ANTI-DRUG ADS CAN BOOMERANG, STUDY DISCOVERS

Anti-drug ads, which the government plans to spend $145 million to produce
this fiscal year, do little to dissuade young people from taking drugs,
according to research conducted by psychology professors at Texas State
University at San Marcos. Even worse, the ads may actually prompt some
teens to experiment with drugs -- a reaction diametrically opposite of what
was intended by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The study, which researchers will present today at a meeting of the
American Psychological Society in Chicago, is part of a larger, ongoing
project sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project, a national marijuana
policy reform organization.

A spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy called the study
"absurd."

"This would be like tobacco companies coming out and saying that
anti-smoking ads don't work," said Tom Riley, director of public affairs of
the agency.

Researchers Harvey Ginsburg and Maria Czyzewska of the Department of
Psychology at Texas State University at San Marcos said 53 college students
were asked to watch several of the commercials and give detailed
descriptions of the thoughts the ads generated.

Three of every four students reported the ads sparked thoughts that ran
counter to the ads' message, the study showed.

"For example, in response to ads linking drug use to the war on terror, the
most frequent unanticipated thoughts were that marijuana should be
legalized, the war on drugs has been ineffective and that marijuana users
should grow their own," said Czyzewska.

The results did not surprise her: "There were already hints and indications
that the ads were eliciting an unfavorable response," she said. "That not
only were they not improving anti-drug attitudes, but are actually making
young people have a more favorable attitude toward drugs."

A national survey conducted in 2002 by Westat Inc. and the Annenberg Public
Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania for the National Institute
on Drug Abuse found that most parents and youths surveyed recalled seeing
the anti-drug ads, and that the ads had a favorable effect on parents.

But, the government-funded survey concluded, "There is little evidence of
direct favorable campaign effects on youth." It went on to note, "For some
.. analysis raises the possibility that those with more exposure to the
(ads) ... had less favorable outcomes over the following 18 months."

Czyzewska noted that the research conducted by her and Ginsburg was a
psychological experiment, not a survey, and said the results bear out
earlier indications that the anti-drug ad campaign is working counter to
its aim.

"This is a classic example of the `boomerang effect' that other researchers
have warned about," Czyzewska said: "Commercials producing a response that
is precisely the opposite of what the ads' creators intended."

But Riley said teen drug use has dropped by over 10 percent over the last
two years, in large measure because of the message of the ads. He also
pointed out that the study recorded responses from college students, while
the ads are aimed at 13- to 17-year-olds.

Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, chairman of the psychiatry department at Baylor
College of Medicine and chief of psychiatry at The Methodist Hospital, said
he would not be surprised if the ads didn't work.

"I believe ads can help make a decision, like to buy a product," Yudofsky
said. "But changing behavior is far more difficult."

As for the ads having an opposite or boomerang effect, Yudofsky said he
would have to look at the design of the study very carefully before
agreeing: The ads "try to influence people to make a decision not to do
something," he said. "That involves many, many parameters."