REVIEW FINDS ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN WORKS ON PARENTS (SORT OF) BUT NOT KIDS

Findings Contradict Drug Czar's Rosy Views

Just a little more than a month ago, John Walters, head of the White
House Office on National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP, the drug czar's
office -- http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov) was loudly boasting
that his $150 million a year youth anti-drug ad campaign was
responsible for reducing marijuana use among kids. Based on the most
recent figures from Monitoring the Future (http://www.monitoringthefuture.org),
one of three widely used measures for tracking drug use levels,
Walters proclaimed the ad campaign at least partially responsible for
an 11% decrease in marijuana use among teens canvassed in the survey.
(The numbers were 19.4% in 2001 and 17.3% in 2003, an actual
difference of 2.1 percentage points. But an 11% decrease sounds more
impressive.)

Monitoring the Future lead investigator Lloyd Johnston guardedly
seconded that opinion, as did Dr. Glen Hansen, acting director of the
National Institutes on Drug Abuse (http://www.nida.nih.gov). But a
study commissioned by NIDA and released Monday has come up with
startlingly different results.

Here are what Johnston, Walters, and Hansen said last month:

* Johnston: "It is quite possible that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America, which communicates the dangers of marijuana use,
has had its intended effect. We have definitely seen a change in that
direction." -- Monitoring the Future press release, December 19.

* Walters: "Teen drug use has reached a level that we haven't seen in
nearly a decade. This survey shows that when we push back against the drug
problem, it gets smaller. Fewer teens are using drugs because of the
deliberate and serious messages they have received about the dangers of
drugs from their parents, leaders, and prevention efforts like our National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign." -- ONDCP press release, December 19.

* Hanson: "A message is getting out there." -- ONDCP press release,
December 19.

Neither Monitoring the Future nor ONDCP returned DRCNet's calls for
comment this week, nor has ONDCP issued any press releases on the
findings released this week.

The four-year, NIDA-commissioned study of the ad campaign by the
University of Pennsylvania's Walter Annenberg School of Communications
and the research group Westat had to say this week:

Effects on youth: "There is little evidence of direct favorable
Campaign effects on youth, either for the Marijuana Initiative or the
Campaign as a whole. The trend data in marijuana use is not favorable
[although different measures, such as Monitoring the Future, show
different results]. In any case, youth who were exposed to more
Campaign messages were no more likely to hold favorable beliefs or
intentions about marijuana than are youth less exposed to those
messages, both during the Marijuana Initiative period and over the
course of the Campaign."

Effects on parents: "Overall, there is some evidence of favorable
Campaign effects on four out of five parent belief and behavior
outcome measures, including talking with children about drugs, doing
fun activities with children, and beliefs about monitoring children.
The evidence for the Campaign's effects on monitoring behavior was
much weaker. The lack of influence on monitoring is a concern
because... it is the parent behavior most associated with youth
non-use of marijuana. In addition, there is no evidence for favorable
indirect effects on youth behavior or beliefs as a result of parent
exposure to the Campaign."

The NIDA-commissioned study released this week will be the last
independent audit of the anti-drug media campaign. Following similar
previous analyses of the campaign's lack of success, ONDCP maneuvered
to end funding for such independent evaluations. Instead, the campaign
will be evaluated by campaign co-conspirators, the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America.

"This independent evaluation confirms what has been obvious for some
time: The government's anti-marijuana ads are a complete failure and a
staggering waste of taxpayer money," said Steve Fox, director of
government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project
(http://www.mpp.org) in a Monday press release. "Hundreds of millions
have been spent on these ads already, and Congress may soon authorize
over $1 billion for the campaign over the next five years. We urge
Congress to pull the plug on this propaganda," Fox said. "At the very
least, Congress must demand reinstatement of the independent
evaluations. Having the Partnership for a Drug-Free America evaluate
its own ad campaign is like having Halliburton audit its own federal
contracts."

"This study just confirms that the campaign isn't working," concurred
Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (http://www.norml.org). "The only independent
scientific evaluation of the campaign shows no impact on those kids
who have seen more ads than others, and in some cases, those kids who
have seen more ads actually show a more pro-drug attitude than those
who haven't. Not only does the campaign not work, it is sometimes even
counterproductive," he said.

Armentano also had some criticism of Monitoring the Future's Johnston.
"Johnston was not looking specifically at the ads' impact; he simply
noted the downturn in use and attributed it to the ad campaign. But he
didn't ask if the people he polled who reported lower use were
actually influenced by the ads or had even seen them. That is not
scientific," Armentano said.

As for action from Congress, Armentano wasn't optimistic. "If we had
reason to believe that Congress would base its decision on
appropriating funds for the campaign on the results of scientific
evaluations, I would be optimistic," he said. "But Washington is
completely uninterested in whether it actually works; instead, it's
full speed ahead." Still, Armentano added, the anti-drug ad campaign
had already seen its funding slashed from $200 million a year to $150
million a year after earlier doubts were raised. "It's not a slam dunk
for the drug czar, but I've been to these appropriation hearings and
I've seen Walters get up and say 'we're getting dramatically positive
results, the ads are working,' and Congress says 'sounds like you're
doing a great job.' They didn't question him."

The anti-drug ad campaign has been widely criticized, ridiculed, and
even parodied, as well as repeatedly being found ineffective. But, in
a sign of corporate collusion with conservative prohibitionists, CBS
has pronounced the ads non-controversial and will once again run them
during the upcoming Superbowl. CBS has denied air time for paid
commercials from organizations including People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals and MoveOn, the anti-Bush grassroots
organization, on the grounds that they are advocacy ads. But the drug
czar's propaganda is okay.

The report, "Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign, 2003 Report of Findings," is available at
http://www.mpp.org/pdf/Westat0104.pdf online.