Pubdate: Sat, 15 Jul 2000
Source: Saint Paul Pioneer Press (MN)
Copyright: 2000 St. Paul Pioneer Press
Contact:  345 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101
Website: http://www.pioneerplanet.com/
Forum: http://www.pioneerplanet.com/watercooler/
Author: Laura Billings, Staff Columnist

ADDLED POLICY TO SLIP ANTI-DRUG MESSAGES IN MOVIES DOESN'T ADD UP

I often read the news from Washington, D.C., and wonder if our public
officials are on drugs. For example: They're arguing about the ``marriage
penalty'' without first fixing the Social Security crisis, I said to myself
this week. They must be sniffing glue!

Generally, I find this is a restorative exercise, but it has been less so
since the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has announced a
scheme so boneheaded I have to wonder if ``drug czar'' Barry McCaffrey and
his cohorts have been dipping into the confiscated weed.

I refer to the ONDCP's intention, outlined to Congress on Tuesday, to award
a part of the group's $18 billion annual budget to movie studios that
produce films in which characters come to harm ``as a consequence of their
decision to use drugs.'' This plan mirrors a similar program -- which made
headlines when it became public last winter -- that has awarded $25 million
in financial incentives to TV programs that worked anti-drug messages into
their storylines.

Though the policy has been criticized as Orwellian and uncomfortably close
to state-sponsored propaganda, the TV viewing audience has been treated to
many great moments of anti-drug hi-jinks and high drama. Who among us can
ever look at a poppy-seed muffin the same way after those wacky kids on
``The Drew Carey Show'' had to submit to random drug testing? And what kid
wouldn't be scared straight after a group of stoners got their comeuppance
with a two-car wreck, psychosis, and drug-induced death on a very special
episode of ``Chicago Hope''?

Unfortunately, these dramatics have been about as effective in curbing teen
drug use in this country as the D.A.R.E. program, which is to say they've
been a total failure. Since the ONDCP began pumping money into the mass
media campaign in 1996, the number of illegal drug users age 12 and older
hasn't dropped at all. However, the number of anti-drug ads seen by American
teen-agers has now risen to eight a week.

All this for just 1 billion in taxpayer dollars. Heck, we Americans spend 15
times that for street-market marijuana in a year!

Undeterred, McCaffrey is now taking this show to the silver screen,
explaining, ``some experts believe that movies have an even stronger impact
on young people.'' So not only will the office bring anti-drug trailers to a
theater near you, they also intend to ``leverage'' popular movies by working
with studios, directors, and screenwriters to deliver a responsible
anti-drug message.

Now, please don't think (as so many readers have in the past) that I'm an
advocate of drug use, abuse or addiction. I'm not. I just don't understand
why our government would want to pay Hollywood for something we already get
for free.

If you spend any time at all at the cineplex, you'd know that nearly any
character seen using drugs in the first reel will be in a heap of trouble by
the third reel. The mob guys with the suitcases full of white powder will
get it in a hail of gunfire. The kid seduced by the street dealer in the
flashy car will end up wearing an orange correctional facility jumpsuit at
the closing credits. The girl with the coke habit will go home with the
wrong guy -- except in ``Magnolia,'' where she is saved by the love of the
right police officer. Even then, you know it's going to be a bumpy ride.

My favorite movie critic, Chris Hewitt, tells me there's a new film out this
weekend, ``Groove'' which is unusual because its Ecstasy-addled characters
lose nothing but sleep at an all-night rave. But this is really the
exception to the rule. Even movies that are said to glamorize drugs paint a
grim picture. The notorious toilet scene in ``Trainspotting'' made heroin
addiction look just as bad as it has always sounded. The stoned bowlers of
``The Big Lebowski'' did more to promote the myth that marijuana is
amotivational than any film since ``Fast Times at Ridgemont High.'' A few
puffs of pot inspired marriage-shattering revelations from Nicole Kidman's
character in ``Eyes Wide Shut.''

It seems Hollywood has already said yes to ``Just Say No.'' What it seldom
depicts, however, is the reality of casual drug use in this country, where
11 million regular users make marijuana the third most popular recreational
drug, behind alcohol and tobacco. Still, I can't think of the last movie I
saw in which the middle-American characters smoked a joint, inhaled a plate
of brownies, laughed at jokes that weren't particularly funny, and went to
bed.

Of course, who'd pay money to see that?

And why would our government pay extra to make sure you won't?

Somebody must be on drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Don Beck