BRAINS ON DRUGS

THE advertising industry's newest clients are American taxpayers, who may
be forced to pay $1 billion over the next five years for a federal
anti-drug ad campaign with dubious effectiveness. President Clinton and
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich want to expand this year's $200 million
anti-drug media campaign into a five-year, $1 billion taxpayer-financed
extravaganza. If Congress approves it, the campaign will be the federal
government's most ambitious media blitz in history.

Never mind that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, a pro bono
coalition of ad agencies and media companies, has been doing just fine
without taxpayers. The Partnership drums up $840,000 a day, or $307 million
a year, in free media air time or space - nearly as much as Coca-Cola
spends. The industry doubtless is thrilled to have a client with a
bottomless bank account for prime-time ads.

Never mind that studies have shown the impact of anti-drug messages on
teenagers to be inconclusive at best, and negative at worst. Numerous
psychological studies have suggested that at-risk youth - often
thrill-seekers with authority issues - think more favorably of drugs when
they hear official anti-drug messages. Indeed, the nation's most heavily
financed drug education program for children, called DARE, is under fire
for having no impact on drug use, and possibly increasing marijuana use.

Law-enforcement agencies have been begging local, state and federal
governments to better finance after-school programs, which are successful
in keeping kids out of trouble. Congress should support prevention and
reject Clinton and Gingrich's proposal - an unsubstantive and shameless use
of the media.