Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Planning Ahead | Not For Althusser »

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Meth Ads: Maybe Just Once

posted by on December 20 at 14:54 PM

You know those meth ads running around the state since September? The ones that say if you try meth even once you’ll end up a scabby, toothless addict? They could be gone by April. Congress passed an omnibus spending bill earlier this week that slashes the White House’s anti-drug media campaign budget by 40 percent – from $99 million this year to $60 million in 2008 – and Bush is expected to sign it by New Year’s Eve.

Washington is one of eight states running the meth ads, paid for by a $10 million grant from the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s National Youth Anti-Drug Campaign’s total budget. Bush wanted to expand the campaign – asking for $130 million in 2008 – but Congressional Democrats who took control of the funding committee this year rebuked him.

Rep. José E. Serrano (D-N.Y.), the new chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee told The Politco earlier this year: “The proposed increase for the … media campaign is something that we will have to evaluate closely in light of a report by the GAO suggesting the campaign is ineffective.” The ads, including ones that depict marijuana smokers accidentally killing children, were shown to increase drug abuse among adolescent girls. I tried to determine if the major funding cuts would mean the meth project ads would be terminated—as appears likely—or if funding for the pot ads would be reallocated to keep the new meth project afloat.

Nitsa Zuppas, Executive Director of the Meth Project, is unsure. “The national Meth Project pays to produce the ads,” she says. “The ONDCP gets to use them because they asked.” The ONDCP didn’t return my calls.

“There are dangers with marijuana and meth,” says Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance in Washington, D.C, “but teens think they are being lied to. That’s the problem with sensationalistic messages. People don’t take it seriously.”

I asked Piper what sort of ads he would like to see instead. He likes the meth ads in Utah, based on treatment, but abhors the federal ads running in Washington. Let’s compare.

Here’s the EndmethnowUtah campaign.

The message: Meth turns you into monotonous, overweight woman with a dull tattoo. Not very appealing. In contrast, here’s one of the ads funded by Meth Project:

The message: Meth turns you into a hot-bodied prostitute with a sexy, entrepreneurial boyfriend. That’s pretty alluring to the addiction-prone teen.

RSS icon Comments

1

That girl's makeup is TOTALLY emo.

Oh, wait, that was supposed to be discouraging?

Posted by K | December 20, 2007 3:07 PM
2

Thank you for bearing the good tidings, Sir Dominator. May ONDCP continue to see its funding dry up. Too bad Tim Eyman can't run an initiative on that. He could actually be useful for once.

Posted by good news! | December 20, 2007 3:10 PM
3

That john looks a bit like Dave Reichert.

Posted by JMR | December 20, 2007 3:10 PM
4

You guys gotta stop thinking in Strangertones and remember that these are aimed at Joe Schlub. The second commercial (which, I believe, is one of several directed by "Darin'" Aronofsky) would've stuck in my memory as a 13-year-old much harder than any sobbing middle-aged actors or flimsy accusations of supporting the Taliban. Just sayin'.

Posted by Fyodor Zulinski | December 20, 2007 3:12 PM
5

it also gives you magical back runes!

Posted by Bellevue Ave | December 20, 2007 3:12 PM
6

The chick in the second commercial? I'd totally hit that!

Posted by Just Me | December 20, 2007 3:14 PM
7

I can't wait till you idiots wake up and discover that YOU are the Joe Schlubs.

Posted by ecce homo | December 20, 2007 3:25 PM
8

Pretty hard to refute that...

Posted by FZ again | December 20, 2007 3:33 PM
9

Yes, but what would Zoey 101 think about it?

Posted by Will in Seattle | December 20, 2007 3:37 PM
10

Why aren't the hooers on Aurora this hot? Clearly, this is yet another thing about Seattle that sucks.

Posted by Matthew | December 20, 2007 3:52 PM
11

What's up with all the extraneous Os today, Slog? On Dan's gross post there's a woos (for wuss, I think) and now hooers for whores? I need a new dictionary.

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | December 20, 2007 4:11 PM
12

By this logic, the feds should stop funding abstinence-only education, since it doesn't work either. quit talking crazy, hippie.

Or combine them- SEX: NOT EVEN ONCE.

Posted by Phred Meijer | December 20, 2007 4:24 PM
13

That Utah thing makes me want to start using meth just to get over the boredom of that ad.

Posted by DaiBando | December 20, 2007 4:39 PM
14

Amy Kate @ 11, I'm guessing Matthew @ 10, was typing hookers, and dropped the k...so lack of a k, not a surplus of O. Not that extraneous Os are a bad thing.

Posted by gnossos | December 20, 2007 11:41 PM
15

@14 hooers. Just say it aloud a couple times.

Posted by NaFun | December 21, 2007 6:50 AM
16

Amy, we love you guys. This is how we show it.

It's kind of like how you show your kids you love them by beating them.

Posted by Mr. Poe | December 21, 2007 10:32 AM
17

I think the meth ads are misleading. i did it for two years and i didn't end up with meth face. sure, i was skinny and paranoid, but my teeth didn't fall out and i didn't develop legions. maybe they should be more specific and say.. "if you SMOKE meth, this is what'll happen. so if you don't want meth face then snort the shit!"

and then in small type..but if you snort the shit, you'll fuck up your nasal cavitiy for life!

Posted by BLAH | December 21, 2007 1:07 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).