Meet Pablo, the adorable and dead mascot of the new anti-cocaine advert (that's how they say it there) from the U.K. that uses wit in an attempt to promote the dangers of cocaine use. This advert fails, but at least it's a funny fail, unlike the war on drugs itself. Thanks to Transform Drug Policy Foundation in the U.K. for the articulate analysis of the Pablo campaign. Here are the other adverts in the series.

So, sleep tight my fellow Americans, apparently there is still a country that uses anti-drug advertising in an comparably ineffective way. Only, at least the U.K.'s adverts are funny -- sort of.

I'm not sure, but are cocaine users supposed to feel guilty that Pablo was used as a drug mule and then killed? Whether it is animals or desperate men and women exploited as couriers, the fact remains that prohibition caused the black market profitability that fuels drug mules. While this is a terribly sad situation caused by black market de-regulation, cocaine users in no way should feel guilty for Pablo's death because they did not create it. Add to the fact that some of these ads feature hands penetrating the lining of Pablo's stomach where he was cut to retrieve the drugs, a gruesome situation is heightened by its failed attempt at associating blame.

Ultimately, these adverts intimate a dichotomy without nuance: YOU, the user, are to blame for Pablo's death; the only road out of perdition is to not use drugs. Basically, drug users kills puppies. But we all know that isn't true...Cops do!

But look on the bright side, without Pablo's death, there would be no somewhat funny anti-drug commercials* to watch while you eat dinner -- and then summarily throw it up**.

While this isn't as bad as the brain snorting commercial I posted a little back, it is an entire waste of the 1 million sterling (some will scoff at the low amount) that could be, for example, donated to some animal shelters.

*Unfortunately, that is only for the U.K., or if you read this blog while eating dinner.
** Fortunately, that is only for the U.K., or if you read this blog while eating dinner.

Labels: U.K., youth

When former DPA intern Jessica Matuozzi learned from her younger brother that his high school --her former high school-- was considering a random student drug testing proposal, she didn't take the news sitting down. This busy NYU college student took the time away from writing midterms to collect materials and prep to speak at the Bernards Board of Education meeting back in her hometown in New Jersey. Her voice was especially important as New Jersey High School Principal Chris Steffner, who travels the country promoting student drug testing, came to her high school to try to persuade the board to move forward with testing.

I asked Jess if she could write up a blog post reflecting on the experience. Here is what she had to say:


Two weeks ago Chris Steffner came to my high school -- a public school in New Jersey -- to advocate for random student drug testing at my school's board meeting. I raced back to my home town to deliver the urgent message that random student drug testing is wrong for my high school, and it's wrong for young adults.

During the public comment period, I emphasized that my school is comprised of a small community of people in which, as is the case at many high schools, everybody knows everybody else's business. I cannot overestimate the degree of psychological trauma a student would face if labeled by his peers and his teachers as a "drug user," a "bad influence," or "one of the bad kids." You and I both know that if a teenager is repeatedly treated as a deviant, or someone who is not to be trusted, s/he will begin to act that way.

Research shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to develop substance abuse problems. In addition, after-school programs offer students who are abusing drugs productive activities as well as contact with teachers, coaches, and peers, who can help them identify and address problematic drug use. Yet, random student drug testing relies on the punishment of removing students who test positive from these programs, giving them more time to engage in the very thing that random student drug testing seeks to prevent - more drug use.

I believe that there are more effective ways to keep teens out of trouble with drugs. We should continue to engage students in after-school programs that grow their self-esteem and keep them out of trouble. We should continue to cultivate trusting, respectful relationships among students and teachers - young people who enjoy the confidence of their parents and teachers, and who are expected to assume responsibility for their actions, and the most likely to act responsibly. We might also think about incorporating science-based drug education into the school curriculum that, instead of using ineffective and dishonest scare tactics, recognizes and seeks to address the reasons why young people might choose to use, or not use, drugs.

The public comment period went extremely well -- only two people testified in favor of random drug testing, and they weren't even residents of my town. Community parents were overwhelmingly opposed to random drug testing, and over twenty of them got up to say so. We await the board's decision in hopes that they will vote against random student drug testing, and for students' health, happiness, and constitutional right to privacy.


The really exciting news is that we just learned today that the Bernards Board of Education voted down the student drug testing proposal!! This is really something to be thankful for. We'll send more details next week.

Labels: school drug policy, youth

You gotta love capitalism, right? I mean, it breeds such insane and scary ideas that only exacerbate already delicate situations. If you need to rent a drug dog to go through your child's room, then obviously you don't have the best relationship with your child.

That's right, renting drug dogs is now a business. Awesome!

It's brilliant in a sick "I don't know how to handle the relationship with my child so I will employ intrusive and counter-productive tactics to get him or her to be under my control but will ultimately alienate him or her from me" kind of idea.

I've pulled out some choice snippets from the SniffDogs website:

"If a dog picks up the scent of a drug - perhaps a small volume such as cocaine residue on a dollar bill or a single joint of marijuana - Sniff Dogs won't know the exact nature of what was found. Likewise, Sniff Dogs will not discern between a small amount or a larger volume; only you will know after Sniff Dogs has left your premises."

Two things here: 1) lots of bills have coke on them. And when I say a lot, I mean almost all of them and 2) these dogs can also pick up trace smells on clothing. So, if your child is at a concert, the dog is going to "hit" on his or her clothes; if your child is at a party but not doing drugs, the dog is going to hit; if your child is basically doing anything, this dog can hit.

Again, from the website:
"Question: I have reason to believe my child has experimented with marijuana. Do I really need this service?
Yes, marijuana is known as a gateway drug. Research indicates that 3 out of 4 kids who try marijuana will experiment with more addictive and life-threatening drugs."

Feh, fear-mongering. What more addictive drugs are they talking about: cigs and hooch?

This has gotten out of hand. Although talking to your youth about drugs can be a "third rail" issue, it cannot be done by undermining trust with drug dogs. If you need to broach the subject with your child, why not use honest and effective drug education? It actually works, and your child won't hate you for it.

Labels: youth

Raise your hand if you're surprised: "Despite investing $1 billion in a massive anti-drug campaign, a controversial new study suggests that the push failed to help the United States win the war on drugs."

And: "there is also a small amount of evidence that indicates the anti-drug campaign may have had the opposite effect for some teens."

Gosh, there's a shocker.

ABC news reported on this earlier in the week - apparently Congress mandated a study of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, which launched in the 90s. The investigators, working with Monitoring the Future, an ongoing study of American youth, evidently found that the more teens saw of these awful ads, the more of 'em started smoking marijuana.

Now, I know it's easy to hate on ONDCP for leading what is arguably the country's most destructive (30 years an running, folks!) war and propping up a prison industrial complex that disproportionately targets people of color, transgender folks and increasingly women. Lots of reasons to hate on them there. But to ice an already hateful cake, they waste literally billions of dollars solely on these stupid TV ads that actually made more kids start smoking.

Sigh.

Well, there's good news out there, too. And in this weird, contradictory universe we live in, part of it is actually funded by this very same federal government. Drug Policy Alliance New Mexico used some federal grant money to help produce this by-youth, for-youth educational video about meth. Check out the clip on youtube and if you're around Albuquerque, go to the screening next Thursday. It's good stuff - all true, all sides, helping young people make their own informed decisions about drugs.

Labels: Just4Teens, TV ads, youth