U.S. Anti-Drug Campaign FlopsEssay title: U.S. Anti-Drug Campaign FlopsThe Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a wing of the U.S Executive Office of the President, started a media campaign to attack drug use in September of 1999. A main component of the campaign called phase three was specifically aimed at reducing marijuana use, which started in Oct 2002 ending June 2003. The target group was youth ages twelve to eighteen. Studies have shown that the ads have had no effect on reducing marijuana use. The appointed advertising company Ogilvy & Mathers, employed many techniques in getting the ads to effect youth even creating a brand name but to no avail. It is not clear what techniques Ogilvy & Mathers used in evaluating there adds appeal to youth but in this paper I will show that they did not consider some key points.
U.S. Anti-Drug Campaign: “A Brief History of the Drug Dealers”, by Linda W. Smith, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/04/us/marijuana. The book explains how the federal government, in conjunction with many other agencies, has sought to use these funds to fight both drug policy and illegal activities. It also explains why marijuana has become so popular, with over 80% of Americans reporting in recent years that having a recreational drug is good for them. The author argues that drug prohibition has given rise to legal-drug policies because as a result, it has led to increased legal and illegal activities. Here as well, the author discusses the ways in which states have used the money to “protect” themselves from illegal drug activity. The most significant part about the book is the author’s analysis, which also describes states’ use of marijuana in their criminal policy, a point that has been widely debated across the nation. As it is, California has, for 20 years or so, done nothing. “A Brief History of the Drug Dealers” also gives a detailed timeline of the marijuana prohibition program that was being set up by the federal government, through the Justice Department’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”). While it is difficult to compare the various phases of Phase III of the program, it is helpful to be able to identify the state of marijuana laws through the three main categories of marijuana. Some facts can be identified regarding “Legal” and “Legalized” marijuana. Legal Marijuana is defined as:
In other words, a state may not engage in such a process for any reason other than compliance with certain provisions in its law, and may not engage in any marijuana retail sales, distribution of any marijuana, transportation of any marijuana in any manner, or any other legal activity. Legal Marijuana also refers to “legal services” such as education, housing support and public health, and tobacco products. The terms “legal marijuana” and “legal services” have been used interchangeably by different state governments and state attorneys general. Legal services include providing access to safe drinking water, obtaining prescriptions and records, as well as providing free health care to patients and families, and providing educational services to the general public, including to children.
Medical marijuana is a legitimate product for adults, but there are still many issues with legalizing and regulating marijuana in many states. In California, for example, there is a provision called California Compassionate Use Program (“CUSP”) that permits the sale, possession and cultivation of up to two marijuana plants. These plants are regulated. The California government claims to regulate only that marijuana is intended for medical use. One can disagree with this claim (and it is valid, but difficult to test when dealing with an individual medical marijuana patient, although other states might offer similar laws as well). The author cites other data as to how cannabis has been utilized in California and other states. One can also disagree that California has been more successful at controlling and promoting medical marijuana. Another factor which may influence California’s results, though not necessarily as significant as medical marijuana, is that California lacks a medical cannabis dispensary network. That, in turn, can lead to a higher rate of medical marijuana use on recreational and
U.S. Anti-Drug Campaign: “A Brief History of the Drug Dealers”, by Linda W. Smith, available at http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/04/us/marijuana. The book explains how the federal government, in conjunction with many other agencies, has sought to use these funds to fight both drug policy and illegal activities. It also explains why marijuana has become so popular, with over 80% of Americans reporting in recent years that having a recreational drug is good for them. The author argues that drug prohibition has given rise to legal-drug policies because as a result, it has led to increased legal and illegal activities. Here as well, the author discusses the ways in which states have used the money to “protect” themselves from illegal drug activity. The most significant part about the book is the author’s analysis, which also describes states’ use of marijuana in their criminal policy, a point that has been widely debated across the nation. As it is, California has, for 20 years or so, done nothing. “A Brief History of the Drug Dealers” also gives a detailed timeline of the marijuana prohibition program that was being set up by the federal government, through the Justice Department’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”). While it is difficult to compare the various phases of Phase III of the program, it is helpful to be able to identify the state of marijuana laws through the three main categories of marijuana. Some facts can be identified regarding “Legal” and “Legalized” marijuana. Legal Marijuana is defined as:
In other words, a state may not engage in such a process for any reason other than compliance with certain provisions in its law, and may not engage in any marijuana retail sales, distribution of any marijuana, transportation of any marijuana in any manner, or any other legal activity. Legal Marijuana also refers to “legal services” such as education, housing support and public health, and tobacco products. The terms “legal marijuana” and “legal services” have been used interchangeably by different state governments and state attorneys general. Legal services include providing access to safe drinking water, obtaining prescriptions and records, as well as providing free health care to patients and families, and providing educational services to the general public, including to children.
Medical marijuana is a legitimate product for adults, but there are still many issues with legalizing and regulating marijuana in many states. In California, for example, there is a provision called California Compassionate Use Program (“CUSP”) that permits the sale, possession and cultivation of up to two marijuana plants. These plants are regulated. The California government claims to regulate only that marijuana is intended for medical use. One can disagree with this claim (and it is valid, but difficult to test when dealing with an individual medical marijuana patient, although other states might offer similar laws as well). The author cites other data as to how cannabis has been utilized in California and other states. One can also disagree that California has been more successful at controlling and promoting medical marijuana. Another factor which may influence California’s results, though not necessarily as significant as medical marijuana, is that California lacks a medical cannabis dispensary network. That, in turn, can lead to a higher rate of medical marijuana use on recreational and
The media campaign had three goals:Educate and enable Americas youth to reject illegal drugs; population.Prevent youth from initiating use of drugs, especially marijuana and inhalants; and population.Convince occasional users of these and other drugs to stop using drugsTo accomplish these goals Ogilvy & Mathers, also media buyers put ads in all forms of print media, on public and private television, cinema and the Internet. The campaign cost an estimated 150 million dollars a year making all options possible. This phase and the entire campaign ended in the summer of 2003.
The proof that the ad campaign was a failure is supported by a research firm called Westat funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA). In their executive summary it is stated that there is no evidence to support a reduction in marijuana use in conjunction with the ad campaign. Parents were also a sub target group of the campaign to increase drug talks with youth but this was also a failure. In the NIDA report, exposure to the ads was favourable in this sense to delivering the anti-marijuana message. Ad space was purchased so as exposure would be roughly two ads per week. This is the only portion of the campaign that met its goal.
The NIDA report was conducted several times over the course of the ad campaign by interviewing youth and parents. Participants were met at home with an electronic anonymous survey. A variety of questions were answered on a laptop computer. The finding concluded that youth ages 12-18 did not change views or intended use of marijuana and not conclusively may have had a negative effect. Parents claimed that they were talking to their children more but youth contradicted this.
The ad examples in this essay give two distinct feelings about their message and target group. The cheerleader ad being classical conditioning is trying to get a connection with marijuana and failure. The target group is clear however did Ogilvy & Mathers use a reference group to judge the effectiveness of the picture. I cannot see young girls in mass numbers striving to be cheerleaders. The inference of being on top is noticeable with examination but if you gave the ad a once over and walked away I doubt it would sink in. If this is a primary ad for this target group it is no wonder the campaign failed. The other ad entitled pothead, for males, evokes a defensive response while providing an image too follow. However, it’s not saying don’t smoke, many males would laugh at this saying my invincibility allows me to produce these attributes. Therefore male youths would not be effected from this ad. The emphasis on enlarging the words Pothead, are, just, and wrong does have a good subconscious effect but would be easily dismissed. This ad does demonstrate the principles of Instrumental conditioning.
The two forms of conditioning mentioned above seem redundant when comes to youth. I would refer to Weilbacher’s article (How advertising affects