Bush on Useless Anti-Drug Ads: If We Boost Spending by 31 Percent, They'll Be That Much More Useless

Nick Gillespie | February 8, 2007

President Bush has proposed a significant jump in funding for an anti-drug advertising campaign that government-funded research shows is at best useless and at worst has increased drug use among some teens.

The administration has asked for a 31 percent increase in funding for the advertising campaign that a nearly five-year study concluded had increased the likelihood that all teens would smoke marijuana. The White House proposal would increase the program's budget to $130 million over the next year.

More here, via The Politico.

Comments

Pat|2.8.07 @ 9:14AM|#

Its another surge.

Apparently the only way Bush can get himself a 'surge' is by spending American tax dollars and lives.

Dave W.|2.8.07 @ 9:35AM|#

Step One: Consolidate media.

Step two: Consolidated media lobbies more effectively.

Step three: What does the consolidated media want?

Step four: How about some ridiculous copyright laws?

Step five: Done.

Step 6: hey, consolidated media, can you lay off on the investigative journalism while we tell some big lies and start an unwinnable war in Iraq.

Step 7: I don't know. is there some kind of quid pro quo here. We have a whole stable of journos who want to do their FOIAs and lots of commentators who want to say what they really think.

Step 8: How about if the government places a lot of ads using taxpayer money.

Step 9: Ads? Ads for what? Army recruitment? That might begin 2 look a bit crass.

Step 10: How about that other war. The war on drugs. We can just crank up the ads in that sector.

Step 11: I think we have a deal.

|2.8.07 @ 9:42AM|#

Yet another reason to not pay taxes any chance you get.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.07 @ 9:47AM|#

Yet another reason to not pay taxes any chance you get.

Well, Dee, for some inexplicable reason there are many libertarians commenting on these pages who disagree with your incisive observation.

I'm not one of them.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.8.07 @ 9:49AM|#

Great headline.

Problem is that GWB, like most of us, is a true believer. He may not be aware of the study you cite or he may think it's crap and fully believe that if we can just get the word out, kids will leave drugs alone.

Tym|2.8.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Like a moth flying into a lightbulb, over and over and over...

Warren|2.8.07 @ 9:53AM|#

SURGE! SURGE! SURGE!
I want to thank the president for choosing to win the war on drugs. By pissing away another $130e6 we can rid ourselves of the scourge of some drugs once and for all.

Larry A|2.8.07 @ 10:06AM|#

The ads sound like a worthwhile investment to me. If more kids use drugs, there's more justification for the war on drugs.

Jeremy|2.8.07 @ 10:19AM|#

These ads exist for the sole purpose of continuing the "drugs are bad, mmkay" mythos that people who are anti-drug and pro-drug-war (read: the voting public) so believe. The ads' effects translate into fear, which translates directly into votes.

No one really thinks that they serve any interdiction purpose on young people, right?

Dave W.|2.8.07 @ 11:06AM|#

These ads exist for the sole purpose of continuing the "drugs are bad, mmkay" mythos that people who are anti-drug and pro-drug-war (read: the voting public) so believe.

I argued above that the main purpose of these ads is to get taxpayer money into the hands of media companies.

I don't agree that the sole or primary purpose of the ads is what you say.

|2.8.07 @ 11:16AM|#

The ads sound like a worthwhile investment to me. If more kids use drugs, there's more justification for the war on drugs.

Feed the maw of the beast. We have a winner!

I argued above that the main purpose of these ads is to get taxpayer money into the hands of media companies.

Depends on perspective, but aren't the consolodated media now part of the beast? I'm thinking 'Bonfire of the Vanities' here...

Dave W.|2.8.07 @ 11:37AM|#

Depends on perspective, but aren't the consolodated media now part of the beast? I'm thinking 'Bonfire of the Vanities' here...

I don't know, but I do know that tacitly bribing media companies to do investigative journalism in a different manner than they otherwise would does not really work unless you buy off all the big players with mass credibility.

Compare Walter Cronkite's efforts on Viet Nam to Dan Rather's ill-fated efforts on the same. One guy gets to editorialize after an expense paid trip to the war, while the gets set up to vouch for bogus documents. Not the same CBS at all. but the only person to point that out is going to be a barnacle on he butt of a moderately successful website directed at a fringe political groop.

|2.16.07 @ 9:56PM|#

It makes sense that it actually increases drug uses. Making it seem more-off limits will only make it appeal more to the rebellious emotions of teenagers (I am one, so I know). Also, having your favorite show interrupted by another damn OVX ad makes you want to use hash just out of spire. They should make lighter drugs like marijuana legal (cocaine and harder stuff is out) and then preach responsiblity instead of abstinance. European countries do it for alcohol (Drinking age in Germany is like 14 or something). Because the children have been familiar with the substance for longer, they know more about its harmful effects and how much is too much. For this reason, European children are generally more responsible with alcohol than American kids.

At the very least, lax marijuana laws would free up tons of space in prison and save the taxpayers quite a bit while increasing the number of users by a negligible amount. Afterall, the Republicans are all about fiscal conservancy, right? *cough cough*