Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

National Anti-Drug Ad Campaign Failed, Study Concludes
October 20, 2008

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
Research Summary

The National Youth Anti-Drug Campaign's initial television ads, designed to keep young children and teens away from marijuana, not only failed in their purpose but may have actually increased teens' risk of trying the drug, a new study concludes.

The Health Behavior News Service reported Oct. 16 that despite the $1 billion poured into the media campaign by Congress, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that exposure to advertisements aired between 1999 and 2004 had no effect on deterring kids from experimenting with marijuana.

The authors followed 8,117 children, ages nine to 18 (the campaign's target population) for five years beginning in 1999, surveying them at home four times. As exposure to the antidrug ads increased from four or fewer per month to a dozen per month, researchers saw a decrease from 82 percent to 78 percent in the proportion of children who "definitely" had no plans to smoke marijuana.

"Our basic hypothesis is that the more kids saw these ads, the more they came to believe that lots of other kids were using marijuana," said lead researcher Robert Hornik. "And the more they came to believe that other kids were using marijuana, the more they became more interested in using it themselves."

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which administers the media campaign, termed the findings "old news."

"The campaign has made major changes to improve its effectiveness and, in fact, drug use among teens has dropped steadily in nearly every category since 2001," said ONDCP spokesperson Jennifer de Vallance.

The findings will be published in the December 2008 issue of the American Journal of Public Health.

This summary has been revised to reflect the following:

Correction, Oct. 20, 2008: We have updated the original version of this article to clarify that the research findings apply only to the media campaign ads aired between 1999 and 2004.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:
(Comments now appear first to last)

Posted by SusT on 21 Oct 08 08:16 AM EDT
When will it become accepted that advertisements, and one stop assemblies and "suitcase" programs are no substitute for comprehensive health education? Good health is a habit and children must learn at an early age how to care for their bodies and minds and what the right thing is to do. This has to come before the negatives or understanding will not be achieved and behaviors will not be influenced. I believe that the first step in substance abuse prevention is learning how to achieve wellness; physically, socially, mentally/emotionally.

Posted by Fred Shaughnessy on 21 Oct 08 09:39 AM EDT
Good thoughts, SusT, but...one can be physically, socially and mentally/emotionally well, and still have a need to feel even better. It is he or she who can resort to substance use and abuse.

Posted by Alex Brumbaugh on 21 Oct 08 10:27 AM EDT
Additionally, if you consider that one of the risk factors for drug use is risk-seeking, and then you show ads about the risks of using drugs, what outcomes would you predict? How much research will it take to end fear-based approaches?

Posted by John from Oceanside on 21 Oct 08 10:55 AM EDT
Dear SusT that was the type of prevention we did in the late 80's and what we got, is what we have today a bunch of people who feel real good about using drugs (I'm Special).

Posted by Barbara MacManus on 21 Oct 08 12:55 PM EDT
Ads aired between 1999 and 2004 had no effect on deterring kids from experimenting with marijuana but drug use, in every category, has dropped steadily since 2001. So the ad campaign made changes and started to improve 2 years into the program in 2001 or not until 2004? This is confusing information. What were the changes made that resulted in more effective results and when did they really start to make a difference? Was the $1 billion used to make the improvements that started in 2001(?)or was new money poured into making the more effective results? What is this article trying to say? Some ads or too many ads cause kids to think about drugs or or the ads out there need to be more effective?

Posted by Barbara MacManus on 21 Oct 08 01:18 PM EDT
Your article stated that ads aired between 1999 and 2004 had no effect on deterring young children and teens from experimenting with marijuana but drug use, in every category, has dropped steadily since 2001. So, the ad campaign made changes and started to improve 2 years into the program in 2001(?) or not until 2004? Was money used from the $1 billion that Congress designated or was new money used? Are they saying that too much ad exposure or poor ads were the failure of the original program. Or the changes made to the ads resulted in a more effective campaign? What were the changes made and when and why were they more effective? Message here is not clear.

Posted by Pete on 21 Oct 08 01:29 PM EDT
Maybe I'm overly skeptical, but what is the margin of error on a survey administered at home four times over 5 years? In other words, if the margin of error is in the neighborhood of +/- 4%, then the supposed worsening effect didn't happen. There also seems to be a presumption that the target audience was already at least familiar with marijuana even before the commercials began, which may not be the case given that we're talking about children. It may be we're putting too much faith into the power of these ads, and therefore ending up being disappointed.

Posted by Luis Lozano on 21 Oct 08 01:33 PM EDT
The entire effort of the War on Drugs has been a failure. We are not only importing more drugs but more people are using and less and less treatment is available. We bought in to the myth that throwing money at this very expensive ads and militarizing our neighbors to the south would somehow curb our appetite for drugs. Some day we will awaken and realize that the War on Drugs has been a bigger failure than prohibition. All we got was more prisons, more drug addicts and a bad foreign policy.

Posted by dun smyth on 21 Oct 08 01:55 PM EDT
This is indeed the type of prevention done in the 80's. Now, regrettably, most pathways to drug involvement are essentially biological in their origins; marijuana involvement will not be impacted by social influences approaches, whatever the medium. At the same time, the high stimulant nature of the drug means that its appeal will be limited to the rising physically depressed at-risk population. This translates into the contrasting declines in total population use rates and growth in depressants. Information needs to target pediatricians, school systems and concerned families but the only real impact will occur at the early life stage. Back in the 80's, alcohol researchers provided clear evidence of how alcohol and other depressants first normalize aspects of over-arousal (such as high heart resting rates and physical anxiety) in the traditional addict population and then play a mean head game with them. We need to start acknowledging how today's hybrid marijuana betrays their mirror opposites, the "too cold" rush-seeking group. It ain't gonna happen, because the pathways to drug involvement aren't the only things that have shifted since the 80's.

Posted by alex on 21 Oct 08 02:26 PM EDT
Has anyone thought about the fact that maybe kids that smoke pot just watch more tv?

Posted by Jimbjneal@aol.com on 21 Oct 08 04:46 PM EDT
What's new? For years we have known that information did not equal behaviouial change -- for all people. However, we know that it does for some or reinforces an earlier decision. It is not a surprise that the evaluation is not more positive. However, in my opinion this is not the failure of the use of media but of our national strategy or lack of that continues to do isolated programs and not comprehsnssive systems approaches to prevention. Shame on us. We know how to do substance abuse prevention but fail in the planning at the Federal level which carries over to State and local efforts. Accurate information is the first building block of a comprehensive prevention strategy -- not the only block. We need to move on and advocate for a national strategy that has accountability.

Posted by tokerdesigner on 21 Oct 08 08:52 PM EDT
These ads pretend to be aimed at kids but are really intended to scare parents into spying on and threatening their children over cannabis. The billion dollars (along with the cost of arresting 800,000 cannabis "offenders") is handily paid for by the tobacco tax revenues, and represents an effort to suppress any alternative smoking option so that the children will more easily get addicted to nicotine and be heavy cigarette taxpayers, supporting the government through sin taxes without raising general tax rates and antagonizing the majority of voters.

Posted by Donald B Parsons on 22 Oct 08 07:54 AM EDT
HEY! Good discussion. Nancy Reagan said it best "Just say NO!"I encourage all youngsters to stay away from cannabis, but if you've already chosen to use at least stay away from the dangerous drugs like PRESCRIPTION PILLS, Cocaine , Heroin, and METH of any kind or flavor.

Posted by Pete on 22 Oct 08 08:56 AM EDT
I think Dun Smyth and Alex both highlight an important point that perhaps merits some research. There's little question that kids' behavior has changed in the last 25 years. More and more kids are sedentary and home-bound, spending their free hours sitting down, whether it's to watch TV, play video games, or surf the web. So, does that translate into an increased propensity for certain drugs? Have the "drugs of choice" changed as people's lifestyles have gotten much less physically and socially active? If so, how is the approach to drug use prevention changed?

Posted by Tu'Sheila on 27 Oct 08 04:40 PM EDT
There is more to prevention than education. Educating our youth is not enough when their time is spent home being idol while there parents are trying to make ends meet financially to sustain their home. Money should also be provided to programs that encourage drug free after school activities & tranpsortation in the community (tutoring, sports, mentoring, etc.)Drugs will never totally disappear, however, this may help decrease the use of drugs.

Posted by Cathy on 12 Nov 08 10:48 AM EST
How effective are TV ads when a parent or parents use marijuana? Who has more influence over children than parents? If it's OK for Mom and Dad to use it, why wouldn't it be OK for them? Maybe the ads should have targeted parents.

Your Turn! Post a public comment (guidelines):

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
To keep this feature useful for everyone, please:

  1. Keep it clean, courteous, brief, and on-topic. Comments are for discussion of the above article, not general rants or manifestos. Serial comments intended to circumvent the 250-word limit may be deleted.

  2. Do not post promotional web links, personal information or requests for assistance (get help).

  3. Proof your comments carefully, use good spelling and punctuation, and don't use ALL CAPS. Comments are published immediately and cannot be edited.

Deceptive, slanderous and commercial posts are prohibited. We reserve the right to remove comments. (Report a comment).

Have questions or feedback? Contact us.