Drugs Crystal Mess
posted by on September 11 at 15:17 PM
Take a look at this graphic, almost identical to the full-page meth ad in this week’s copy of the Stranger.
The ad reads, “Meth: Not Even Once,” threatening anyone who tries meth with a gruesome fate. You’d think it would scare kids away from using meth, but it won’t. The ad is too extreme.
This ad and others like it are copied directly from a print and radio campaign in Montana, which, according to a study last year, gave viewers and listeners a decreased perception of meth’s harm and increased their likelihood of using it. Now the same set of ads are being printed in Washington and seven other states by the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, which plans to take the campaign, and its unintended impacts, around the country.
Here's an excerpt of a feature article on the Montana campaign.
The survey indicates that, after the ads blanketed the airwaves in Montana for seven months -- at a cost of millions of dollars -- Montana teens are actually less likely to associate trying meth with "great" or "moderate" risk. The same teens were also less likely to associate those risk levels with regular use.Some specifics: Before the ads ran, 96 percent of Montana teens 12 to 17 thought there was "great or moderate" risk associated with regular meth use.
After seven months of seeing the ads, however, only 91 percent thought the risk level was that high. And a full 8 percent reported that there was "no risk" to regular meth use -- an increase of 5 percent from the pre-campaign number.
Both changes, according to the researchers hired by the Montana Meth Project, are statistically significant.
The problem here is exaggeration. Adults and teens have a low threshold for bullshit, and ads like these (here’s a full gallery) simply aren’t credible. Sure, some people who try meth end up hopeless wrecks, but the vast majority of people who try meth come down and move on with a full set of teeth. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health in 2005 – considered the peak of the meth epidemic – 10.3 million Americans had tried methamphetamine at least once. Of those 10.3 million, only 1.3 million used methamphetamine in the previous year, and only 512,000 used it within the last 30 days. Basically, trying meth once led to recurring use for only a small percentage of people who tried it. The percent of users who rip their back off is even slimmer. So kids believe the ads and anti-meth messages are full of shit.
This is a tragedy: Meth is a dangerous and highly addictive drug, and ads like these convince the public we’re fixing the problem while actually setting ourselves up to make it worse.
This wouldn’t be the first time kids could have this response, though. The White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy has had a dismal track record. A Government Accountability Office review of the efficacy of recent ONDCP ads, such as these ones I’ve written about, found “a relationship between campaign exposure and higher rates of [drug] initiation … among certain subgroups of the sample (e.g., 12 1⁄2- to 13-year-olds and girls).”
To think of this more rationally – society has been whipped into a meth hysteria lately – lets go back a few drug scares to alcohol. What would you think of an anti-alcohol ad with the picture and caption below?
BOOZE: Not Even One Sip.
It would be preposterous, right? Some people who drink turn into this guy, but most of us have the occassional drink, without becoming an alcoholic vagrant. But the number of Americans who report binge drinking in the last month-an indicator heavily associated with crime, violence and family dissolution-is more than 90 times the number who report using methamphetamine in the same period. However, when it comes to alcohol, we have a regulated market and treatment centers—we treat alcoholics like humans with a problem. Meth addicts, who are criminals, we treat like monsters—running the public health problem underground.
If we want to run ads that effectively dissuade people from trying drugs in the first place, we have to convey the drug’s harms realistically. Here’s an example of a meth ad that I like from San Francisco's Department of Health.
The difference in this ad is subtle but essential to be effective. It's more realistic. We’ve all seen guys like this. He looks like a person on the wrong path. We don’t want to be him, but we see how it’s possible to end up that way—unlike the girl ripping her back off, which we immediately recognize as propaganda. So bravo to the San Francisco Department of Health. We should be running ads like theirs.
COOL SCABS!!! I am going to try some Crystal so I can get those AWESOME scabs on my body!!! AND have LOTS of unprotected sex with every guy I can find and make sure they shoot their loads in my butt RAW!!
TOTALLY COOL!!!!
Bravo, well written, 100% agree.
i don't know what makes an ad campaign against a drug successful or not, but some of those montana metheads are hot.
Tried it, had fun, came down, teeth unaffected. (I was glad, though, that the next day I had no idea where to get more. Set and setting, right?)
Oh, to live in a world where there's a state-funded program to convince meth-wannabes to do MDMA 4 times a year rather than speed 4 times a day... hah!
I knew a kid when I was in high school in Vegas who actually was that scabby from picking at his flesh all the time on meth. His name was Morgan, but we used to call him the "Morgue." The kid also sold meth to junior high kids. This was during one of the worst waves of that white trash shit, and a lot of my high school friends were hooked.
That ad is not really that exaggerated; some meth heads actually do look that bad or worse. Obviously using it once or at a party once in a great while isn't going to do that, but the ad isn't that far off for addicts. I really think that meth is an unqualified drug for human trash- I'd almost place crack on a higher level.
Totally agree. Those (the latter ads) I've seen all over my neighborhood in SF, and even though my chances of trying meth for the first time at this stage in my life are 0%, I'm always compelled to read them. Obviously the rural West has had huge problems with meth, but it's gotten extremely popular here in the city in the last few years.
Sadly though, I see dozens (yes, literally dozens) of cases that look just like the "exaggerated" pictures used in the Montana campaign.
There's good reason for that. The Montana Meth Project's own survey, released for the first time April 19, hardly paints a glowing picture of success.
Instead, the survey indicates that, after the ads blanketed the airwaves in Montana for seven months -- at a cost of millions of dollars -- Montana teens are actually less likely to associate trying meth with "great" or "moderate" risk. The same teens were also less likely to associate those risk levels with regular use.
Some specifics: Before the ads ran, 96 percent of Montana teens 12 to 17 thought there was "great or moderate" risk associated with regular meth use.
After seven months of seeing the ads, however, only 91 percent thought the risk level was that high. And a full 8 percent reported that there was "no risk" to regular meth use -- an increase of 5 percent from the pre-campaign number.
That doesn't say the ad campaign increased their likelihood of using it, but that it did nothing to decrease the trend towards meth usage.
@7,
Exactly, a decrease from 96 to 91 percent is pretty insignificant. It's practically within the margin of error.
Since one of the basic principles of advertising is that you need to hear the name of a product nine or ten times to register it at all, it seems possible that just saying the name of a drug ("Meth, meth, meth") enough times would introduce the idea into the heads of people who wouldn't otherwise have been thinking about it.
the most effective 'meth deterrent' for me was hearing people who do pot, shrooms, etc sound seriously afraid of what meth can do to a person. it's never been one of those stupid fucking ad campaigns that effectively symbolize the man and practically invite ridicule and rebellion
Another excellent drug policy piece, Dominic. Any thoughts on whether the ONDCP will be more intelligently run if the dems get the White House in '08? (I know federal mmj raids will likely stop.) Is the ONDCP like the Pentagon & the military-industrial complex--an independent monster more or less impervious to political shifts? Do any of the dem candidates have an interest in making it run better?
Am I the only one who thought the ad was kinda hot?
I mean, ignoring all the cuts and scrapes and scabs and shit. That's a hot kinda pose, doncha think?
Just saying.
Meth is a PROBLEM. From gay bars and fishing boats to your nephew or neighbor down the hall, this shit has touch just about everyone on some level. And what has our fine state done to effect any change?? Cheers to Montana for at least trying something!!
A couple of the earlier post had excellent points - the survey "doesn't say the ad campaign increased their likelihood of using it", and "a decrease from 96 to 91 percent is pretty insignificant"
I knew a bartender who had to have every single one of his brown rotting teeth removed due to meth use. Another pal who's hands shake constantly and to such a degree that he can never return to his chosen profession of cutting hair.
My uncle with the low sperm count was delighted when my aunt became pregnant. Boy, was he surprised when their meth dealer turned out to be the daddy (they had the baby anyway!).
Oh and did I mention the numerous people I've known that have become HIV positive while using (some now dead). They were not tweakers - Oh no, they'd just do a bump now and again - mostly on weekends or at a party.
This shit happens... All true and real. Not that far removed from the ad campaign in Montana. Only right here in Seattle. The ad campaign is no more sensational than say Christopher Frizzelle's expose on Club Z and his ex BF. It's worst case scenario...
Where are the statistics on the San Francisco Meth campaign that you like so much. These are the same kind of ads that I seem to remember Gay City promoting (does The Stranger like Gay City these days?).
Montana educated their residents about meth - and it could be those folks are no longer scared of it, because they know more about it. Maybe the campaign simply needs tweaking (um... no pun intended) to become more effective. Doing something is better than sitting around ringing our hands. Already it's got all of us talking...
I'm for it.
@13: I'm not sure how much it matters if the ads are true or not, if kids don't find them believable. And the statistics suggest they don't. That makes the campaign a failure.
I live in Montana and I have school aged children. When these ads started running I recognized them for the 'Reefer Madness' kind of propaganda that my generation was subjected to. I remembered how I had dismissed the warnings about pot because I knew people who smoked and they weren't at all crazy and whacked out.
I have mixed feelings about the ad campaign. I think that more realistic and truthful ads would be better at educating teens without being dismissed as propaganda but the explicit ads certainly did get people talking.
I used the ads as a teaching opportunity to point out to my children that:
Yes the ads are over the top, deliberately so.
and that,
they will meet kids who have tried meth and didn't end up like that, most kids in fact.
but that,
there is a very real possibility that they themselves could be the one that doesn't just try meth and moves on and does in fact become just like the ad.
and that,
the easiest way to prevent any addiction is to never start.
I did not, however, enjoy sitting in the drive thru lane while my first grader sounded out the words to this one particular meth ad
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2006/04/heres_some_good.html
Whoa...I thought this was the cover art for Amy Winehouse's new album!
@16: Nah, it's a glimpse at the future of Britney Spears. ;)
Bravo, Dominic! Great piece. I especially love the alcoholic vagrant pic and "Booze: Not Even One Sip".
@13:
You're cheering Montana for 'at least trying something' when that something has been shown to make the problem WORSE? "Yay Montana, great job getting more kids hooked on meth! I know that's not what you meant to do, but hey, good job anyway!" It's the 'we gotta do SOMETHING!' crowd that made up the whole problem in the first place. The drug war is nothing if not a continuous litany of unintended consequences, and we won't get out of this mess until enough people realize that.
@7 and 8:
Notice the 'statistically significant' quote regarding the Montana ad campaign.
@5 and 6:
The ad IS that exaggerated, since it's saying that using meth even once causes you to get horribly addicted, sell your body, and pick all your skin off when in fact this happens to a very small percentage of users. I know dozens of people who have used crystal meth and never suffered any of those problems. Dom made this point by drawing the analogy with alcohol use. We know it's ridiculous to say that drinking even one beer will lead to domestic violence, loss of job, vagrancy, etc, so why is it OK to say that about any other drugs?
When I first saw that ad.. totally thought it was for the newest
Hostel movie.
Great article! This is great that there are now studies which prove what many of us already suspected.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
make many things illegal
make laws create criminals
feed youth's curiosity
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
create drug war industry
produce millions of jobs
dependent on endless war
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/2007/07/afghans-taliban-heroin-market-and-anti.html
.
Montana meth use dropping
By JENNIFER McKEE and NOELLE STRAUB of the Missoulian
HELENA - Methamphetamine use among Montana high school students plunged 66 percent in the last eight years, a new state survey shows, and many leaders attribute the drop to a gritty anti-meth ad campaign.
Some 4.6 percent of high school students reported using methamphetamine at least once, according to a state survey conducted in late February.
That number was down from more than 13 percent who admitted to having used meth in a similar survey conducted in 1999.
“This is such exciting news,” Linda McCulloch, state superintendent of public instruction, said at a Helena news conference Tuesday.
Meth use also dropped by as much as 70 percent among Montana adults in the last two years, Montana Meth Project founder Thomas Siebel said at a Washington, D.C., news conference with the state's congressional delegation.
The Montana Meth Project is the two-year-old ad campaign that features graphic TV, radio and billboard ads portraying meth-use fallout, such as rotten teeth, wasted and pock-marked bodies and abuse of family members.
Siebel, a computer software mogul and philanthropist who owns a ranch north of Helena, noted that adult meth use rose by 6 percent in Wyoming and 8 percent in South Dakota during the same time covered by the Montana survey.
Montana dropped from fifth in the nation in per-capita meth use in 2005 to 39th today, he added. And meth-related crime in Montana dropped 53 percent in the last two years.
The results have been “more significant than any prevention effort in history,” Siebel said.
Meth is a stimulant made from certain cold medicines and an array of common and sometimes dangerous chemicals like camp stove fuel and brake cleaner. The drug gained a foothold in Montana in the early 1990s.
About 50 percent of the people in Montana's correctional system are there for meth-related crimes, statistics show, and better than half of all children in Montana's foster care system were removed from their homes because their parents used meth and either abused or neglected them.
Attorney General Mike McGrath, who also spoke at the Helena news conference, said it's significant that the rate of meth use has fallen below 10 percent, a drop he attributes to the meth project and its ads.
Typically, drug- and alcohol-prevention programs run by school boards, government and adults lose their effect among the bottom 10 percent of dedicated drug-using teens.
“What we're doing now is drilling into that hardcore group of at-risk kids,” he said.
The state results are from a survey of Montana high school students every two years, conducted by the state Office of Public Instruction.
Since the project began airing television, radio and billboard ads in the state, teen meth use has dropped 45 percent, McCulloch said, or about three times as fast as meth use had been declining before the campaign.
Siebel also announced the results of a new national survey that compared attitudes about meth among Montana teens with those of the rest of the nation.
The survey found that while Montana teens were about as likely as their national counterparts to say meth is somewhat or very easy to get, they believe the drug is more dangerous. Montana teens also were more likely to believe that their friends would give them a hard time for using meth.
“Most importantly, what's going on in Montana is the drug use is being stigmatized,” Siebel said.
The Montana Meth Project hired a polling firm that interviewed 2,600 teenagers nationwide in 43 randomly selected schools about their attitudes toward meth use.
Initially, Siebel paid the tab for the Meth Project. However, the group is trying to create a budget without the sole support of its benefactor, said Peg Shea, executive director of the group.
Siebel is matching every private donation to the group up to $5 million. In addition, the group is hoping to receive $500,000 in federal money, which has been set aside in the upcoming, although not final, federal budget.
Siebel said the Montana Meth Project will continue through 2008 and 2009 at the same pace it has been going, with a new ad campaign out in spring.
He said the results may not be as dramatic going forward, but that “we're really making progress.”
Arizona, Idaho and Illinois will be replicating the Montana program, he said.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., joined Siebel at the D.C. news conference with Julie Gerberding of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“We're going to stamp out meth in Montana, we're going to do it,” Baucus said.
Siebel also testified at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on meth called by Baucus, its chairman. Siebel said $40 million in federal funding would allow 10 more states to have their own meth programs.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).