DRUG USE MAY AID IN SPONSORING TERRORISM

We've all seen those commercials. Two men, business associates, we assume,
are having an after-dinner discussion at a moderately busy restaurant.

Their topic of conversation: the anti-drug commercials. The first man says
that they're propaganda; the second pushes his companion to justify that
assertion.

Over the break, I found myself in a similar situation.

A friend and I were having lunch at an admittedly un-chic restaurant. Our
topic: the anti-drug commercials about the anti-drug commercials. He said
that they're propaganda; I played the devil's advocate.

Had I had the presence of mind at the time, I probably would have made a
remark about our situation. We were having a conversation about a
conversation about a conversation. I finally understood Being John
Malkovich. But at the time, involved in the conversation, I was struck by
the usage of words. Maybe it was difficult to connect the dots between drug
usage and terrorism as we think of it. But if there is a sin of misused
diction, it is one shared by both sides of the debate.

This new ad campaign is a departure from the previous one, which suggested
that we not do drugs because we could be arrested. That's a truism that
begs the question, well, why are they illegal in the first place?

These new commercials try to hint at the unintended consequences of drug
use, but in so doing they attract the label "propaganda." Propaganda is a
word thrown around too often. I tried to make my case with a dictionary,
but found it unhelpful. The anti-drug commercials are "the spreading of
ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an
institution, a cause, or a person."

What's objectionable is not the dictionary definition, but rather the
connotation given to the word. When we think propaganda, we think Nazi
Germany or Saddam Hussein's Iraq governments that produced media to rally
the public behind a single message. Again, the anti-drug commercials meet
the definition of propaganda because they are state-sponsored.

There is a difference of connotation. These anti-drug commercials try to
engage the intellect; they want to take assumptions we have as viewers and
counter them. They continue a discussion. Even though there is a degree of
trying to advance the company line, we're not being duped by a catchy
jingle or bright colors.

Instead, we are given arguments and, therefore, the ability to convince
ourselves that drug use, whatever its benefits, is not worth its consequences.

I think the key reason some label these commercials "propaganda" is because
of the seemingly specious relationship between drug money and terrorism.
Granted, the terrorism most American drug money supports is not the garden
variety, religious extremist type of terrorism. It does, however, support
unsavory individuals who advance their cause, themselves, by means of
bribery, intimidation, and murder.

The point of all this is that, granted, September 11 probably would have
occurred even if there were no drug problem in the United States.

That fact alone should not delude us from the fact that drug money supports
terrible men and women and funds projects that are even worse. If you're
going to do drugs, fine. I understand the limitations of my column and
realize that what I say here probably won't deter those who want to do
them. All the same, we shouldn't ignore the fact that our choices have
consequences, and drug use in particular has dangerous consequences.