"Grass," the new pro-pot movie from veteran documentarian Ron Mann, is like a good birthday gift - the presentation is something to appreciate, but the real treat is what's inside. The wrapping paper of Mann's gift is an amusing but straight history of our country's marijuana policies from the 1920s to today. But after removing that wrapping, you'll find a scathing, meticulously researched indictment of America's war on drugs. According to drug historian Harry G. Levine, a professor at Queens College, "It's impeccable, meticulous scholarship and a brilliant recitation of history." [continues 1558 words]
In His Latest Exposé, The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh Reports Allegations That The Military Committed A Massacre Against Iraqi Soldiers And Whitewashed It. An investigative report for the New Yorker by veteran muckraker Seymour Hersh alleges that Clinton drug czar Barry McCaffrey orchestrated a 1991 massacre of hundreds of Iraqi troops, two days after a cease-fire went into effect at the end of the Gulf War. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist quotes numerous on-the-record combat veterans, both senior officers and enlisted men, describing the "systematic destruction" of a 5-mile-long column of Iraqi armor, vehicles and personnel making what was described as an orderly, U.S.-sanctioned retreat. [continues 1740 words]
Drug policy spokesman responds to Daniel Forbes' report on the government's anti-drug messages in American media, and Forbes replies. Editor's note: This letter was recently sent by the White House to Salon in response to Daniel Forbes' March 31 article on U.S. drug policy, "The drug war gravy train." Following the letter, which was written by White House aide Robert Housman, investigative reporter Daniel Forbes offers his rebuttal. Dear Editor: The purpose of this letter is twofold. First, I write to once again ask Salon.com to set the record straight with respect to the errors in Salon's earlier reporting, which were set out in my last letter. Second, I write to raise factual errors with respect to the latest article in Salon, "The Drug War Gravy Train." [continues 1992 words]
How the White House rewarded U.S. News, Seventeen and other magazines for publishing anti-drug articles. At least six major U.S. magazines have submitted anti-drug articles they have published over the past year to the government's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in an attempt to qualify for thousands of dollars of financial credits under the same federal advertising program that has benefited the television networks, Salon has learned. Those magazines whose articles have been deemed by the drug czar's office as "on-message" have qualified for the credits, which are awarded in lieu of advertising obligations. Those that failed the test have not. [continues 4390 words]
When The White House And The TV Networks Got Together To Put Anti-Drug Messages In Prime-Time Television, Were They Breaking The Law? Has the federal government embarked on an illegal payola scam with the nation's television networks? And has the nation's drug czar blown smoke at Congress to escape ongoing congressional oversight? A Salon exclusive published Thursday described a hidden government campaign to insert anti-drug messages into TV programs. The arrangement was concocted by the office of the nation's drug czar, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, and its ad buyer and was carried out by the six networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, the WB, Fox, and, this TV season, UPN. [continues 678 words]
How The White House Secretly Hooked Network TV On Its Anti-Drug Message Advertisements urging parents to love their kids and keep them off drugs dot urban bus stops across America. Anti-drug commercials fill Channel One in the nation's schools and the commercial breaks of network TV -- most notably a comely, T-shirt-clad waif trashing her kitchen to demonstrate the dangers of heroin. We've come a long way from Nancy Reagan's clenched-teeth "Just Say No." [continues 5010 words]
Piggybacking on the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's decade-old ad campaign, the White House has committed $195 million in 1998 for an anti-drug media campaign that went nationwide on July 9. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy wants Congress to continue to fund its National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign over the next four years – nearly $1 billion in tax money. The Partnership, with White House oversight, will generate advertising that targets young people and parents with four or more anti-drug impressions a week. [continues 1253 words]
Great hullabaloo greeted my nearly 6,000-word article on the paucity of research underlying the theory behind anti-drug advertising. The article – which covered the government's plan to spend $1 billion of tax money over the next five years on a nationwide ad campaign and which included months of research – appeared in the April 27 edition of the marketing magazine, Brandweek, sister publication to AdWeek. I was screamed at, called a liar, sneered at for being a freelancer, threatened with lawsuits, and (prior to publication) importuned by academics for easy treatment due to lack of tenure. [continues 568 words]
The ONDCP strategy involves a three phase effort; the first, having begun in January and still running, is a 12-city test of $20 million in paid anti-drug ads, during which the office is evaluating its tactics based on focus groups, phone interviews and community feedback. That said, one high-ranking executive involved in the program terms it superficial at best. Phase Two expands the campaign nationally, with $65 million in paid ads starting in May or June. Phase Three, which starts in the fall, allocates $93 million in paid integrated media. [continues 2075 words]
It's every brand manager or marketing director's dilemma. Ad agency account and creative directors wince and hedge when the question is asked. Will the advertising work? Will it help sell more widgets? But what if the stakes were greater than selling a few more Ford Explorers or boxes of Tide? What if the product in question is "deterrence," as in deterring kids from trying drugs and deterring parents from taking a passive attitude about "having a talk." And what if the clients footing the bill for these anti-drug messages are now the American taxpayers and a raft of media companies being coerced into handing over hundreds of millions of dollars of free time and space? [continues 3254 words]
