DRUG CZAR'S ANTI-DRUG TV MESSAGE - INFORMATION IS NOT CENSORSHIP

Ads Offer A Counterbalance To Hollywood's Glorification Of Drug Use

Last week, my wife and I went to see the movie "Next Friday," starring the
rap singer Ice Cube. Although a comedy, the film follows in the genre of
previous low-budget movies that feature gratuitous marijuana smoking, sex,
violence and foul language. The movie, which was the No. 1 box office
attraction for two straight weeks, is the sequel to the 1996 hit "Friday,"
which continues to be a favorite on many cable stations.

I left the movie convinced that (1) slapstick comedy, while raw, is funny
and (2) the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy is absolutely
correct in providing monetary incentives for television networks to weave
anti-drug messages into the story lines of programs. If popular movies like
"Friday" and "Next Friday" glamorize drug use, it is appropriate for the
federal government to attempt to counteract this impression through
effective public policy.

The White House's drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaferty, sees the nation's battle
against illegal drug use as a public health issue. Simply put, drugs are
hazardous and the government has the moral obligation to educate the public
about threats to its safety and well-being. Moreover, because participants
in illegal drug activity have no legal recourse when deals go bad,
disgruntled buyers often resort to violence to remedy perceived injustices.
In Roanoke's worst arson case, for example, six people were killed in a fire
started over the botched purchase of a $10 bag of marijuana.

The drug czar's plan is simple. The government buys public-service ads from
the networks. The government then swaps purchased ad time in exchange for
the anti-drug messages. This is a very lucrative venture for companies like
ABC, NBC and CBS.

Critics of the policy complain that McCaferty over-stepped his bounds by
insisting that his office review scripts of network television shows for
their anti-drug content. They contend that this smacks of censorship. Yet,
the government should know what it is paying for -- that is, if the content
of the anti-drug message meets standards acceptable to the buyer, the White
House Office on Drug Control.

This hardly smacks of government censorship. McCaferty's office does not
write, rewrite or even suggest script changes. The networks can refuse this
review process and broadcast any script, even one promoting drug use, it
desires.

If they accept the script-review process, it simply means that the networks
have put profit maximization over absolute First Amendment guarantees.
Moreover, the networks will not be crippled financially if they chose to
reject the government's deal concerning the anti-drug messages. What they
can't do is have it both ways: accept government largess and then promote
ambiguous messages about drug use.

Government, like any private sector buyer, should get exactly what it pays
for from the networks.

Opponents of the policy are also concerned that government may use its
purchase of public service ads to influence TV scripts concerning tobacco,
abortion or sex. This very well may occur because these are all legitimate
public health issues. The same set of economic vs. First Amendment tradeoffs
would be involved in the network's decision-making processes.

For the policy to have integrity, the viewing public should be made aware
that the program's anti-drug message was approved by the government. The
viewer then has the freedom to watch the program, change the channel or turn
the television off. Only in totalitarian regimes would the public not be
informed of the government's role in the broadcast. This knowledge
distinguishes "informed consent" from government propaganda.

One newspaper recently editorialized that "television shows should not
glamorize drug use -- not because the government tells them not to but
because of the message: Drugs Kill." This laissez-faire approach to
Hollywood's portrayal of the drug culture is naive. The government's
anti-drug policy provides a viable counterweight to a broadcast industry
whose culture continues to produce movies like "Next Friday."

Research shows that media presentations influence perceptions and attitudes
about drug use in this country. In addition, television networks have public
service obligations. Thus, this union between public policy and network
broadcasting generates benefits for both the industry and society.

Let's not allow wildly overblown concerns about First Amendment
infringements obscure this reality.