug users as to the effects of drug use, track drug sales to identify cases of abuse and addiction, tax the proceeds to recover social costs, and reduce overall drug use.

You may not think it would work here, but the sad fact remains that we have a policy which throws gasoline onto the fire that is drug use and abuse in this country. Every time we become more draconian and impose more control, we end up fanning the flames and pouring more gasoline.

We can end this war and eliminate drug overdoses overnight. We can end this war and take $60 billion per year out of the hands of organized criminals. We can end this war and make the police back into "peace officers" who are trusted fully by 99% of the people in the communities they police.

I would argue that the current laws are not controlling anything. They are ceding control of drug sales to criminals and giving up the massive profits that could be taxed by the government. How are the current laws controlling drug use?

 

Are you saying that it is a dead horse because I proved my point? If not, defend your failed policy. Offer an alternative to the way it works now. Do something constructive.