SUPER BOWL DRUG AD CAUSES CONTROVERSY

By buying and selling drugs, a person is supporting terrorist networks
around the world.

This was the latest claim made by the Office of National Drug Control
Policy in a recent $3.4 million federally funded advertising campaign --
the first aired during the Super Bowl.

The ads depict terrorists purchasing bomb-making materials with illegal
drug money from young drug users. The ads are the object of wide criticism
within the student ranks.

Leading the charge is the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, an
organization that spans 156 university and high school chapters across the
nation. Its goal is to raise student awareness across the nation of the
"failed" state of current domestic drug policy, and promote discussion of
alternative solutions to the nation's drug problems.

Shawn Heller, SSDP national director, calls the ad campaign "outrageous,
over-simplified, irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer money."

"The ads unfairly demonize drug users by equating them with terrorists," he
said.

Heller said the commercial oversimplifies terrorism by ignoring that many
legal goods can be connected to terrorism.

"What the ads failed to mention is that terrorists and other repressive
regimes also make their money on legal consumer goods," Heller said. "In
fact, as we were watching the ad when it first aired, we realized we were
watching it on a TV that was made in China, probably by some 12-year-olds
working 14-hour days.

"The gasoline in our cars probably came from a refinery in the Middle East
where women are suppressed and stripped of rights.

"If the government wants to open this can of worms, then why don't we look
at everything else this country is funding," Heller said.

Peter Andersen, a San Diego State professor and expert on persuasional
communication, said he agreed the ads were most likely ineffective to
viewers because the commercials didn't establish a direct connection
between buying drugs and supporting terrorism.

"Sometimes, ads are not based on good, well-researched persuasion theory;
instead, they're based on some off-the-wall idea that some ad-exec or
bureaucrat just feels would work," he said.

Anderson said commercials that don't use good persuasion theory can
sometimes have an opposite or "boomerang" effect, and even destroy any
credibility of future ads.

"I'm not one of those that say there shouldn't be ad campaigns on TV," he
said. "If they are done well, they can be highly effective."

Annie Chmieleski, a social work freshman, said she agrees with the general
principle of explaining the damaging effects of drug trafficking, but the
ads that linked funding terrorism with the purchase of drugs were not
entirely clear to her.

"I had a hard time seeing the connection," she said. "For some people, the
message may have worked, but I think most people would see it as a bit of a
reach. If they had told us how they are connected, it would have been more
effective."

The federal government spends close to $20 billion annually to combat
drugs, and more than 400,000 people are incarcerated in the United States
for drug law violations -- an eightfold increase since 1980.