Pubdate: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 Source: Student Life (MO) Copyright: 2003 Student Life Contact: http://www.studlife.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1636 Author: Justin W. Adams, Staff Columnist Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?195 (Partnership for a Drug Free America) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/dare.htm (D.A.R.E.) THE WAR AGAINST ANTI-DRUG ADS Unless you live without a television, chances are you have seen the latest advertisements run by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America that purport to "tell the truth" about drug use. The most recent of these ads have blatantly linked the use of marijuana to the act of rape, unprotected sexual activity leading to pregnancy, manslaughter, and terrorism (both domestic and international). Because I grew up with the "Just Say No" philosophy of the U.S. Government (and was part of the first fifth grade class to receive D.A.R.E. education), I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that Washington would capitalize on ridiculous shock tactics to convince the public that we are winning our $20 billion a year "War on Drugs." However, unlike "Just Say No" and D.A.R.E., which simply labeled illegal drugs "bad" and told kids not to take them because only losers used them, the current wave of tactics employed by our government use guilt, misinformation, and stereotypes to convince people that drug use will utterly destroy your life and the lives of those around you. I am not writing this column to advocate drug legalization or to suggest that all illegal drugs pose no threats to the livelihood of the people who choose to use them. But what I do want to point out is that the money our government spends on these ads (around $200 million) is essentially wasted on any person who can think or ask questions. Is marijuana a gateway drug? Well, chances are if you ask heroin users if they used marijuana before they started shooting up, the answer will be "yes." But did any of them experiment with alcohol before they tried their first joint? How many date rapes have been caused by over-zealous, drunken partygoers? How many unwanted pregnancies? If a kid blows his friend's head off with his parent's handgun after taking bong hits, is that the marijuana's fault? Or the fault of his parent's for keeping a loaded handgun in an unlocked desk drawer? I would like to see the evidence that buying grass funds Osama bin Ladin (rather than some guy in Vancouver or southern Missouri). I would also like to see someone explain how filling up my car with gas doesn't help put money in the hands of shady OPEC-associated terrorist organizations. The only truth here is that our government has arbitrarily decided that certain drugs are legal and others illegal, irrespective of their proven addictiveness, effects on health, or on society. How many people reading this column needed a cup of coffee this morning? Or rushed out of class to grab a quick smoke? Or had a few drinks to relax after a long day of work? How many people used drugs in the 1960s and 70s, and yet despite "flirting with disaster" managed to raise normal, healthy families and be successful? The fact is humans have always loved to alter their consciousnesses, no matter the harmful effects. Banning substances will never decrease the demand for the ability to temporarily break with normal existence. Whether we like to think of them this way or not, our lives are filled with any number of substances which alter the way we approach the world. Using the argument that marijuana or any other drug impairs judgment, poses a health risk, or can lead to further illegal acts to justify its illegality is completely fallacious. Alcohol radically impairs your judgment, has destroyed countless families and lives, and is highly toxic to the human body. But no one would dare consider re-instituting prohibition. Again, I am not advocating drug use (legal or otherwise)--particularly among young kids. I have known too many people whose use of legal and illegal drugs destroyed their lives and the lives of others. In fact, I would have no objections to advertisements that were based on undisputed scientific research or well-founded statistics, rather than on scare tactics and ridiculous scenarios that, in most of these ads, typify human stupidity or poor choices rather than drug-use. But these advertisements are both an insult to those who can think and another sign that Washington is more interested in maintaining the status quo of the bloated and misguided "War on Drugs" than on creating rational, effective drug policies.