YOUR TAX DOLLARS ON DRUGS

A new report released by the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy
verifies what savvy readers already knew: National Youth Anti-Drug Media
campaign ads -- which cost U.S. taxpayers almost $1 billion over five years
- -- don't work.

What's amazing is that the Drug Czar John P. Walters readily acknowledges
this fact.

The study showed that the anti-drug ads might actually have increased
marijuana use among girls -- although Walters' office believes that bit of
data may be inaccurate.

Still, Walters agrees with the study's main finding -- the biggie -- that
the ads do nothing to reduce teenage drug use.

Life imitates Christopher Buckley's satirical novel, "Thank You for
Smoking" (Random House, 1994). Its tobacco lobby anti-hero comes up with an
anti-teen smoking campaign to take political heat off his industry. In reality,

the campaign is designed to get kids to smoke more, and it works as teens
rebel against an authoritarian voice telling them not to smoke.

I remember similar ads when I was a kid. There were anti-smoking ads and
anti-smoking lectures from teachers and adults in my family (many of whom
smoked). When adults asked, I always told them I wouldn't smoke. And I
stuck by that line right up until the day I inhaled. (FYI, I wisely quit in
my 20s.)

Duh. Scolding, nagging and lecturing won't stop a kid from doing drugs.
Either a kid won't, or a kid will -- and the determining factors are
complex and personal. That's why most anti-drug ads are a waste of money.

Walters doesn't quite see it that way. He's decided the ad campaign is
sufficiently worthless that he won't ask for more funding to continue it.
But he sees hope in ads targeted to help parents keep their kids away from
drugs.

One problem. The study says: "The evidence does not as yet support an
effect of parent exposure on youth behavior." It could be that it doesn't
matter if parents talk to their kids and monitor their behavior. Or it
could take time for the message to filter through, with the first step
being to change parental behavior, and the second step being a consequent
change in teen behavior.

As Walters spokesman Tom Riley noted, advertising "wouldn't be a
trillion-dollar industry if people believed that ads don't make a difference."

And since the study was conducted, Walters has pushed a different kind of
drug ad, as in the controversial spots that tell kids that drugs are linked
to terrorism and crime. "Where do terrorists get their money?" one spot
asked. "If you buy drugs, some of it might come from you."

"A lot of people hate them," Riley noted, but Walters wanted "to plant a
new idea and to generate discussion." And the ads did receive a lot of
attention.

Still, just as I question whether nagging ads work, I have to question any
study on the effectiveness of drug programs that rely on the answers of
teenagers who know what adults want to hear.

And what about people lying to themselves? Some 82 percent of a group of
parents of teens ages 16-18 told researchers they had talked to their kids
about drugs in the past six months; yet only 48 percent of kids that age
reported the same conversation.

Which is one reason I'd be happy to see Congress gut the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media campaign budget and make it lean and mean.

Walters deserves a salute for not trying to cover up failure. He could have
pushed for a report that proclaimed -- as so many government reports have
done before -- that the anti-drug campaign is a smash hit because parents
and kids love it. Or that the money was well spent because 68 percent of
teens recalled some of the campaign slogans.

I'll add, D.C. pols love to spend money on anti-drug ads. It's like apple
pie for them, or a drug. They couldn't have wanted to learn the bad news.
They believe they can spend on failed anti-drug campaigns, and their
constituents will cheer. It's like an addiction. And no ad campaign will
stop them.

Only the tough love of vocal voters can do that.