AD CAMPAIGNS ALONE WON'T STOP DRUG USE

While knocking America upside the head is certainly a unique policy goal,
we're not sure it's the most sensible way to go about battling drug use
among teens

WE can just see the publicservice announcement now.A politician wearing a
rumpled pinstripe suit, shot in grainy black and white, flings files and
papers all over his office, pushes over a few filing cabinets, topples a
bookcase or two, all the while screaming his head off. Finally, exhausted,
his office a mess, he stops and stares soulfully into the camera, lamenting
that feel-good political solutions and wasteful spending have "trashed"
common sense when it comes to the nation's drug policy.

Then, he makes a plea to the nation's policy makers to "just say no" to
using expensive ad campaigns as a means of getting kids to do the same with
drugs.

Alas, it will never happen. At least not if the government's latest weapon
in the war on drugs is any indication.

This month, the federal government launched a splashy $195 million, one year
anti-drug ad campaign they hope to turn into a splashy $2 billion, five-year
anti-drug ad campaign. Speaker Newt Gingrich has vowed to get Congress to
cough up $800 million of that total; the rest, it is hoped, will come from
matching funds from media outlets.

Gingrich was on hand to announce the campaign with Bill Clinton at a
bipartisan event attended mainly by children. It was a warm and fuzzy
moment: two political adversaries putting aside their differences to affirm
their support for a campaign that will include television, print, radio,
billboard - and even Internet - advertisements.

The first of the TV ads, which has gotten a lot of attention, shows a
fetching young woman in a tight little tank top using a frying pan to smash
not only an egg, but her entire kitchen in an illustration of what heroin
will do to your life. It's a hipster version of the '80s "this is your brain
on drugs" campaign.

The ad campaign is intended to reach the average American family about four
times a week, telling children that drugs are more dangerous than they
think, and warning parents that their kids are more likely to try them than
they might think. A 1997 government survey showed that one-third of all
eighth-graders and half of all high school seniors reported using illegal
drugs at least once.

Clinton, under fire from Republicans who charge that he's soft on drugs,
explained the ad campaign's goal is to "knock America upside the head."

While knocking America upside the head is certainly a unique policy goal,
and one that makes a terrific sound bite at that, we're not sure it's the
most sensible way to go about battling drug use among teens.

Not that there's anything wrong with ads that discourage drug use -,but $1
billion? That's quite a few taxpayer dollars, especially when one considers
that the jury is definitely out on the effectiveness of such campaigns.
Critics of the new ads have pointed out that kids have been bombarded with
anti-drug messages for years, both in the media and through school-based
programs such as DARE.

Meanwhile, teen drug use has continued to rise, and even Barry McCaffery,
head of Clinton's anti-drug programs, has said it could be three years
before we know if these latest ads are effective.

The $1 billion intended for this campaign would be more sensibly spent on
things that have proven effective in battling drug use, such as after-school
programs and treatment centers. Unfortunately, it seems as if common sense
is the last thing motivating the government's latest anti-drug effort.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett