Altes Elliott-Wellen-Forum - OT: Fleeced by Anti-Drug Ads / Artikel mises.org

OT: Fleeced by Anti-Drug Ads / Artikel mises.org

verfasst von - Elli -, 16.06.2003, 18:43

--><div>
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1253
</div>
<div>
 
</div>
<div>
Fleeced by Anti-Drug Ads
</div>

 

by Paul Armentano

[Posted June 16, 2003]

[img][/img] It's
often said that Congress has never met an anti-drug program it didn't like.
The White House's"National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign" is no
exception. To date, the campaign has spent some $2 billion in taxpayer dollars
and matching funds since 1998 to produce print, television, and radio
advertisements urging"America's youth to reject illegal drugs,"
specifically marijuana. 

Nevertheless, a series of federally funded evaluations of
the program have consistently shown that the ads fail to discourage viewers
from trying pot or other drugs, and in some cases actually foster"pro-drug"
beliefs among teens.

These evaluations include:

<ul>
~ A May 2002 review by the research firm Westat Inc. and
the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania that
found"no statistically significant decline in marijuana use or
improvement in beliefs and attitudes about marijuana use"
attributable to the ad campaign. Authors also acknowledged that there was
"no tendency for those reporting more exposure to Campaign messages
to hold more desirable beliefs" about the dangers of illicit drugs.     
~ A January 2003 Westat and Annenberg evaluation
reaffirming that there is"little evidence of direct favorable
Campaign effects on youth."  Moreover, the authors conceded
that"contrarily, there are some unfavorable trends in youth
anti-marijuana beliefs" attributable to the ad campaign. (Following
this critique, the White House abruptly severed its $35 million contract
with Westat and Annenberg to conduct biannual reviews of the Media
Campaign.)     
~ A February 2003 performance assessment by the White House
Office of Management and Budget criticizing the Media Campaign for failing
to achieve any tangible goals or objectives. There exists  "no
evidence that paid media messages have a direct effect on youth
drug-related behavior," the report concluded. As a result, its
authors recommended Congress restrict funding for the campaign pending
further evaluation.     
~ A Spring 2003 study published in the Journal of Health
Communication examining the impact of a series of federal
anti-marijuana advertisements on youth attitudes and behavior. The
researchers reported"no clear persuasion or priming effects... for
any of the ad sequences" among a sample of 418 middle and high school
students assigned to view the ads. Authors further warned that the ads'
message could potentially have a"boomerang" effect on its
target audience.</li>
</ul>

It should come as no surprise to researchers or lawmakers
that the Media Campaign is having the opposite effect on America's teens than
the one intended. Teenagers know the difference between factual information
and government propaganda, and the fed's ad campaign clearly falls into the
latter category. For example, take the White House's ad spot linking
recreational drug use and international terrorism."Where do terrorists
get their money?" asks the ad, which debuted during the 2002 Super Bowl
broadcast at a cost of some $3.4 million."If you buy drugs, some of it
might come from you."

 Please!  While a small portion of black
market profits may theoretically fund certain terrorist groups around the
globe, this outcome is not the result of drugs per se, but the result
of federal drug policies that keep them illegal--thus inflating their prices
and relegating their production and trade exclusively to criminal
entrepreneurs. Therefore, if the federal government legitimately sought to
break the alleged link between illicit drugs and terrorism, it would amend its
policies to permit the legalization and regulation of such drugs in a manner
similar to those already in place for other intoxicating substances such as
tobacco and alcohol.

Of course, anyone waiting for such a policy change--or, in
this case, truth in advertising--shouldn't hold their breath. In Washington,
the drug war continues unabated regardless of the outcome. As such, despite
the Media Campaign's consistently poor performance (only a preliminary review
by the Partnership for a Drug Free American [a partner in the Media
Campaign] reports any positive correlation between the ads and teens'
decisions on drugs), lawmakers are nonetheless set to refund the ad program
with a new five-year appropriation, which includes a $90 million funding boost!  Nevertheless,
it's painfully apparent that the public isn't buying what the government is
selling. Sadly, were just the ones footing the bill.

-------

Paul Armentano is a senior policy analyst for The NORML
Foundation (www.norml.org) in Washington, DC, a think-tank which lobbies for
the liberalization of marijuana laws. See his Daily
Article Archive. He may be contacted via e-mail at: paularmentano@aol.com

Thread gesperrt

gesamter Thread:

OT: Fleeced by Anti-Drug Ads / Artikel mises.org - - Elli -, 16.06.2003, 18:43
- Die verlogene Doppelmoral der amerikanischen Drogenpolitik - HB, 16.06.2003, 19:56
  - Afganistan - HB, 16.06.2003, 20:15
    - Afghanistan schreibt sich natürlich so (owT) - HB, 16.06.2003, 20:15