The Office of National Drug Control Policy launched a new anti-drug campaign Sunday linking the purchase of illegal drugs to funding terrorism.
One of the 30-second ads stated the price of different elements in funding a terrorist organization — fake ID $3,000, AK47 $250, explosives $1,200. It then asked how terrorists get their money: by buying drugs, users help fund these terrorists.
The second ad featured young-adults, some saying they helped kill families in Columbia, some saying using drugs didn’t affect only themselves. The end of the commercial brought the message that drug use helps terrorists, thus affecting everyone, not just the user.
For a long time, the government has connected drug trafficking and the resulting money to funding terrorists.
Despite noting this linkage for many years, the message has never been used for an anti-drug campaign. However, after Sept. 11, the message may have new meaning for many drug users. Previously, terrorism occurred in another part of the world. Now it has happened here at home, maybe making the message more influential.
Hank Boyd, an assistant marketing professor at UW-Madison, said the commercials could be effective in deterring drug use because they are using a new angle.
“If you can design an ad that draws the viewer in, and they can say this is different and would like to see how the story ends and then let them take away their own conclusion, it can help in getting the message through,” Boyd said.
Boyd cited previous campaigns, such as the “this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs,” as effective because it was hard-hitting and had a new angle.
The “this is your brain on drugs” campaign is considered by some as one of the most influential ads of all time, using a fried egg to make users think about what the drugs are actually doing to their bodies.
However, Michael Bohn, an associate clinical professor in psychiatry, said these anti-drug campaigns are seen by heavy users as ludicrous and have no effect in making them stop using.
“The best anti-drug ad campaign would be one that presents accurate information and identifies who is at risk,” Bohn said. “If you only tell them the bad effects you don’t change use at all — you may even increase use some.”
The Office of National Drug Control Policy said in 1999, the number of youths who avoided using drugs went up eight percent due to their ad campaign. The group thinks this new campaign will help even more. An initial survey they conducted said 59 percent of children ages 12 to 17 said knowing illegal drug use helps finance terrorist attacks makes them less likely to use drugs.
In previous campaigns, such as the “this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs,” some users said the ad did nothing to deter them, because they would see honor students using marijuana, thus negating the message.
Bohn said the ads during the 80s did reduce drug use somewhat when they were coupled with public education. But said these campaigns are more useful for presenting information, not preventing use.
However, Boyd thinks the new ads could work.
“I thought that the [new] ads were effective in the sense they set out to say is there a new angle or new slant to grab the person’s attention and how it affects the community,” he said.
The ads cost the organization nearly $3.5 million dollars of their $180 million ad budget to run three times during the Super Bowl.
Sunday’s ads are the start of a four-to-six week national campaign, which also includes radio and print ads in 293 newspapers.
