Pubdate: Mon, 04 Mar 2002
Source: Daily Aztec, The (US CA Edu)
Copyright: 2002 The Daily Aztec
Contact:  http://www.dailyaztec.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1420
Author: Zach Parris
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign)
Cited: http://www.ssdp.org (Students for Sensible Drug Policy)

SUPER BOWL DRUG AD CAUSES CONTROVERSY

By buying and selling drugs, a person is supporting terrorist networks 
around the world.

This was the latest claim made by the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy in a recent $3.4 million federally funded advertising campaign -- 
the first aired during the Super Bowl.

The ads depict terrorists purchasing bomb-making materials with illegal 
drug money from young drug users. The ads are the object of wide criticism 
within the student ranks.

Leading the charge is the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, an 
organization that spans 156 university and high school chapters across the 
nation. Its goal is to raise student awareness across the nation of the 
"failed" state of current domestic drug policy, and promote discussion of 
alternative solutions to the nation's drug problems.

Shawn Heller, SSDP national director, calls the ad campaign "outrageous, 
over-simplified, irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer money."

"The ads unfairly demonize drug users by equating them with terrorists," he 
said.

Heller said the commercial oversimplifies terrorism by ignoring that many 
legal goods can be connected to terrorism.

"What the ads failed to mention is that terrorists and other repressive 
regimes also make their money on legal consumer goods," Heller said. "In 
fact, as we were watching the ad when it first aired, we realized we were 
watching it on a TV that was made in China, probably by some 12-year-olds 
working 14-hour days.

"The gasoline in our cars probably came from a refinery in the Middle East 
where women are suppressed and stripped of rights.

"If the government wants to open this can of worms, then why don't we look 
at everything else this country is funding," Heller said.

Peter Andersen, a San Diego State professor and expert on persuasional 
communication, said he agreed the ads were most likely ineffective to 
viewers because the commercials didn't establish a direct connection 
between buying drugs and supporting terrorism.

"Sometimes, ads are not based on good, well-researched persuasion theory; 
instead, they're based on some off-the-wall idea that some ad-exec or 
bureaucrat just feels would work," he said.

Anderson said commercials that don't use good persuasion theory can 
sometimes have an opposite or "boomerang" effect, and even destroy any 
credibility of future ads.

"I'm not one of those that say there shouldn't be ad campaigns on TV," he 
said. "If they are done well, they can be highly effective."

Annie Chmieleski, a social work freshman, said she agrees with the general 
principle of explaining the damaging effects of drug trafficking, but the 
ads that linked funding terrorism with the purchase of drugs were not 
entirely clear to her.

"I had a hard time seeing the connection," she said. "For some people, the 
message may have worked, but I think most people would see it as a bit of a 
reach. If they had told us how they are connected, it would have been more 
effective."

The federal government spends close to $20 billion annually to combat 
drugs, and more than 400,000 people are incarcerated in the United States 
for drug law violations -- an eightfold increase since 1980.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel