WHY KIDS IGNORE ANTI-DRUG ADS

Survey Stirs Debate On What Message Prevents Drug Use

Remember the anti-drug ad that featured an egg and a frying pan? Close-up
shot of frying pan and egg. Voice over: "This is your brain." Close-up of
egg searing in hot grease. "This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?"

The message was simple and powerful. It's also a message that today's
teen-agers are too young to remember. Countless other anti-drug public
service announcements have aired since then, but new research has raised
serious questions about their effectiveness.

Tim Addison, 18, of Northville considers anti-drug ads a waste of money. "A
TV ad is not going to do it," he says. "It's mainly the crowd you hang out
with."

Ed Spitsbergen, who counsels teen-agers at Growth Works, a drug and alcohol
counseling center in Plymouth, agrees.

"I don't think prevention works for a lot for kids," he says. "It may work
for some. There's probably some good to it (anti-drug advertising). But we
have adults who are using drugs and alcohol on a pretty regular basis. And
kids basically are going to do what adults do."

According to a new survey conducted by the private research firm Westat and
the University of Pennsylvania, teens are largely ignoring the government's
multimillion-dollar anti-drug ad campaign. The National Office of Drug
Control Policy has spent more than $900 million during the past five years
on anti-drug ads, yet the research finds no evidence that the messages are
discouraging drug use.

The evaluation is based on a survey of youth ages 12 to 18 between
September 1999 and December 2001. The survey did not, however, include the
effectiveness of recent ads that link drug use to funding terrorism.

The poll also discovered that girls aged 12 to 13, who hadn't used drugs
already, were slightly more likely to use marijuana after seeing the ads.
Researchers dismiss the finding as a "statistical anomaly," but apparently
the government isn't so sure.

"When you answer questions that kids don't have, sometimes you're putting a
question in their heads," says Tom Riley, a spokesman for the Office of
Drug Control Policy.

The survey results come at a time when President George W. Bush's top drug
policy adviser is asking Congress to maintain the media campaign's funding
at its current level of $180 million. National drug czar John P. Walters,
emphasizing an "accountability agenda," says anti-drug ads and their impact
will be reviewed every six months.

"If we can't make them work, we're going to end the program and put the
money where the other needs in this area are," he says.

Diana Tobin, 16, of Redford Township concurs, saying whether the ads are
effective depends on the individual.

"For some people they do work, for some people they don't," she says. "Most
people blow them off."