DrugSense FOCUS Alert #226 Wednesday February 6, 2002 Speak Out Against Drug Propaganda Campaign PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE The link between drug prohibition and terrorist funding has been established (see for example, http://www.narcoterror.org/), but it's a long stretch to say that American drug users are helping to fund terror. Drug warriors, no strangers to long stretches, are trying to sell the argument on TV and newspaper ads. They were willing to use more than $3 million of your tax money in a single minute to promote the new campaign during the broadcast of the Super Bowl. A few newspapers have covered the new ads as stories - and at least 293 newspapers have been paid to run the ads. Please write a letter to one of those newspapers to debunk the faulty logic underlying the ads. Please remind editors that terrorists aren't using alcohol and pharmaceuticals to fund their activities, and that prohibition offers the strongest link between drugs and terror. WRITE A LETTER TODAY It's not what others do it's what YOU do PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID (Letter, Phone, fax etc.) Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent letter list () if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit. Subscribing to the Sent LTE list () will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts. To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see: http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is one very effective way of gauging our impact and effectiveness. CONTACT INFO Source: Washington Post (DC) Contact: EXTRA CREDIT A number of other newspapers have covered this story - please send a letter to them as well. And, if you've seen these ads in your local newspaper, please write to tell them what you think of the ads. US: Anti-Drug Ads Play The Terror Card URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n190/a02.html Pubdate: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Contact: US MN: Editorial: New Campaign Highlights Effects Of U.S. Drug URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n192/a05.html Pubdate: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 Source: Duluth News-Tribune (MN) Contact: US NY: This Drug Ad A Hard Sell URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n181/a06.html Pubdate: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 Source: Newsday (NY) Contact: US: White House Drug Agency Scores Last-Minute Super Bowl Ad URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n162/a04.html Pubdate: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 Source: Wall Street Journal (US) Contact: NOTE: Please address each newspaper one at a time using the To: field of your email program. Be sure to use the newspaper name somewhere in each message. Newspaper editors expect that you are addressing them only - they are quick to hit the delete key if they think you are sending something to multiple publications. ORIGINAL ARTICLE Pubdate: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 Source: Washington Post (DC) Page: A03 Copyright: 2002 The Washington Post Company Contact: Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491 Author: Frank Ahrens, Washington Post Staff Writer Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicyalliance.org/ Bookmarks: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign) http://www.mapinc.org/find?203 (Terrorism) NEW PITCH IN ANTI-DRUG ADS: ANTI-TERRORISM The ads by the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy aired during last night's Super Bowl marked an escalation in the selling of the administration's war on drugs -- for the first time, the illegal narcotics trade is linked to terrorism. Previously, government anti-drug messages focused on how users harm themselves. The two Super Bowl ads, which cost nearly $3.5 million to place during the widely watched Fox television broadcast, claim that money to purchase drugs likely ends up in the hands of terrorists and narco-criminals. "Where do terrorists get their money?" asks one of the ads, which portrays a terrorist buying explosives, weapons and fake passports. "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you." About half of the 28 organizations identified as terrorist by the State Department are funded by sales of illegal drugs, according to the drug office. The ads are targeted at teens and aim to tap the same sense of international awareness seen in young protesters of globalization and the lending practices of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. "Young people are interested in and motivated by larger concerns in society, such as environmentalism" and the World Trade Organization, said John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "They're looking for ways to make the world better and against things that make the world worse." The two 30-second ads (which aired a total of three times before and during the game) were funded by the drug office's $180 million advertising budget, the largest of any government agency. They were created by New York advertising giant Ogilvy & Mather. By law, Ogilvy receives expense reimbursement from the government for making the ads, but they are "essentially pro bono work," said Chris Wall, Ogilvy executive creative director. In addition to the paid Super Bowl ads, Fox is required to provide the drug office with three additional free prime-time airings of the commercials. The ads kick off a four-to-six-week nationwide campaign, which also includes ads on radio and in 293 newspapers (including The Washington Post), an augmented Web site(www.theantidrug.com) and teaching materials to be distributed to middle and high school students. Walters estimated the campaign's cost at $10 million. "Considering that Americans spend over $60 billion on [illegal] drugs a year, this is a pretty well-leveraged investment," said Walters, who was the drug office's chief of staff under William J. Bennett. Even before they aired, the ads drew criticism from groups that favor drug decriminalization and treatment programs instead of harsh criminal penalties. "There is something very disturbing about the fact the federal government is spending almost $3.5 million to blame nonviolent Americans for funding terrorism when . . . people who need drug treatment can't get it," said Matthew Briggs, an assistant director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates changes in drug laws. "We're not blaming Americans for terrorism, we're blaming terrorists for terrorism," Walters said. "We're telling Americans that if they use drugs, they should be aware that some of that money is being used to support terrorism in many cases." The drug office spent about $50,000 to make its Web site hacker-proof, said Alan Levitt, chief of the drug office's education division. The office also bought about two dozen Internet addresses with names similar to the official site, in an attempt to prevent parodies. Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the drug office contacted Ogilvy, an agency it had worked with before, asking for ideas on how to link the war on drugs to terrorism in an ad campaign. The drug office knew that the Taliban was partially funded by sales of opium, which can be refined into heroin. What followed, said British film and commercial director Tony Kaye, who produced the ads, was "unprecedented" fact-checking between the drug office and government agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, and the departments of Defense and State. Details down to the price of AK-47 assault rifles, featured in one of the ads, were debated. "The FBI said, 'Is the price retail or black market?' " Levitt said. Each line of dialogue in the ads is explained by a story on the agency's Web page. For instance, in one of the ads, a teen actor says: "I helped kill a judge." On the Web page, that line is linked to a drug-related killing in South America. Before airing, the ads were shown to teens in focus groups. The teenagers showed "a strong decline in intention to use" drugs after seeing the ads, Levitt said. And, he said, parents called them a "powerful way to initiate conversations" with their children. SAMPLE LETTER To the editor: The new so-called anti-drug ads that debuted during the Super Bowl were offensive on many levels. The ads aren't intended to make viewers think, or everyone would be asking why terrorists aren't using money derived from alcohol or tobacco markets. We don't pretend we can wipe those legal drugs off the face of the earth. We recognize that despite the problems associated with them, outlawing alcohol and tobacco would cause bigger problems - like creating easy funding for terrorists. But we continue to play the good drug/bad drug game. Too bad we don't play the game honestly and base our judgement of good and bad on the amount of death caused by a group of drugs. Then alcohol and tobacco would be considered as bad drugs, while drugs like marijuana, which causes no deaths, would be considered good. But, perversely, Super Bowl viewers were sold the notion that marijuana use leads to torture, while drinking Budweiser constitutes patriotism. What a wonderful lesson for young people. A more honest ad would have featured the face of federal drug czar John Walters saying, "I helped to drop toxic herbicide on peasants in Colombia today." Or a DEA agent saying, "I helped to take medicine away from a cancer patient today, and subvert the democratic process in California at the same time!" I'd buy such ads myself, if I had the money. Sadly, a good portion of my money is pooled with yours in order to convince us that (drug) war is (terror) peace. Stephen Young NOTE: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work. ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts Writer's Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/ Prepared by Stephen Youngwww.maximizingharm.com - DrugSense FOCUS Alert Specialist

Focus Alert Archive