February 1,
2002
PRICEY
PRIME TIME PROPAGANDA:
ANTI-DRUG ADVERTS AND THE SUPER BOWL
by
Zara Gelsey
As approximately forty percent of American households are gearing up for
game day, the Drug Czar and his Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
are prepared to make use of the Super Bowl’s enormous audience to
disseminate a damaging and discriminatory message: if you use illegal
drugs, then you support terrorism. The ONDCP has reportedly purchased two
30-second spots for the whopping price of $1.6 million apiece. Touted as
being the biggest single-event government advertising buy in U.S. history
(www.adage.com), it is clear that this
campaign means business.
What isn’t clear is the intended effect of this campaign. Ostensibly,
the government is trying to shame Americans who use illegal drugs into
deeming their actions as unpatriotic and terrorist-supporting. On closer
examination, however, the intent of the ads may be an appeal, not to drug
users (whose marginalized position makes them less likely to feel
compelled to please the government anyway), but to already fervently
“patriotic” Americans who are being told to treat drug users as
supporters of terrorism.
Yet the ONDCP seems to be oblivious to the fact that it is not users of
illegal drugs who are supporting terrorism, but the ONDCP’s own
prohibition policies. By its very nature, drug prohibition creates
inflated prices and a black market through which billions of untraceable
dollars flow. One need only look at the failure of alcohol prohibition,
which created domestic terrorists like Al Capone, to see that it is not
alcohol and other drugs, but rather prohibition that feeds the
coffers of terrorism.
As proof that drug prohibition, rather than drug users, funds terrorist
activities, one need only note that beer-maker Anheuser-Busch Co. has
purchased ten Super Bowl ad spaces, far more than any other advertiser.
Alcohol is a drug, yet profits from its sale make American companies rich
rather than terrorists because alcohol is no longer subject to
prohibition.
Another disturbing facet of the ONDCP’s multi-million dollar
advertisement campaign is the magnitude of money, which could be better
spent. According to NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse), the average
cost for a full year of methadone maintenance treatment is approximately
$4,700 per patient. That means that for the cost of these two ad spots,
not including production costs, the government could instead be treating
680 heroin addicts. For an agency that designates as one of its foci, to
“reduce
health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use by reducing the
treatment gap,” this
expenditure on propaganda seems ludicrous. But then again ONDCP’s entire
drug prohibition policy is ludicrous.
Americans have used drugs for centuries and will continue to do so. By
restricting individual choice in the matter of what one takes to alter his
or her consciousness, our national drug policy stomps on the exact
freedoms it claims to protect. Rather than paint illegal drug use as
unpatriotic, the U.S. government should recognize that the freedom to
control one’s own consciousness is a fundamental right—one which a
rational and sustainable drug policy must acknowledge and respect.
Zara
Gelsey (zara@cognitiveliberty.org)
is the Director of Communications of the Center for Cognitive
Liberty & Ethics (CCLE).
To
express your concern about this issue, please write a letter to the
editor of your local paper. To let the ONDCP know of your reaction to
their campaign, you can send an email from: http://www.mediacampaign.org/contact/index.html
or http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/contact/index.html.
Receive Top News
Alerts in your E-mail box! >> Learn
more
