-Caveat Lector- Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.ioa.com/~davehart >NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY >2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 >Washington DC 20037 >World Wide Web: http://www.lp.org/ >======================================= >For release: September 10, 1999 >======================================= >For additional information: >George Getz, Press Secretary >Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222 >E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >======================================= Study: Government's anti-drug commercials make teenagers more curious about drugs WASHINGTON, DC -- A new study has discovered that teenagers who watch anti-drug TV commercials become more "curious" about illegal drugs. So why, the Libertarian Party asked today, are taxpayers being forced to pay for those ads? "According to this study, the government is spending $195 million a year of our money to tantalize teenagers about illegal drugs," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director. "Shouldn't Americans have a choice about whether we want to fund what is essentially a 'Just Do It' advertising campaign for drugs?" In a study released earlier this year, two researchers found that teenagers who viewed anti-drug Public Service Announcements (PSAs) "were more curious about using illicit drugs" than participants who didn't see the PSAs. According to the authors of the study, assistant professor S. Shyam Sundar at Penn State University and doctoral student Carson Wagner at the University of Colorado (Boulder), students exposed to anti-drug PSAs desired more "experimental knowledge" about drugs, not just "knowledge about drug-related facts." And the study found the "mere mention" of illegal drugs in PSAs created an "everybody's doing it" effect in teenagers -- and caused them to "increase estimations" of the prevalence of drug use among their peers. These findings come at a crucial time, since the federal government has sharply increased the amount of money it spends on anti-drug commercials. Currently, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America spend about $195 million of taxpayers' money to broadcast anti-drug PSAs. Wouldn't it be tragic then, asked Dasbach, if that $195 million is making America's drug problem worse? "According to this study, the government is effectively acting as a tax-funded advertising agency for drug pushers," he said. "And, unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about it. If a private anti-drug organization was running these ads, you could threaten to withhold your contributions. With the government, you don't have that option -- even if politicians use your money to glamorize drugs to teenagers." But if government anti-drug television ads don't work, what does? Parents, said Dasbach. According to another recent study, children who are warned about the potential dangers of drugs by their parents are 36% less likely to use marijuana than children whose parents don't discuss the issue, and 56% less likely to use cocaine. "One concerned parent is more effective than $195 million in government-funded advertising," noted Dasbach. "Given that information, what is the real solution to the problem of drugs -- the government or parents?" Interestingly, even the government has figured out the answer to that question, he said. A new government-funded newspaper advertisement states: "The most effective deterrent to drug use among kids isn't the police, or prison, or politicians. [It] is their parents." That's an astonishing revelation from the government, said Dasbach. "Let's see: The government admits police and prison are not an effective deterrent. Does that mean politicians will promise to stop arresting 700,000 people a year for marijuana crimes? And the government admits politicians are not an effective deterrent. Does that mean we'll get back the $195 million they wasted on anti-drug advertisements?" he asked. If not, it proves one thing, said Dasbach: "Not even the government pays attention to its anti-drug ads. So why should we expect teenagers to do so?" ed more "experimental knowledge" about drugs, not just "knowledge about drug-related facts." And the study found the "mere mention" of illegal drugs in PSAs created an "everybody's doing it" effect in teenagers -- and caused them to "increase estimations" of the prevalence of drug use among their peers. These findings come at a crucial time, since the federal government has sharply increased the amount of money it spends on anti-drug commercials. Currently, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America spend about $195 million of taxpayers' money to broadcast anti-drug PSAs. Wouldn't it be tragic then, asked Dasbach, if that $195 million is making America's drug problem worse? "According to this study, the government is effectively acting as a tax-funded advertising agency for drug pushers," he said. "And, unfortunately, there's nothing you can do about it. If a private anti-drug organization was running these ads, you could threaten to withhold your contributions. With the government, you don't have that option -- even if politicians use your money to glamorize drugs to teenagers." But if government anti-drug television ads don't work, what does? Parents, said Dasbach. According to another recent study, children who are warned about the potential dangers of drugs by their parents are 36% less likely to use marijuana than children whose parents don't discuss the issue, and 56% less likely to use cocaine. "One concerned parent is more effective than $195 million in government-funded advertising," noted Dasbach. "Given that information, what is the real solution to the problem of drugs -- the government or parents?" Interestingly, even the government has figured out the answer to that question, he said. A new government-funded newspaper advertisement states: "The most effective deterrent to drug use among kids isn't the police, or prison, or politicians. [It] is their parents." That's an astonishing revelation from the government, said Dasbach. "Let's see: The government admits police and prison are not an effective deterrent. Does that mean politicians will promise to stop arresting 700,000 people a year for marijuana crimes? And the government admits politicians are not an effective deterrent. Does that mean we'll get back the $195 million they wasted on anti-drug advertisements?" he asked. If not, it proves one thing, said Dasbach: "Not even the government pays attention to its anti-drug ads. So why should we expect teenagers to do so?" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBN9llX9CSe1KnQG7RAQG25AP8DL0MBbgxTaxaocYjA+7SQwczl0xju6Bx xoYSLt49z6qrUdJRxOIrbGG7R4qbVIQkm3sr3VL3t8H0s6SST3zquGXHQD9ImvKt Zuzjc0wdLy3LVKhTe9AebNMTYVcWww54By9dYDLoDqsKDIuudI0hBhAme/iqqBqa qJVhNLUr9qU= =MmPL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org/ 2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice: 202-333-0008 Washington DC 20037 fax: 202-333-0072 --------------F435EBD59353DBA2D0FDF1E1-- DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
