TREATMENT AND PARTNERSHIPS

The other prong of the federal governments Tough on Drugs, is of course,
treatment for drug 'offenders'. This very important area, has been
allocated the smallest share of the Tough on Drugs funding bag. The
government is providing financial assistance to organisations as "partners"
in the Tough on Drugs Strategy. So far 200 community organisations have
received funding through this partnership approach.

This all sounds very good, until you understand the way governments
allocate monies to community projects. Federal government funding to
community organisations is allocated according to need, but it is also
allocated according to funding guidelines. Organisations that received
funding under the Tough on Drugs strategy, have met government funding
guidelines.

While many guidelines, such as those dealing with financial responsibility,
are simply to ensure that monies are not misappropriated, other guidelines
deal with objectives - principally the objectives of the Tough on Drugs
campaign.

The simple fact is that only those who can meet the funding criteria get
funded. This way, ground breaking ideas and innovative schemes to
rehabilitate drug offenders (schemes such as the Heroin trial, which John
Howard maligns) simply don't get funded, because they are not part of the
governments funding objectives. The other impact of course, is that by
forming a partnership with agencies, the community is becoming responsible
to the government, and solutions to problems inevitably fit within the
government agenda.

FIGHTING THE BATTLE FOR OUR MINDS

Noam Chomsky, the veteran critic of 20th Century government propaganda has
described the war on drugs as an instrument of population control. In an
interview with journalist John Veit, Chomsky describes the way in which the
everlasting battle for the minds of men is fought.

"This is engineering or manufacture of consent is the essence of democracy,
because you have to insure that ignorant and meddlesome outsiders - meaning
we the people - don't interfere with the work of the serious people who run
public affairs in the interests of the people".

The war on drugs is a perfect example of the manufacture of consent,
according to Chomsky. "One of the traditional and obvious ways of
controlling people in every society, whether it's a military dictatorship
or a democracy, is to frighten them. If people are frightened, they'll
cede authority to their superiors who will protect them - so the fear of
drugs and fear of crime is very much stimulated by state and business
propaganda."

The government benefits from the use of these strategies, as the crime
control industry is a state industry, and is publicly funded. The
construction industry, the real estate industry, and also high-tech firms.
"Its got to a scale sufficiently that high-technology and military
contractors are looking to it as a market for techniques of high-tech
control and surveillance, so that you can monitor what people do in their
private activities with complicated electronic devices and super computers
- - in fact, the time will probably come when this superfluous population can
be locked up in private apartments, not jails, and just monitored to track
when they do the wrong thing, say the wrong thing, go the wrong direction."
Chmosky predicts (13).

YOUNG MINDS

The present government campaign to get 'Tough on Drugs' is about shaping
the minds of young people. Australian Federal Police commissioner, Mick
Palmer, addressing the First International Conference on Drugs and Young
People (14) said "Our aim must be to fashion opinions, particularly in the
young, change behaviors and reduce demand": not simply "health protect' the
victims and prosecute the traffickers. But if we are to be effective and
give perhaps new and innovative demand reduction strategies the time to
bite, then enforcement must continue to play a role. We have to deal with
the 'now' while we prepare for the 'future'.

THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE AND THE WAR FIGHTING STRATEGIES

How can we achieve the "fashioning of opinions, particularly in the young"?
The answer lies in the American experience and US Drug War fighting
strategies.

In war it is necessary to know the enemy. In the War on Drugs, the enemy
of course is drugs and people who use them. Knowledge on drugs is easy to
obtain, but knowledge about people en masse - their psychology and
behaviors, is a lot harder to come by. So, who then, knows the people
best? Who understands them? Who is best able to be employed in order to
shape opinion about the 'drug problem'? The answer of course is the
advertising industry.

In any war, it is also necessary to demonise the enemy. And the more the
enemy is demonised, the more likely people are likely to reject and condemn
the him (or her) without examining the evidence. The more an enemy is
demonised, the more we fear him, and the more likely we are to ask others
to protect us. In the war on drugs, who is best able to demonise the enemy?
The answer of course, is the advertising industry.

On average, American children are exposed to media at least eight hours per
day through television, radio, movies, recorded music, comics, and video
games. By his or her eighteenth birthday, an average adolescent will have
seen 100,000 television commercials for beer and will have watched 65,000
scenes on television depicting beer drinking (15) . An industry that can
popularise one type of drug can demonise another.

THE ONDCP

"Leaders in the entertainment and sports industries and others whose
influence reaches every neighborhood and country can play a role in
safeguarding our most precious resource: our children. The U.S. National
Drug Control Strategy articulates the priority given to protecting
sixty-eight million children from toxic, addictive substances. Our
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign recognizes the centrality of the
media in any national effort to educate the next generation about the
dangers associated with underage drinking and smoking, abuse of
psychoactive substances, and all illegal drugs." - Barry R. McCaffrey,
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy (16)

In America, the government agency, Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) develops and delivers policy strategies to wage the War on Drugs.
The ONDCP works in partnership with community organisations, principally,
the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA).

ONDCP chief, Barry Mc Caffrey announced recently that the magazine industry
had pledged to match the federal government ad-for ad in a public service
campaign to spread the word about the dangers of drugs. Executives of the
American Magazine Conference, held at Walt Disney World, agreed to put the
might of their 200 members, covering 1 200 magazine titles, behind the War
on Drugs (17).

The offer by the magazine industry, is actually a response to a request
made by the ONDCP itself. The ONDCP initially suggested that the
advertising industry might support the War on Drugs by agreeing to match,
dollar for dollar, government advertising contributions. The federal
government is putting up a lot of money for hard-hitting anti drug ads,
worth $US1 billion over the next five years.

What will happen in this joint initiative between the media and the
government? Publications will participate in a 'roadblock' where every
magazine on a news stand during a particular week or month will carry some
anti-drug message. The magazine industry will allow the campaign to target
even more specific audience, such as teens who read Seventeen or their
parents who read The New Yorker. Magazines will also run stories, in
tandem with advertisements, describing the devastation caused by illicit
drugs in our community.

This strategy requires close inspection for it is a very significant gain,
for the government, in the propaganda War on Drugs. The government has,
through the pledge of $1 billion worth of advertising, 'bought' the media,
or at least a substantial sector of it.

Further research into the American War on Drugs, leads us to inquire into
the "Partnership for a Drug Free America", and the Advertising Council Inc,
the so-called Advertising Partners of the ONDCP. The Partnership For a Drug
Free America, touts itself as a non profit coalition of professionals from
the communications industry - in other words, public relations experts.
The Partnership "oversees and implements the creation of all paid
advertising used in the campaign - the war on drugs. What this means is
that the Partnership vets all advertising which is submitted as part of the
War on Drugs to ensure that advertising conforms to government prescription.

The Advertising Council is the other 'partner' in the War on Drugs. The
Advertising Council is America's largest provider of public service
communications (i.e.: government advertising). Accordingly, its role in
the War on Drugs is to "screen all ads submitted and ensure that they fit
within the overall communication strategy, and meet all broadcast and print
quality standards". Thus continuing the cycle of propaganda.

The US magazine of investigative journalism "The Nation", has delved into
the people behind the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the supposed,
non profit organisation. A probe by The Nation (18) revealed that the
Partnership had accepted $5.4 million in contributions from legal drug
manufacturers, while producing ads that overlooked the dangers of tobacco,
alcohol and pills. This "drug free" crusade is actually a silent partner
to the drug industry, condoning the use of 'good drugs' by targeting only
the 'bad'ones.

The Nations' report, discusses how the pharmaceutical and advertising
industries have long been intertwined. James Burke, who resigned as chair
and CEO of Johnson and Johnson in 1989 to become Chair of the Partnership
for a Drug Free America, engineered the classic campaign to restore public
confidence in Tylenol after the cyanide scare.

The Partnership's funders are usually kept secret, but investigation by The
Nation revealed that from 1988 - 1991, pharmaceutical companies and their
beneficiaries contributed as follows:

. The J Steward Johnson, Sr Charitable Trusts ($1 1000 000)

. Du Pont ($150 000)

. The Procter & Gamble Fund ($120 000)

. The Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation ($110 000)

. Johnson & Johnson ($11 000)

. Smith Kline Beecham ($100 000)

. The Merck Foundation ($75 000)

. And Hoffman-La Roche ($30 000)

Also $150 000 each from Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and RJR Renyolds plus
$100 000 from American Brands (Jim Beam and Lucky Strike).

Partnership ads rely on scare tactics and often highly exaggerated. One
example quoted by The Nation is that of a print ad which showed a preteen
in a denim jacket under the headline "What she's going through isn't a
phase, Its an ounce a week". The ad copy alerts parents to the dangers of
pot smoking. How many 10 year olds could afford an ounce a week, let alone
smoke it and stay on their feet?

It is not the first time the Partnership has been caught out with regard to
incorrect information (some would say propaganda). The first advertisement
run by the Partnership in 1987 depicted the brain wave of a 14 year old
smoking pot. It later revealed that the brain wave depicted was that of a
coma patient.

The advertising industry, and the mass media, of course, benefit
innumerably from their support of the governments War on Drugs. Not only
do they receive financial rewards, but the also receive an ego massage.
Creative directors get to show off, giving their ads with titles like
"Candy Store" and "Tricks of the Trade", submitting them for industry
awards. The actors get exposure and media outlets can pat themselves on
the back for contributing to a good cause.

THE CORPORATE CONNECTION

Chair of the ONDCP, Barry Mc Caffrey has said "Corporations whose
productivity depends on healthy, drug-free employees can lend financial
backing as well as public endorsement."

This of course, strikes at the very heart of the War on Drugs. People that
are buying drugs, and particularly illegal drugs, are pouring money into
the 'black economy', so to speak, not into the pockets of multinational
corporations.

By supporting the War on Drugs, corporations are in a win win situation.
The media corporations get government paid advertising pledges, while other
corporations benefit because they end up with money that would otherwise be
spent on the purchase of illegal drugs.

The other benefit to corporations of course, is that the War on Drugs,
particularly illicit drugs, promotes the idea that you need to be "cool" -
that you need to get an 'image' and a 'lifestyle' - primarily a consumer
lifestyle.

A large proportion of early teens (69 percent), and close to half of all
teenagers (42 percent) are non drug -users who believe that drug use is
risky according to a 1994 PDFA survey. The Partnership refers to these non
drug using adolescents as their "loyal franchise" and suggests that the
'franchise' should be maintained by affirming their choice (19). Affirming
choices to stay off drugs, of course, means more advertising, and
specifically, advertising a 'cool' lifestyle.

It is the part of the stated communications strategy of PDFA "to promote
the image that teenagers need to be 'cool', socially attractive, and earn
the respect of peers." "They should also be part of a close-knit circle of
friends and share new and exciting experiences, earn the respect and trust
of parents and siblings, work towards one's academic and career goals, stay
fit and perform well in sports," the PDFA says.

In other words, the Partnership for a Drug Free America would like children
to be model citizens/consumers, and not rebel against the 'system'.

Here is a quote from the PDFA about how the "need to be cool" can be
projected (20):

"Positive messages are likely to be effective in reinforcing adolescents'
anti-drug attitudes and in affirming their commitment to refrain from drug
use. The tone of these messages should be spirited and celebratory rather
than preachy. A strategy that has proved highly successful for many major
marketers (e.g., Reebok, Nike, Coke, and Levi) is to depict a desirable
image and lifestyle, and then associate that image with their product
subtly and obliquely. Drug non-use can be marketed in a similar way by
creating a highly desirable image of attractive, smart, and successful
drug-free teenagers." The use of this strategy is graphically illustrated
by the Partnerships advertising, and also by its use of the internet. One
example is the web site FREEVIBE, in the "related links" of the ONDCP web
site (21). FREEVIBE, which appears also to have a link to the Disney
Corporation, offers young Americans "better things than drugs". The number
one thing FREEVIBE advises teenagers to do as an alternative to taking
drugs is to make money. This, FREEVIBE says can be accomplished through
having a garage sale, starting a business, or selling off old CDs and
books. "Your whole life you've depended on your parents for cash. And
let's face it, it's never enough! Now's the time to break out and make your
own ducats, and spend 'em the way you want to," FREEVIBE advises.

Others ideas that people may like to take up instead of taking drugs, are
(in numerical order): sports, volunteering, arts, writing (keeping a
journal), enjoying the outdoors and building web sites.

FREEVIBE regularly features a "celeb". This months Celeb, happens to be
Cameron Dias - "The most promising blue-eyed blond - who confounded
Hollywood - a shrewd and savvy actress, who - does the occasional
high-paying modeling job, FREEVIBE says, enticingly.

FREEVIBEs other feature is called "Cool Incarnate", this is an interview
with an anonymous young girl, known only by her nickname, "Penny Dreadful",
(a nickname once given to Marilyn Monroe - that other all American blue
eyed blond! ). "Penny" is the antithesis of an advertising profile, used
to target market 'cool' products to youth culture.

Where does Penny Live? She lives with her parents, who are still married,
has a sister, two dogs and a hedgehog.

What does Penny think "makes you cool" - She's a fashion advice columnist
for a funky clothing catalogue on the web. She is not paid, but works at a
daycare. Dressing differently and people who chase their own goals even if
it means ridicule, are the sorts of things that make you "cool" according
to Penny.

Who does she admire? Penny admires her fathers work ethic, her mothers
no-nonsense strength, sisters charm, and her a friends practicality. She
also admires Tori Amos for her power-femme image, Courtney Love for honesty
and Drew Barrymore for her flower-child free-spiritedness.

Penny's goals are to enroll in an English literature course at college and
get married and become a mother (even though it is, as she says, rather
50's passe).

Penny's thoughts on drugs: Drugs get people pregnant because they get high
and have unprotected sex or contract fatal diseased from dirty needles IT
CAN AND WILL HAPPEN IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL, Penny warns. "Trust a grrrl who
knows", she says. A girl, a stranger, who won't even tell us her real name!

And finally, asked for her words of wisdom on life, Penny says
patronisingly, "be kind to your fellow human beings, despite their
financial status, race, sexuality, religion clique, etc. Be free and never
shut your mouth!

Look at the central elements of Penny's discussion, and of FREEVIBE itself,
in terms of propaganda analysis. Apart from being drug free, Penny is
advocating several other things. The work ethic, voluntary labour,
reproduction of the species, further education, and of course, fashion.
FREEVIBE is encouraging teenagers to "look up to" superstars and fashion
models. Why not encourage teenagers to look up to people who are
campaigning to save the environment, curing disease or working for peace.
Surely these would be better role modes. But then again, these sorts of
things are not as socially attractive or glamorous as 'being cool'.

Could it be that the Partnership for a Drug Free America is running two
advertising campaigns? One to demonise illicit drugs, the other to turn
teenagers into unthinking consuming robots?

Another aspect of the War on Drugs that is worth mentioning is the use of
sporting heroes. While some may balk at the following analysis, it
deserves consideration, given the insidious and Orwellian nature of the War
on Drugs.

The ONDCP has launched what it calls, an "Athletic initiative Against
Drugs" (22) - the catch cry, "If you use, you loose". The ONDCP says this
initiative is "Based on the premise that the athletic world can be used to
educate children about the dangers of drugs and keep them away from drugs."
The fact that the athletic world is well known for its use of performance
enhancing drugs appears to have been conveniently forgotten.

Part the ONDCP strategy involves "Coaching " kids away from drugs - to
build self esteem and character and learn that their futures are too bright
to waste on drugs." "Athletes can also help us in our drive to shape
attitudes because young people emulate and look up to them", the ONDCP
says. The Athletic strategy is designed to be a mentoring program - "many
of our nation's strongest adult mentors and role models wear whistles and
call plays when they aren' t teaching life-long lessons. Coaches are
looked up to by children - as mentors coaches are winners."

Think about this statement carefully. If you have children, do you want
them to respond to whistles and obey other peoples calls to "play" - or do
you want them to develop freely and of their own accord? What other people
do you know that wear whistles and call plays? What organisation requires
its members to be fit and athletic? The answer - the military. Are
training a generation of warriors? After all, that was what Hitler Youth
was all about. (23)

PROPAGANDA AND THE WAR ON DRUGS.

The War on Drugs in America is indeed waging a three pronged attack on
society.

1. It is brainwashing and propagandising a generation of young people so
that they become consuming robots.

2. It is encouraging people to become model citizens, to be non rebellious
and intolerant of other peoples choices.

3. It is bringing society one step closer to the inevitability of a police
state.

In Australia, we are being 'Tough on Drugs'. So far, many of our policy
initiatives are adapted from the American experience. We too, are adopting
the three pronged attack on drugs. Educating people against the 'perils' of
drug addiction, 'effective' treatment programs and harsher law enforcement.

Many Australians will no doubt be concerned by the insidious implications
of drug-control strategies, that are being implemented to "reduce the
damage done by drugs to our families and communities". Getting Tough on
Drugs, is but one example of the way that democratic governments use
propaganda against us. Other areas such as health, finance, education,
foreign affairs, welfare, law and order, justice and the environment are
also subject to government propaganda campaigns.

It was a wise grrrl that once warned IT CAN AND WILL HAPPEN IF YOU'RE NOT
CAREFUL!

BOXED SECTION

THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE WAR ON DRUGS

Drugs are not forbidden because they are dangerous but dangerous because
they are forbidden. But who are those that want them forbidden?
International influences, especially the emergence of international
conventions dealing with illicit drugs, play a major part in the
development of illicit drug laws and policies in Australia today. All
Australian laws on drugs must be assessed in terms of our international
treaty obligations.

The United Nations International Drug Control Program is charged with
reducing illicit drugs. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs, run under the
auspices of the International Drug Control Program consists of 53 member
countries. At its last annual meeting in Vienna, the Commission received
unanimous approval to create its own satellite monitoring system to
identify the cultivation of narcotics in the major source countries.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF DRUG LAWS

1901 - A meeting on the opium trade is held in Shanghai and attended by 13
nations. This meeting lays the groundwork for the 1912 Hague Conference

1912 Hague Conference attended by 42 nations. Produces Hague Convention
for the Suppression of Opium and Other Drugs.

1913 Various Australian States regulate use, sale, possession and
manufacture of previously uncontrolled drugs including morphine, heroin,
cocaine and medicinal opium, A system of licences, record keeping,
authorisations and penalties is introduced for unauthorised possession

1914 Passage of the Harrison Act in the United States prohibits non-medical
drug use in the US.

1915 Commonwealth of Australia restricts importation of opium, morphine,
heroin and cocaine to medicinal purposes, and requires importers to obtain
a licence.

1925 Geneva Convention on Opium and Other Drugs restricts to medical and
scientific purposes the manufacture, importation, sale distribution,
exportation and use of cannabis, as well as medicinal opium, cocaine,
morphine and heroin. The Convention establishes the Permanent Central
Opium Board (PCOB) to collect statistics on narcotics and provide
information on the import requirements of State Parties

1926 Australian Commonwealth government prohibits importation of cannabis.

1931 Narcotics Limitation Convention dictates state parties can only import
and export narcotics in conformity with estimates advanced to PCOB.

1949 PCOB criticises various countries, including Australia for increased
heroin use.

1950 UN raises heroin use issue with Australian government

1953 Commonwealth Government of Australia introduces absolute prohibition
on importation of heroin and urges states to prohibit manufacture.

1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - consolidates
earlier narcotic drug treaties. Required parties to 'limit exclusively to
medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture export, import,
distribution of trade in, use and possession of narcotic drugs.

1967 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs is ratified in Australia.
Commonwealth government enacts Narcotic Drugs Act for licencing and permits
for manufacture and distribution of drugs.

1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances declared. As a
result, Australia enacts Psychotropic Substances Act

1976, enforcing controls over certain psychotropic substances entering
Australian ports or airports. 1980s Further Australian drug law reform.
Establishment of National Campaign Against Drug Abuse.

1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotics and
Psychotropic Substances, designed to suppress organised commercial
trafficking in narcotics.

1990: Australia ratifies the United Nations Convention on Illicit
Trafficking in Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances.

1997: Tough On Drugs strategy declared by Howard government.

REFERENCES

(1) Media Release Dr Michael Wooldridge MW 137/98 26 June, 1998 PUBLIC
CONCERNED ABOUT ILLICIT DRUGS

(2) Howard, John., "Hard drugs demand a tough response", The Australian,
March 2, 1999

(3) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.,(1998), "Australia's
Health", pp. 192 - 6

(4) See the Australian government brochure "Tough on Drugs - to protect our
kids!" available at http://www.adca.org.au/toughondrugs/

(5) Total Offenders, by Drug Type, 1996 - 97, Australian Bureau of
Statistics, available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/

(6) Information summarised from a report in the Financial Review, "We're
loosing the drug War", 3rd January 1998. Available at http://www.afr.com.au/

(7) Norberry, Jennifer., Department of the Parliamentary Library, "Illicit
Drugs, their Use and the Law in Australia", Background Paper 12, 1996-97

(8) Hawks., and Lenton., 'Harm reduction in Australia: Has it worked? Drug
and Alcohol Review, 14, 1995: 291-304 at 298.

(9) National Committee on Violence., (1990) "Violence. Directions for
Australia", Australian Institute Criminology, Canberra, p 90

(10) Hope, D,. "Safety first in fortress suburbs", The Australian, April
19, 1998

(11) AUSTRAC, (1998) Estimates of the Extent of Money Laundering in and
Throughout Australia.

(12) Bone, J,. "Zero tolerance sparks mutiny in police ranks", The
Australian, April 19, 1998.

(13) Noam Chomsky commenting on the Drug War Industrial Complex, in the
magazine High Times. Interviewed by journalist John Veit.

(14) Palmer, Mick., in the speech "Young Australians face an increasing
battle with illicit drugs", at the First International Conference on Drugs
and Young People, Melbourne. Available at
http://www.afp.gov.au/publica/platypus/mar99/drugspch.htm

(15) Remarks by Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug
Control Policy to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on
Drugs. In the same speech, McCaffrey also discussed the benefits of
'vaccinating' adolescents against drugs through the media.

(16) The full text of the speech can be found at
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/

(17) Available at http://www.mediacampaign.org/inthenews/press_101998.html

(18) Cotts, Cynthia,. "The Partnership: Hard Sell in the Drug War", The
Nation, March 9, 1992. Available at http://www.pdxnorml.org/Nation030992.html

(19) This is a quote from the Public Relations Plan prepared by the ONDCPs
advertising partners. Titled, National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign,
Communication Strategy. The full text is available at
http://www.mediacampaign.org/partners/statement/contents.html

(20) See 19

(21) http://www.freevibe.com/hangtime/cool_incarnate/index.asp

(22) http://www.ondcpsports.org/

(23) Anyone who cares to research, even a little, the future trends of the
military, will find that the future lies in urban combat. In the streets,
suburbs and garages where we live. Not in remote jungles or desert outposts.