By buying and selling drugs, a person is supporting terroristnetworks around the world.
This was the latest claim made by the Office of National DrugControl Policy in a recent $3.4 million federally funded advertisingcampaign — the first aired during the Super Bowl.
The ads depict terrorists purchasing bomb-making materials withillegal 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, anorganization that spans 156 university and high school chaptersacross the nation. Its goal is to raise student awareness across thenation of the “failed” state of current domestic drug policy, andpromote discussion of alternative solutions to the nation’s drugproblems.
Shawn Heller, SSDP national director, calls the ad campaign”outrageous, over-simplified, irresponsible and a waste of taxpayermoney.”
“The ads unfairly demonize drug users by equating them withterrorists,” he said.
Heller said the commercial oversimplifies terrorism by ignoringthat many legal goods can be connected to terrorism.
“What the ads failed to mention is that terrorists and otherrepressive regimes also make their money on legal consumer goods,”Heller said. “In fact, as we were watching the ad when it firstaired, we realized we were watching it on a TV that was made inChina, probably by some 12-year-olds working 14-hour days.
“The gasoline in our cars probably came from a refinery in theMiddle East where women are suppressed and stripped of rights.
“If the government wants to open this can of worms, then why don’twe look at everything else this country is funding,” Heller said.
Peter Andersen, a San Diego State professor and expert onpersuasional communication, said he agreed the ads were most likelyineffective to viewers because the commercials didn’t establish adirect connection between buying drugs and supporting terrorism.
“Sometimes, ads are not based on good, well-researched persuasiontheory; instead, they’re based on some off-the-wall idea that somead-exec or bureaucrat just feels would work,” he said.
Anderson said commercials that don’t use good persuasion theorycan sometimes have an opposite or “boomerang” effect, and evendestroy any credibility of future ads.
“I’m not one of those that say there shouldn’t be ad campaigns onTV,” he said. “If they are done well, they can be highly effective.”
Annie Chmieleski, a social work freshman, said she agrees with thegeneral principle of explaining the damaging effects of drugtrafficking, but the ads that linked funding terrorism with thepurchase of drugs were not entirely clear to her.
“I had a hard time seeing the connection,” she said. “For somepeople, the message may have worked, but I think most people wouldsee it as a bit of a reach. If they had told us how they areconnected, it would have been more effective.”
The federal government spends close to $20 billion annually tocombat drugs, and more than 400,000 people are incarcerated in theUnited States for drug law violations — an eightfold increase since1980.
