EDITOR'S NOTE: Amanda Brooke Shaffer is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section at http://stopthedrugwar.org/about/staff
Is the American public getting tired of government lies and exaggerations about drugs? If the ballooning number of anti-drug parodies on the Internet is any measure, it sure seems so.
The emergence of YouTube.com and other popular video websites has enabled and emboldened Internet users to express their opinions about the often criticized, government-sponsored anti-drug PSAs through video clips and commentary. The public is busy at work making innovative and bold statements.
I attempted to view as many anti-drug parody ads as possible; however, I didn’t expect the search engine on YouTube.com to turn up such a high volume of videos. It soon became quite obvious that the trend of the parody ads is to expose the ridiculousness of the claims made in the anti-drug PSAs. The clip that follows is an anti-drug PSA sponsored by the government. The second is the parody of it produced by an Internet user.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgJdVEoVbgg, http://youtube.com/watch?v=m6FL0pmJeaE&feature=related
Clearly the second clip flat out mocks the first one by completely contradicting the message the government is portraying.
Below each video clip is space for viewers to comment. One of the numerous remarks about these two ads resembled something like this, “If I smoke then my dog will talk to me??? Puff, Puff, Pass!” This was just the tip of the iceberg of what users had to say.
A study was done on a variety of ads including the above mentioned “dog” ad to determine the effects on the youth of America. Guess what? The results showed an increase of marijuana use in girls aged 12-13 through making drug use by peers appear to be more familiar and acceptable. See: http://newrecovery.blogspot.com/2007/02/12-billion-later-national-youth-... and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06818.pdf and http://www.nida.nih.gov/DESPR/Westat/Westat502/ExecSummary502.html
Why are we spending our dwindling tax resources on commercials that send the wrong message to their target audience? The anti-drug media campaign creates artistic and abstract ads that are unrealistic, when all Americans really need, and want to see, are commercials that tell them the truth.
Another approach the campaign employs is using upbeat and positive messages to attempt to deter youths from using drugs. It is known as “What’s Your Anti-Drug?” This parody clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eDXxA0hMo1I) twists the government’s message to expose the fallacy of the marijuana as a “gateway” to harder drugs myth through the line, “Weed is my anti-drug.”
It seems that no matter how hard the government works to embed the gateway myth into the public consciousness, those pesky studies that disprove a causal link to using harder drugs keep informing the public of the truth. Many clips I viewed expressed the notion that weed prevented them from using other drugs by satisfying their desires and curiosities.
I felt one parody rose above the rest. Not only was it the most viewed parody anti-drug ad I came across, but it had me and all my friends rolling on the floor with laughter. It is an ad featuring our Commander in Chief, President Bush. Bush, known for his binge drinking and cocaine use by a large majority of Americans, is an ideal person to exemplify the long-term consequences of drug abuse. This ad has the right stuff -- a notable figure and a realistic message that is powerful and clear to the viewer. Check it out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGgTLMC9GXg.
I think it is quite obvious why Americans are taking precious time out of their daily lives to speak out. Simply put, the extremely expensive anti-drug media campaign employed by the government over the last two decades is laughable, and government-funded research continues to conclude that these ads are ineffective at preventing and reducing drug use among youths. Yet, despite the increasing mounds of evidence proving the campaign’s ineffectiveness, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) disputes the critical conclusions of these studies and has the audacity to ask the government for even more money. The good thing is that the ease of accessing these reports, thanks to the Internet, is making it progressively harder for ONDCP to ignore the facts and hide them from the American people.
You see, the D.A.R.E. generation has had enough of the lies and distortions, and it’s fighting back with truth and sense.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!
Misinformation
The "Internets" plays a critical role in the legalization movement, by undermining the mainstream media, who at least in the context of the WoD, generally functions like state-run media.
The Net has allowed our movement to organize and enter the realm of public relations.
If we had the resources to hire the best public relations professionals, people who have well-established, direct connections to the mainstream media, we would greatly expedite achieving our agenda of full legalization supported by an effective system of abuse prevention and treatment, because we would greatly expedite informing the misinformed, creating a unified force in "We the people" that the elected portions of government can't deny.
"This ad has the right stuff"
With all due respect, no it doesn't. That ad can be seen as an attack on the Republican party, where the majority of people needed to support change in our corrupt laws await our honest and freedom-embracing message to overtake the deception.
If I filmed any of us as frequently as Bush as been filmed, I could make the same movie for any individual I chose, focusing only on the negative moments. It's called smearing, and it's the same tactic used against our movement for roughly a century now. Fighting fire with fire would make us hypocrites.
We need to put down the Liberal guns, as well as the Conservative ones, and focus on bringing light, for all to see, to the whole truth, if we are to achieve success.
That's what public relations is all about.
Re: Misinformation
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate hearing responses to my piece, so that I know what holes I should have plugged up and comments I made that may not be having the intended effect.
I can understand how you may have construed my view of the President Bush ad the way you did.
First off, I had no intention of using the ad in the way you stated above. It was not meant to portray my political views, or the political views of this organization. Looking back, it may have been beneficial for me to search out a Bill Clinton ad that had similar characterstics to show it was bi-partisan.
I simply used this ad because it was what I came across in my research, and I did not state any false information about the President. I felt that ad was useful in that it used a prominent figure in our country along with a CLEAR message that viewers can understand and relate to. Many of the government sponosred ads are abstract and confuse the target audience (ages 11-17), so I felt something that was more to the point like this ad, could serve as an example of what an anti-drug ad should look like.
I think we can agree that both liberals and conservatives in the government have failed to solve the drug war problem. The goal of my post was to simply notify the public of how badly their tax dollars are being wasted on the anti-drug media campaign, and offer my advice on how to make it more effective.
However this is an extremly complex issue that won't be solved with one ad about President Bush. I hope it is clearer now what my intent was. If you have any other questions about what I previosuly wrote, or this response, don't hestitate to post another comment. Thanks again for your input.
Goal
Thanks for your input on my input. To address your input:
I understand. That's why I chose my words carefully. "That ad can be seen as an attack on the Republican party..."
In advertising success, it's not about your intentions, it's about the received perception.
That's because the prohibitionists are truly clueless when it comes to drug use. They believe that drug use and drug abuse are equal, which reality (including a good dictionary) proves is false.
What we need isn't an anti-drug ad. We need an anti-abuse ad.
The basic message involves teaching people where the "traps" are and how to avoid them.
To target taxpayers with the wasted money message, I suggest an ad that itemizes where exactly that media budget goes.
I believe that the Bush administration last sought 120 million taxpayer dollars for a year's worth of funding for their anti-drug media campaign.
$120,000,000? For what exactly?
Is the government obligated, perhaps in the name of the Freedom of Information Act, to provide that itemization to any citizen who requests it?
How many 'ads' do they make with their annual budget?
I've been told that media companies are obligated to provide free airtime (I'm not sure about printed publications) for Public Service Announcements. As such, is part of that budget going to paying for distribution to the public (including the Super Bowl slot), or not?
How much of that money goes into making and distributing these ads versus how much of it disappears into the pockets of corruption?
And given the effectively state-run media result when it comes to the WoD, does a chunk of that hard-earned taxpayer money find its way into mainstream media pockets as an incentive to remain silent, or is our movement just sorely lacking on the public relations front?
Taxpayer Blues
Each spoofed anti-drug PSA probably cost taxpayers many thousands of dollars to produce and release. Compare that cost to the next-to-nothing costs of the YouTube spoofs.
In each and every case, the spoof is infinitely more entertaining and refreshingly factual when compared to the professional product it mocks or parodies. This, sadly, is the level of professionalism we have come to expect and get from a corrupt drug warrior culture here in the U.S. of A.
Little attention is paid to this government waste. The mere fact that any kind of poorly conceived anti-drug PSAs are done at all seems to be enough to satisfy the inattentive or distracted citizen who ultimately pays the tab. It’s as if few care if the government knows what it’s doing as long as it’s doing something.
Perhaps the next mega-buck government PSA designed to insult our intelligence while emptying our pockets for the benefit of the few will feature a duo: Antonio Maria Costa and John Walters howling at the moon to stop heroin use by three-year-olds.
Giordano
Costa and Walter, I have a job for you
Your mission, which you refuse to accept, is to explain why you can use killer alcohol but other good folks can't use marijuana. Since you alcohol supremacists absolutely and totally refuse to explain why you are superior to cannabis users, the war on cannabis is indisputably bogus. Alcohol supremacism mocks the solemn pledge of liberty and justice for all.
Post new comment