DRUG-TERROR ADS AND KIDS DON'T MIX

Several weeks ago, my children and I watched a family movie on the
ABC Family Channel, and together we were exposed to the entertaining
and fascinating world of drugs, drug money and violence.

Somewhere in the middle of the movie, part of a week long comedy
series, the station ran an advertisement sponsored by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The advertisement offers stark
pictures of teenagers talking about how they are really murderers,
torturers and terrorists. The ad originally ran during the Super
Bowl, costing taxpayers 3.5 million dollars, as part of a publicity
campaign linking American youth who have tried illegal drugs with
funding for terrorism.

In the version we saw, teenagers loom out at the viewer, saying such
things as "I helped murder families in Columbia," "I helped kids
learn how to kill," and "I helped blow up buildings." The teenagers
justify their atrocities by noting that they were "just having fun."

The ONDCP Web site and President Bush claim that these ads provide an
outlet for young people's idealism, enabling them to feel that they
can contribute to the war against terrorism by giving up illegal
drugs.

But for my children -- who witnessed the 9/11 attacks from their
Manhattan public school windows -- any intended message about drugs
and terrorism was lost. The ad not only failed to convey any coherent
message regarding drugs, but it instead seemed to frighten them,
making it appear that the threat of terrorism -- so close to their
actual home -- comes somehow from American teenagers.

The ad frightened me as well, making me wonder why ABC would run such
deceptive and scary material on a children's channel. I was so upset
that I nearly turned off the television. Children, however, generally
don't take kindly to having a television show turned off in the
middle, so to avoid a form of domestic terrorism, we continued
watching the moving.

During the next commercial break, there was another ad about drugs,
but this one, in contrast to the earlier ad, celebrated them. In this
ad, a pharmaceutical company was pushing the drug Zoloft, which will
allegedly fix depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The ad's
cartoon figure -- appealing and accessible to children -- suggested
that viewers should know what is happening to their own bodies, and
should have a say in how to treat their emotional health problems.
The contradiction between the two ads was palpable -- sometimes using
drugs contributes to terrorism, but sometimes using drugs contributes
to mental health.

There is also a more subtle disparity between the two ads. In the
ONDCP spot, one of the teenage actors says, "My life, my body." This
phrase -- a rallying cry for numerous social and political movements
seeking to ensure personal liberty and bodily integrity -- is said
with sarcasm, meant to belittle the notion not only as selfish, but
tantamount to traitorous. Yet, a few minutes later, the very same
concept of personal autonomy and control fuels the advertising
campaign for a mind-altering drug that will bring riches to an
American pharmaceutical company.

The Zoloft ad also teaches that depression and post traumatic stress
disorders are treatable and that people should not have to suffer
from them needlessly. Yet, we know that some illegal drug use is
related to self-medication for depression and post traumatic stress
disorder. The two ads thus send contradictory messages here, as well,
with one suggesting that self-medicating for these problems is a form
of terrorism and the other arguing that it is simply a matter of
informed consumerism.

As if these two drug ads were not enough, just a few commercial
breaks later there was yet another one. In the third ad, a man comes
home to find his kitchen utterly destroyed. After initial surprise,
he starts to panic -- has his family been attacked by some intruder?
He rushes into the living room to see if his loved ones are safe. And
there, sitting serenely on the couch, is his wife, happily sipping
her General Foods International coffee and explaining, in not quite
so many words, that her desperate need for a caffeine stimulant fix
caused her to tear apart the kitchen to find the stuff. This ad
startled my children, too -- but only because it prompted me to start
shrieking things like, "Oh my god! Now they are saying drug use and
property destruction are good things!"

Although we had planned to watch the other scheduled comedies on the
ABC Family channel that week, we decided to rent movies and read
aloud instead. I would rather not have my children watch TV ads that
promote and laud some drug users while different ads -- funded by our
government, no less -- spread misinformation and teach intolerance
and prejudice against other drug users.

I do, of course, talk to my children about the many risks associated
with all forms of drug use and abuse. But I also talk to them about
responsibility and the hypocrisy apparent when our government will
spend millions to portray innocent young people as terrorists, but
steadfastly refuses to fund needed drug treatment for the millions of
men women and children who need it in America today.

Lynn M. Paltrow is the executive director of the National Advocates
for Pregnant Women.