This Might Be Your Brain on Drugs: Colorado's Softer Anti-Pot Propaganda Is Still Propaganda

This week Colorado rolled out an ad campaign that warns teenagers away from marijuana by citing the possibility of lasting neurological damage. In my latest Forbes column, I argue that the ads, while more restrained than the anti-pot propaganda of yore, still misrepresent what is known about the drug's hazards in important ways. Here is how the piece starts:
This week the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment unveiled a new ad campaign aimed at scaring teenagers away from marijuana by warning them that it might damage their brains. Then again, it might not. Larry Wolk, the health department's executive director, concedes "more research is necessary" because "much still needs to be learned about the effect marijuana has on the brain." As the campaign itself intermittently acknowledges, claims that marijuana causes lasting neurological impairment remain controversial. But why take a chance? That is the state's message in a nutshell. Hence the slogan: "Don't be a lab rat."
As anti-drug propaganda goes, Colorado's campaign, which was prompted by fears that teenagers will be more inclined to smoke pot now that it's legal for adults (fears that so far seem to be unfounded), is relatively subtle. In one TV spot, the camera circles a dark, smoky car full of teenagers passing a pot pipe. The captions read: "Scientists at Duke University discovered that marijuana permanently decreased the IQs of teens. Some dispute that study. But what if, years from now, you learn those scientists were right?"
Colorado's approach is certainly a step up from the 1987 Partnership for a Drug-Free America ad that featured a man dropping an egg into a sizzling frying pan. "This is your brain on drugs," he declared. "Any questions?" It turned out that people had a lot of questions. Among them: Why did anyone think this kind of absurd hyperbole, which has been widely mocked ever since, would dissuade curious adolescents from trying drugs?
By comparison, Colorado's message is restrained: This might be your brain on drugs. The campaign nevertheless exaggerates the strength of the evidence linking adolescent pot smoking to brain damage as well as the level of risk facing the typical adolescent pot smoker.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Really, what business is it of government to advocate anything? In fact, isn't that totally ass-backwards? Government should have a passive role as far as opinions and advocacy goes.
Yes. Government should not be involved in producing propaganda for anything.
Very well, then, we have a ruling.
It is my understanding that it is illegal for the government to use propaganda against the citizenry. I know that doesn't mean much, but there it is.
If that's the case, then the whole ONDCP is illegal as are the various agricultural marketing boards and every other government funded PSA.
Who enforces that law? The uber-government?
We the people! Or is that us the people?
It's amazing how stupid these fucks are. They've successfully legalized weed and have done a far better job than WA at mainstreaming legal sales. There's been no catastrophe, things are working out well. So hey, let's engage in WOD-style propaganda just like when it was illegal! That makes perfect sense! Because it seems they just can't stop doing that.
Part of it may be to fend off the DEA, who no doubt will try to seize on any and every little thing as proof they need to step in and enforce Federal law.
I wonder how the government would act if someone made an effective psychotropic drug out of corn (beyond alcohol, I mean).
Beyond popcorn too?
Popcorn isn't psychotropic unless you sprinkle some drug on it. Unless you inject it directly into your brain.
I challenge you to eat a single piece of popcorn. I think the drug normally sprinkled on it is liquid butter-flavored product.
It's a very focused drug.
One of the arguments against legalization is that it will make pot more accessible to kids (which it won't, but OT). So I think they are just trying to cover their asses.
Well I obviously think PSAs are pointless and stupid, especially the anti-drug ones, if a state legalizes cannabis but seeks to use a portion of the revenue from that legalization to dissuade consumption thereof, I'm fine with that.
We can recognize that things that should be legal for consenting adults to engage in may not necessarily be great things (although moderate marijuana consumption is hardly high on that list). For example, I'm all for legalizing crack, but I'd still much prefer people didn't do crack.
Except Rob Ford. For the LULZ.
WellWhile I obviously think
although moderate marijuana consumption is hardly high on that list
I see what you did there.
I could go for a couple of fried eggs, right now.
I wonder how the government would act if someone made an effective psychotropic drug out of corn (beyond alcohol, I mean).
I'm all in favor of testing backyard pharmaceuticals on Congress. I have some moldy pasta salad in my fridge; we can start with that.
I don't know, but this was the hottest anti-drug PSA ever. Rachel Leigh Cook? Money well spent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE7ukc7MV-k
I guess. I don't know what they were going for with that one, though. Did they think that the original egg/frying pan ad was not silly or hyperbolic enough?