Pubdate: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 Source: Columbia Daily Spectator (NY Edu) Copyright: 2002 Spectator Publishing Company Contact: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2125 Author: Paul Reyfman Note: Paul Reyfman is a Columbia College sophomore. HARMFUL DRUGS, HARMFUL ADS When I was young(er than I am now), anti-drug commercials starred Ninja Turtles and sported catchy, youthful slogans such as "I'm not a chicken, you're a turkey." The most intense ad that I can remember is the famous egg-frying commercial that clearly demonstrated the difference between my brain and my brain on drugs. Last year, soon after Sept. 11, anti-drug commercials started to change. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign began by running a few commercials that linked marijuana use with supporting terrorism. These and many other ads in this campaign are frighteningly radical. They often distort the truth and sometimes (as is often the case with the terrorism-themed commercials) seem to miss the point entirely. One of the most shocking commercials in this campaign features two boys, one of whom is holding a smoking water pipe, clearly getting high. They converse for a bit, saying "pothead" things like, "Dude, your sister's hot." Finally, one of them picks up a gun, saying, "Check this out." "Cool, is it loaded?" "Nah." The image fades and a shot is heard as the message, "Marijuana can distort your sense of reality," appears. It is replaced by the question that many of the commercials in this campaign end with: "Harmless?" What is lacking in this and other commercials that take the approach that smoking pot can result in physical injury to oneself and others is statistical evidence. There probably have been murders, suicides, car accidents, and other tragedies that occurred in conjunction with marijuana consumption, but there simply isn't scientific evidence in support of a link between such occurrences and the consumption of marijuana. To anyone who has seen the cult 1930s film Reefer Madness, the above commercial should seem familiar. Inspired by the anti-marijuana campaign of Henry Anslinger, the first head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the film portrays various healthy, capable teenagers turning into violent criminals or sex maniacs under the influence of pot. Anslinger orchestrated a vigorous slander campaign against marijuana that was epitomized by such writings as his 1937 article, "Marijuana: Assassin of Youth." In this article, among other things, he said, "No one knows, when he places a marijuana cigarette to his lips, whether he will become a joyous reveler in a musical heaven, a mad insensate, a calm philosopher, or a murderer." Anslinger's campaign was a total failure. In fact, some attribute the rise in marijuana use following the campaign's start to the interest that it generated in youth because of Anslinger's extreme claims and because of the size of his audience. If unreasonable scare tactics failed to curb marijuana use in the past, how can they succeed in affecting today's more-informed, experienced teenagers? The most curious aspect of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is that its commercials often carry a hidden, obviously unintended message. In one such commercial, two boys are shown getting caught smoking in a bathroom stall at a concert. The intended message: "Marijuana can get you busted. Harmless?" The unintended message: "If marijuana weren't illegal, you wouldn't get busted." The same applies to the commercials that link marijuana use to funding terrorism and to violence associated with drug smuggling. The "Harmless?" line of commercials, specifically, creates room for an exercise in logic that its engineers surely didn't foresee. Admittedly, marijuana, like every legal and illegal drug from aspirin to heroin, is not harmless. But, is it fair to assume that if something is not harmless, it should be illegal or even that it shouldn't be used for recreational or therapeutic purposes under controlled circumstances? Alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine are all drugs that are not harmless but are legal and frequently-used substances. By reducing the question of marijuana use to one of whether or not it is harmless, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is leaving itself open to such basic criticisms. The focus of such commercials should not be trying to prove that illegal drug use can have terrible unforeseen consequences. Instead, they should try, as they did when I was younger, to provide young Americans with effective methods for resisting peer pressure or with a reasonable understanding of the damaging effects of substance abuse on a person's health. And, there is no reason why the focus of such commercials should be illegal and not legal drugs. While there are, indeed, anti-smoking ads, the mysterious absence of commercials condemning alcohol use is inexcusable. Indeed, not all of today's anti-drug commercials are as absurd as those described above. Some provide tips for parents on being an "anti-drug" for their children. This is reasonable. A commercial that links marijuana smoking to homicide is not only unreasonable and unfounded but also chilling to watch. Anslinger's campaign failed, and it should not be revived. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh