Opinions - Anti-Drug Campaigns

[Ceri]

Hello, I am an A Level student from Denbigh, North Wales. I attend Yale College in Wrexham and study English Language, Media Studies and Dance. I have applied to study Broadcast Journalism at the University of Central Lancashire and have received a conditional offer from them. I have to conduct a critical research project for my Media Studies A Level and I am in the middle of a study which analyses the effects of anti-drug campaigns. I'd be really grateful if some people could post with their views, especially on the current FRANK campaign. It would be really helpful if I could get some diverse points of view.

Thank you

[RaverHippie]

here is a long thread discussing that very campaign. Welcome to the forum!

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16196

[~lostgurl~]

Please do not post such requests on the forum, without getting approval from the administration first.

We treat such requests with good care. If you want contact, information or cooperation for your article, news item, TV show, study or research, then please be so kind to provide the following information:

• your contact details
• contact of your supervisor of professor (if applicable)
• the details of you project (research proposal)
• your intent with the project
• how the privacy of our members will be treated

After we confirm who you are and approve your request your announcement can be posted and we might be able to provide additional support.

Thank you and welcome.

[Ceri]

Ok that's understandable

My email is xxx
The email of my Media teacher is xxx
She'll be able to confirm that I'm doing this project for my A Level examination. The task is to critically research a topic and then in the examination analyse and evaluate your findings and come to a conclusion about the hypothesis.
My hypothesis is the effects of public relation drug campaigns on the target audience, primarily using the government-run drugs campaign group FRANK as a case study.
I have used a lot of other methods of research such as websites, books, journals, questionnaires, interviews etc. I decided to look on this message board as it would be helpful if I could gather some diverse points of view. Every one will remain anonymous and I would just use quotes to back up my research. I understand if nobody wants to write their views, but if they could it would just be a lot of help and the information will go no further. It's just that I have a lot of information from evaluations of the FRANK campaign and it's all portraying FRANK in a positive light and it's all been written by people in favour of how they are campaigning. I just wanted to try and find out if there are people who think that they aren't successful and perhaps get some information from people who are in the age range for the target audience of FRANK.
Thanksss

[aerozeppelin123]

Well I would say that the FRANK campaigns are very ineffective and as far as I know nobody I know would be dissuaded from using drugs by them. IMO this is mainly because few young people trust the government on drugs or take anything they say about them seriously because they are so biased against them. In the anti-drug adverts, it always shows people having a terrible time or ruining their life because of drugs. Then young people see their friends taking drugs and NOT dying or ruining their life and actually having a good time, and so they realise they are being lied to. If the government wants people to take anything they say about drugs seriously, then they have to acknowledge the positive sides of drug use as well as the negative. That's how I see it anyway

[Panthers007]

Ceri: The information with your personal email and such should be given to the administrators/moderators of these forums. Leaving it out on open is begging for every yahoo and it's granny to send you everything from winning lottery tickets from Bechuwannalotoland to offers from General Mogombo of Nigeria to launder $37,000,000.

Next time send a personal message (pm) to the admins/mods of the site. Just a friendly nudge...

[Alfa]

Feel free to advance on this topic.
There is similar discussion here that may be helpful to you: Studies look into DARE program's (in)effectiveness

I expect that Talk to Frank will prove to be just as ineffective and a major waste of money. But at least they showed their good will to fight drug demand.

Drug demand does not change much by giving misinformation and fear. In fact, it will interest a lot of people who previously where not interested in drugs. And after they discover that they have been fed incorrect information by Talk to Frank, the important warnings that NEED to be understood by drug users will not be taken seriously anymore either.

[Evil GIR]

Talk to Frank, what a joke, I woudnt trust them ever.
They most tell lies and propergander, even when you phone them they are not very helpfull.
Franks aim is not to give none biased advised, its to stop people using drugs not matter what.

[FuBai]

For SWIM, of course, the talk to frank campaigns are ineffective and this is because they are presenting scientific evidence in a sensationalist manner - indeed, the science does not wholy nor in great part support what the campaign is indicating - especially in reference to cannabis. There is still no substansive evidence demonstrating a causal link between the use of cannabis in the average person and the development of pyschosis or schizophrenia, and yet this development is portrayed as almost a certainty in the adverts and, indeed, in many media outlets. The campaigns are distasteful because they do not stick to the demonstrable truth and there is no real balanced discussion or examination of the scientific evidence.

Another campaign which was simmilar was the anti-MDMA campaign in the late 80's. It was claimed that MDMA made "holes in your brain". This was "proven" on the ad by taking a brain scan image showing serotonin levels in the average person and serotonin in an MDMA user - it could easily be seen that serotonin levels were lower in the person with MDMA, but they appeared as "holes" on the scan picture so this was the caption that was used. It was claimed that MDMA users can have 40X less serotonin than non-users. It was also claimed that MDMA caused parkinsons. All of these were used in adverts and anti-drug campaigns. In the 1990's and over the past 8 years numerous scientific articles have come out discrediting it - one of the latest being in 2003 where they showed that the size of variations claimed were physically impossible, that MDMA only depletend serotonin levels by aorund 6% and that that depletion was recoverable through cessation of use for a few months. Moreover the study said that the original NIDA study had failed to be fair as they did not test any of the the volunteers to see if they had actually been using MDMA (not simply claiming to so they could get paid to be part of the test). It was also shown that the research into MDMA causing parkinsons was actually conducted with methaphetamine, not MDMA.

The above is only one example of the numerous lies that have been fed to the public - right back from Marijuana giving Mexicans superhuman strength (1910s), to Mescaline sending you insane (1940s-50s), LSD making you impotent (1960s-1970s) amongst many other examples. It is understandable, therefore, that the older generation who can remember these debacles in public relations are very cautious about accepting anything that a partisan source such as a government backed campaign says about drugs.

The Talk to Frank adverts are also backed by thier internet site (refered to by one friend as "a marvelous online catalouge of stuff I'd like to try"). This website has also purveyed many inaccuracies (a thorough examination of thier cannabis handbook as found on the UKCIA website will demonstrate this). The site also claims to give you the facts - but it really gives a limited selection of them presented in a dumbed down manner. For well over a year now scince I first looked at the site there are still large sections incomplete (the mixing drugs thing for one). Thier picture board thing is moderated so you can only post postcards talking about how horrible drugs are, and all other things are deleted (leading to a popular game called "see what bullshit you can slip past the moderators", where you post the most ridiculous drug story [she tried weed once....now she thinks she's a robot etc.] and see whether it is uploaded or not.) All in all the Talk to Frank advert may convince the clueless who have never used, but it is highly unlikley to pursuade someone to cease use once they have done thier own research into the matter.

[Ceri]

Thank you everyone This is really helpful
xx

[Lunar Loops]

Please take a look at the link that Raverhippie posted if you have not already done so as you will glean much information from there in terms of people's opinions on the campaign.

The problem for the government, as has been pointed out by others, is that they have spread rumours, half-truths and downright lies in the past about drugs and as a result the message they are trynig to get across is lost due to lack of credibility. It does not help when the public sees the government ignore the advice of its own expert advisory committe on the misuse of drugs and go ahead and reclassify cannabis to a class B substance. Plainly this shows that their decision making and their policies with respect to drugs are not based on scientific fact, but on emotion and a blatant attempt to appeal to the voters of middle-england.

They may have a good message to get across (as in drink sensibly campaigns), but it is lost due to the inaccuracies and lies in their literature.

Unfortunately for them, I think the only people that listen to this message are concerned parents who have little knowledge of the subject area and as a result believe the scaremongering. They are not going to reach the very target audience they are aiming at without a radical rethink in their approach.

As has also been suggested elsewhere, take a look at the UKCIA website for a look at their take on the cannabis element of Talk To Frank. Also take a look at the Transform Drug Policy Foundation website for a more complete analysis of the failings of Frank.

Good luck with the project.

p.s. You will obviously have to look elsewhere for a more positive opinion of the Frank campaign.

[Ceri]

Thank you! All these websites are brilliant.
Yeaah, all I could find at first was all positive reviews about FRANK and how they are successful etc
But all this information was from government reports and such so I wanted to get views from people who actually knew what they were talking about haha
Thanks again

[davestate]

One of the only, no THE only piece of anti-drug use propaganda to stick in my head was this picture of a baby about to inject heroin. The point of the advert wasn't even specifically aimed at being anti drug, more of preventing child abuse. However, the look in the child's eyes and its facial expression with the syringe in hand literally haunted me for months. I can honestly say that I would not go near heroin just because of this advert. I think it's the portray of addiction in an innocent child that gets me, makes me feel so sorry for anyone in the clutches of addiction because they started using because of problems. I vowed to myself never to do opiates when I'm down because of this