PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG FREE AMERICA
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton's director of national drug policy, has declared flatly that underage drinking is the single biggest drug problem among adolescents, and is intimately linked to the use of illegal
drugs. But as things stand now, the $195 million national media campaign that McCaffrey is running this year to dissuade youngsters from using illicit drugs will not spend a penny in Federal funds to warn teenagers about the Dangers of drinking.
The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy offers two reasons for not including alcohol in the antidrug campaign. The first is that it would dilute the basic message, which is that kids should avoid illegal drugs. That is strange reasoning, given the solid evidence showing that teenage drinking is often a gateway to illicit drug use. Indeed, the first goal of the White House's national drug strategy is to "educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco." It also notes that adults who started drinking as children are nearly eight times more likely to use cocaine than adults who did not do so.
The second reason is that Mr. McCaffrey believes at the statute granting his office authority to combat controlled substances leaves him no room to target alcohol. That rigid interpretation is open to question. In any case, the statutory problem can be quickly remedied by legislation.
Representatives Lucille Allard, Democrat of California, and Frank Wolf, Republican of Virginia, have introduced a measure that would explicitly give General McCaffrey the authority to include underage drinking among the campaign's targets.
Ms. Allard and Mr. Wolf have lined up powerful support from groups like the American Medical Association. The National Beer Wholesalers' Association opposes the measure, as does the Partnership for a Drug Free America, a nonprofit coalition of advertising firms that has been working on the campaign. The Partnership argues that an antialcohol message would dilute the antidrug message, but some of the Partnership's members earn lucrative fees for promoting alcohol products. The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, deserves support. If warning about the dangers of excessive drinking is not statutorily part of General McCaffrey's job, it ought to be.
Partnership for a Drug-Free America Sources of Funding from 1988-91 as extracted from Federal Tax Returns (figures are approximate) by the Washington Hemp Education Network, also from the Los Angeles Times:
LIQUOR FIRMS
Anheuser-Busch
Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc.
Coors Brewing Co.
Hiram Walker-Allied Vintners, Inc.
Stroh Brewing Co.
TOBACCO COMPANIES:
Brown & Williamson
RJR Nabisco, Inc.
RJ Reynolds
Lorillard, Inc.
American Brands
Phillip Morris
PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS
J. Seward Johnson, Sr. Charitable Trusts $1,100.000
Du Pont $25,000
Proctor and Gamble Fund $120,000
Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation $115,000
Johnson & Johnson $100,000
Merck Foundation $85,000
Hoffman-LaRoche $75,000
OTHER COMMERCIAL DRUG MANUFACTURERS
Perry Drug Stores, Inc.
The Pfizer Foundation, Inc.
Rohrer Group, Inc.
Schering-Plough Foundation, Inc.
Smith-Kline Beecham, Inc.
Sterling Drug Co.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Johnson and Johnson manufactures Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug that has much worse side effects than marijuana. This comes from a FAQ on Haldol:
My sister has been on Haldol for a period of 4-5 years. and is experiencing side effects in the form of involuntary twisting of the left arm as well as shaking. She is afraid to come off this drug and is convinced her side effects will be permanent. Is the damage permanent, has she been on too long, and what can I do to help her. Any advice relating to this drug would be welcome.
Answer: Haldol(haloperidol) is used in many situations for sedation. It is a major tranquilizer and is used in major agitation. One of the potential unfortunate side-effects is movement disorder. These may be temporary and go away or be permanent(called Tardive Dyskinesia). Stopping the drug will not exacerbate the problem and is the usual treatment.
[BEVIS ON HALDOL]
BEVIS ON HALDOL
Trade Name Haldol, Serenace
How Available tablet, liquid, injection
Drug Group Anti-psychotic drug (Butyrophenone)
Prescription Required Yes
Major Uses Haloperidol is used in the long term treatment of schizophrenia and to reduce aggressive behaviour. It is often used when alcohol withdrawal leads to confusion, hallucinations and aggressive behaviour. The medication can also be used to treat nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer.
Johnson and Johnson wants Americans to buy Haldol as an anti-nauseant rather than marijuana.
THE JOHNSON FAMILY HEIRS
Children of John Seward Johnson (d. 1983), with sisters, Elaine (see Wold), Diana, brother J. Seward Jr., heir to Johnson & Johnson fortune. Most of estate went to third wife and former chambermaid, Barbara Piasecka Johnson (see). She battled the kids in court, settled 1986. Jennifer: photographer; husband, Joseph, designs furniture. James: gentleman farmer, painter. Sister Diana Johnson Firestone: breeds and races horses; shares recently worth $380 million. Brother J. Seward Johnson Jr: accomplished sculptor, director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute; shares recently worth $230 million. Oldest sister Mary Lea Johnson Richards (d. 1990) produced Broadway hits (22 Tonys), films (The Shining) with husband Martin. Half of estate to Martin, half to children, grandchildren; those shares recently worth $200 million. Siblings first appeared on list 1992.
Many of the Johnson family are artists, sculptors and Broadway producers. Don't they know that artists and actors have often used marijuana to enhance their ability to produce art. Why don't they insist that the Partnership exclude Marijuana from the list of dangerous drugs they are against?
HOFFMAN-LaROCHE: PRODUCERS OF ROOFIES
Rohypnol, aka Roofies, is a sedative used in date rape that is sold abroad, but is illegal in the United States. The Partnership has been pointing out the dangers of roofies lately, but did not reveal the fact that one of its sponsors produced them except for a reference to a slang terms for the pills -LaRoche. Here is what the Partnership has to say about roofies: "Rohypnol is the brand name for a drug called Flunitrazepam, which is a sedative that is 10 times more powerful than Valium. Rohypnol is not legally available for prescription in the United States, but is legal in over 60 countries worldwide for treatment of insomnia. The drug has gained popularity in the last few years as a recreational drug called "roofies" among young people, especially in the South and Southwest. The drug creates a sleepy, relaxed, and drunk feeling that lasts 2 to 8 hours and a single dose costs from $1.50 to $5.00. "Roofies" are frequently used in combination with alcohol and other drugs. They are sometimes taken to enhance a heroin high, or to mellow or ease the experience of coming down from a cocaine or crack high. Used with alcohol, "roofies" produce disinhibition and amnesia. "Roofies" have recently gained a reputation as the "date rape" drug. Girls and women around the country have reported being raped after being involuntarily sedated with "roofies," which were often slipped into their drink by an attacker. The drug has no taste or odor so the victims don't realize what is happening. About 10 minutes after ingesting the drug, the woman may feel dizzy and disoriented, simultaneously too hot and too cold, and nauseated. She may experience difficulty speaking and moving, and then pass out. Such a victim will have no memories of what happened while under the drug's influence."
MERCK: PRODUCERS OF PHARMACUTICALS FOR HITLER
The Merck-Dupont company history stated: "At the end of the war - American troops occupied the factory on March 25, 1945 - the greater part of the plant had been reduced to rubble and 70 to 80% of the production capacity destroyed."
SCHERING PHARMACEUTICALS: PRODUCERS OF PHARMACUTICALS FOR HITLER
Schering pharmaceuticals are being sold in the U.S. under the name of Schering & Glatz -- Schering's distributor until World War I, when the company's U.S. operations were nationalized by the U.S. government. 1942: Schering is once again taken over by the U.S. government following the United States' entry into World War II. 1952: The U.S. government divests itself of Schering and Schering becomes a public American company. Schering is another German firm that operated during World War II on behalf of Adolf Hitler, who did not smoke marijuana.
SMITH, KLINE AND FRENCH
"In 1952, after seven years of research and development, the first time-released capsule, Dexedrine, was marketed and used in a Spansule. Spansule was a major therapeutic breakthrough and provided a novel and much needed form of drug delivery." -Smith, Kline and Beecham corporate history.
In the early 1950's numerous housewives got strung out on Dexedrine, which was widely prescribed as a weight loss pill. Today, medical practitioners are not allowed to prescribe it for weight loss as they once did.
[MARIO COMA]
MARIO CUOMO IS NOW HEAD OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG FREE AMERICA. CUOMO'S KID WAS ONCE ARRESTED FOR COCAINE!!!
NORML'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE WITH THE "PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG-FREE AMERICA" SPECIAL REPORT - ATTENTION: TELEVISION STATION MANAGERS
As you may know, the so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free America boasts that it has received over one billion dollars in free air time and ad space from America's media. Recently, many television stations ran one of the Partnership's spots about marijuana called "Statistics." In this ad they cited a number of alarming statistics on how violence in America impacts young people. For example, 60% of rape victims are under the age of 18. But the ad ends by telling the viewers (paraphrasing): "These are the 90s, not
the 60s. Tell your children the facts about marijuana. There is no such thing as a harmless drug."
NORML called the Partnership and asked them what was the connection between marijuana and these statistics on violence. They replied that they had not claimed that there was any connection. They promised to send us a story board of the spot, but it never arrived. NORML called them back several times over one month's time and they repeatedly promised a story board. Finally their "public relations" officer called and flatly stated that they do not send out story boards. The Partnership will not send NORML even a
transcript, hence the paraphrase.
Suggestion: Call the Partnership and ask for a story board on their recent spots on marijuana such as "Statistics." Ask them why they will not give them to us. Better yet, ask them to justify their ads. They cannot. NORML calls it lying by skywriting. Run a quick lie that will be seen by millions of people and then another and another, allowing no opportunity for rebuttal. Somehow the American media are comfortable being used in this way. Why? [Please contact the Partnership for a Drug-Free America at 212-922-1560.]
ALCOHOL: INTOXICANT OF CHOICE OF THE COUNTER COUNTER CULTURE
Alcohol is America's most dangerous drug because of the wide degree of acceptance and distribution it receives in this society. Alcohol is far more toxic than marijuana, but it is not illegal. Why? Because alcohol is the drug of choice of Republicans and white America and is not associated with blacks or long haired hippie creeps. Jack Anderson found empty bottles of scotch in J. Edgar Hoover's trash. America is an alcoholic culture from the sophisticated bars of New York City to the roadside Inns scattered across America, where driving and drinking go hand in hand. Alcohol kills far more people than marijuana, causes far more problems, yet no-one seriously considers reinstituting booze prohibition. Let's forget the sociological stuff and get down the medical problems associated with booze.
Heart Disease. Although modest consumption of alcohol seems to reduce the risk of heart attacks by improving cholesterol levels, larger doses of alcohol can trigger irregular heart beats and raise blood pressure even in people with no history of heart disease. A major study found that those who
consumed more than three alcoholic drinks a day had higher blood pressure than teetotalers, with blood pressure rising with heavier drinking. People who were binge-drinkers had higher blood pressures than even people who drank regularly. A recent study found that binge drinkers (people who have
nine or more drinks once or twice a week) had a risk for a cardiac emergency that was two and a half times that of nondrinkers. An estimated 11% of all cases of hypertension are caused by excess alcoholic intake. Chronic alcohol
abuse can also damage the heart muscle leading to heart failure; women are particularly vulnerable to this disorder.
Cancer. Alcohol may not cause cancer, but it probably can enhance the carcinogenic effects of other substances, such as cigarette smoke. Daily drinking increases the risk for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, urinary tract, and brain cancers and for lymphoma and leukemia. About 75% of cancers of the esophagus and 50% of cancers of the mouth, throat and larynx are attributed to alcoholism. Smoking combined with drinking enhances risks for most of these cancers dramatically. The risk for liver cancer increases in alcoholics, and even moderate drinking --three to nine drinks a week--can increase the chance of developing breast cancer in women.
Gastrointestinal and Liver Problems. The liver is particularly endangered by alcohol. Here, alcohol converts to an even more toxic substance, acetaldehyde, which can cause substantial damage, including cirrhosis in 10% of people with alcoholism. Liver damage is more common and develops more quickly in women than in men with similar histories of alcohol abuse. Within the GI tract, alcohol can contribute to the cause of ulcers and pancreatitis, a serious infection of the pancreas. On a minor scale, it can cause diarrhea and hemorrhoids.
Pneumonia and Other Infections. Alcohol suppresses the immune system and people with alcoholism are prone to infections. Acute alcoholism is particularly strongly associated with a serious form of pneumonia, which may be due to factors other than an impaired immune system. One animal study suggests that alcohol specifically damages the bacteria-fighting capability of lung cells.
Mental and Neurologic Disorders. A recent study found that alcohol has wide-spread effects on the brain. It appears to suppress activity in the parts of the brain where learning and memory occur and increases activity in the areas involved with emotion, sensory responses, and stress. The habitual use of alcohol depresses the central nervous system, producing clinical depression, and confusion. In chronic cases, gray matter is destroyed, possibly leading to psychosis and mental disturbances. Alcohol can also cause milder neurologic problems, including insomnia and headache
(especially after drinking red wine). Except in severe cases, neurologic damage is not permanent and abstinence nearly always leads to recovery of normal mental function.
Skin, Muscle, and Bone Disorders. Severe alcoholism is associated with osteoporosis, wasting away of muscles with swelling and pain, skin sores and itching. In addition, alcohol-dependent women seem to face an increased risk for damage to muscles, including muscles of the heart, from the toxic effects of alcohol.
Hormonal Effects. Alcoholism increases levels of the female hormone estrogen and reduces levels of the male hormone testosterone, factors that contribute to impotence in men.
Diabetes. Alcohol can cause hypoglycemia, a drop in blood sugar, which is especially dangerous for people with diabetes who are taking insulin. Diabetics who are intoxicated may not be able to recognize symptoms of hypoglycemia, a particularly hazardous condition.
Malnutrition and Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome. A pint of whiskey provides about half the daily calories needed by an adult, but it has no nutritional value. In addition to replacing food, alcohol may also interfere with absorption of proteins, vitamins, and other nutrients. Malnutrition can cause many problems in people with alcoholism, but deficiency of the B-vitamin thiamin is a particular hazard. It can result in a serious condition, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, that can cause permanent brain damage and death. In one study of people being treated for alcoholism, 40% of those with this syndrome died. Symptoms are severe staggering, confusion and memory loss. Another serious nutritional problem is deficiency of the B vitamin folic acid, which can cause severe anemia.
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a sometimes fatal form of lung failure that can be caused by several medical conditions (including heart and lung bypass surgery, severe infection, trauma, blood transfusions, pneumonia, and other lung infections). A recent study indicates that intensive care patients with a history of alcohol abuse have a significantly higher risk for developing ARDS during hospitalization.
Drug Interactions.
The effects of many medications are strengthened by alcohol, while others are inhibited. Of particular importance is its reinforcing effect on drugs that also depress the central nervous system, including antianxiety, sedative, antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs. Alcohol interacts with many drugs used by diabetics. It interferes with drugs that prevent seizures and with those used to prevent blood clotting. It increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in people taking aspirin or other nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs. In other words, taking almost any medication should preclude drinking alcohol.
Pregnancy and Infant Development. Even moderate amounts of alcohol may have damaging effects on the developing fetus, including low birth weight and an increased risk for miscarriage. High amounts can cause fetal alcohol syndrome, which can result in mental and growth retardation. One study
indicates a significantly higher risk for leukemia in infants of women who drink any type of alcohol during pregnancy.
Problems for Older People. As people age, the body metabolizes alcohol differently. It takes fewer drinks to become intoxicated, and organs can be damaged by smaller amounts of alcohol. In a study of people with alcoholic
cirrhosis, the mortality rate for people over 60 years old was 50% as compared to only 7% for younger people. Also, up to one-half of the 100 most prescribed drugs for older people react adversely with alcohol. Physicians may overlook alcoholism when evaluating elderly patients, mistakenly attributing the signs of alcohol abuse to the normal effects of the aging process.
[coffin nails]
TOBACCO: COUNTER COUNTER CULTURE DRUG
Tobacco smoke consists of droplets of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide and other gases. The amount of nicotine (the main active ingredient) and other substances that is absorbed through the lungs depends on how much and how deeply the smoke is inhaled. Nicotine is a stimulant and smokers feel that tobacco helps relieve boredom and tiredness and also helps reduce stress and anxiety. The effects are almost immediate but fade quickly, which encourages continual use. Some people may experience nausea and dizziness when they
inhale tobacco smoke for the first few times.
The more a person smokes, the more likely they are to suffer from heart disease, blood clots, cancer, strokes, bronchitis, bad circulation and ulcers. Tobacco contributes to around 110,000 premature deaths a year in the UK. Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have smaller babies and run a bigger risk of losing the child before and shortly after childbirth. Tobacco is also likely to cause physical and psychological dependency in a short space of time if it is smoked regularly. People who stop smoking after a period of time are likely to suffer withdrawal symptoms, such as irritability, depression and craving for tobacco.
THE PUSHERS
THE PARTNERSHIP
by CYNTHIA COTTS,
The Nation Magazine
"This is your brain on drugs," goes the fried egg ad. "Any questions?" -After seeing the ad some teenagers have stopped taking drugs-and some 4 year olds have stopped eating eggs. "Fried Egg" is one of hundreds of ads released under the imprimatur of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
Launched in 1986 in New York City, this nonprofit group uses advertising to reduce the demand for illegal drugs. It's a flashy concept, but, as "Fried Egg" demonstrates, propaganda can breed misconceptions. The Partnership means well, but it sends a self-serving message. The ads themselves exaggerate and distort, relying on scare tactics to get people's attention. Ad strategies are based on market research rather than public health policy. Even worse, the Partnership has accepted $5.4 million in contributions from legal drug manufacturers, while producing ads that overlook the dangers of tobacco,- alcohol and pills. This "drug-free" crusade is actually a silent partner to the drug industry, condoning the use of "good" drugs by targeting only the "bad" ones.
Of course, the pharmaceutical and advertising industries have long been intertwined. James Burke, who resigned as chairman and C.E.O. of Johnson & Johnson in 1989 to become chairman of the Partnership, is no stranger to marketing. In the mid-1980s, he engineered a classic campaign to restore
public confidence in Tylenol after the cyanide scare.
A few years later, Johnson & Johnson sued Bristol-Myers Squibb for claiming in its advertising that Aspirin-Free Excedrin is a better pain reliever than Extra-Strength Tylenol. At the Partnership, Burke has implemented a concept
borrowed from the pharmaceutical industry: If ads can sell drugs, they can unsell them, too.
More than 100 agencies have made Partnership ads pro bono, and the media kick in ad space and air time for free. The incentive? Creative directors get to show off, giving their ads titles like "Candy Store" and "Tricks of the Trade" and submitting them for industry awards. The actors involved get
exposure, and the media outlets can pat themselves on the back for contributing to a good cause.
Typically, Partnership ads are melodramatic. They trade on scare tactics (the school-bus driver snorts coke) and stereo-types (black boys sell crack in the schoolyard). With their hard line on marijuana, Partnership ads revive an old message: One puff, and you're hooked. Dr. Gil Botven, who
studies drug abuse prevention programs at Cornell Medical College, thinks "what the Partnership is doing is great." But, he adds, "scare tactics have never been demonstrated to be effective."
Partnership spokeswoman Theresa Grant doesn't like the term scare tactics. "We feel it's appropriate to arouse people's attention," she says. A recent print ad shows a preteen in a denim jacket under the headline, "What she's going through isn't a phase. It's an ounce a week." The ad copy alerts
parents to the dangers of pot smoking, and in doing so, it exaggerates slightly-not many 10-year-olds could afford an ounce of marijuana a week, let alone smoke it and stay on their feet.
When questioned about the exaggeration, Grant said the ad had just come under review. A few weeks later, the "Not Just a Phase" girl was back, taking up a full page in The New York Times.
Fact checking is a sensitive issue for the Partnership. They've caught so much flak over the years for inaccuracies that the review process has been overhauled; now, the factual content of all ads is scrutinized before they're produced. The first screamer was a 1987 TV ad depicting the brain wave of a l4 year-old smoking pot. It was actually the brain wave of a coma patient. In 1990 Scientific American uncovered some cooked figures in a cocaine ad. Those early mistakes were really "born of naivete," says Grant. "Nobody intentionally distorted facts. In those days, they really thought they had the kind of substantiation they needed."
A 19% print-ad reels off marijuana slang terms and concludes, "No matter what you call it, don't call it harmless!" The ad cites potential damage to the lungs and reproductive system. But calls to the National Cancer
Institute and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (N.I.D.A.) didn't turn up any casualties, just a lot of inconclusive studies.
One study did find "reduced gas exchange capacity" in the lungs of fifteen women who were chronic pot smokers. As for reproductive risks, scientists have injected a lot of pregnant monkeys with THC, the key psychoactive chemical in marijuana, but they've yet to come up with hard evidence. In
fact, the health issue is "nebulous," Grant concedes, so the Partnership is switching its tack on marijuana. Future ads won't tell you it's dangerous, just that it's uncool.
Like its mentors in the pharmaceutical industry, the Partnership has learned to backpedal. In the fall of 1990 the campaign sent ads to Alaskans for a Drug-Free Youth, a parent group that was campaigning to put recriminalization of marijuana on the ballot. Recriminalization was passed
that November, and the Partnership crowed about the victory in its Winter 1991 newsletter.
When asked about the Partnership's effort, Grant denies a political motive. "It wasn't any different than if we provided messages to a community group in Iowa," she says. "I must be remiss, because I never looked at it from the
perspective of assisting in a political campaign."
To maintain its good reputation, the Partnership has to offer hard proof of advertising's impact on drug abuse. So, even though experts have concluded that media campaigns do not in themselves change behavior, Burke goes around
trumpeting the power of the media to save children from drugs. Burke is echoed by Mathea Falco, a former Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters, who is now writing a book on drug prevention programs. The Partnership's greatest achievement, says Falco, is
to convey the message that using drugs is silly. They're making it socially unacceptable, and that's the best way to bring about social change"
No one can prove that the ads are responsible for declining drug use or indeed that all drug use is down. The latest government surveys show a rise in the use of cocaine and heroin by urban youth, and in the use of LSD by college students nationwide.
When he needs proof Burke can quote the Partnership Attitude Tracking Survey (PATS), conducted annually at the Partnership's behest by the Gordon S. Black Corporation. The PATS research suggests a correlation between teens who have seen the anti-drug ads, teens who disapprove of drug use and teens who say no to drugs. But when Burke cites PATS, he doesn't mention that Gordon Black is a market research firm, or that PATS is based on "mall intercepts." That is, participants fill out questionnaires anonymously at shopping malls in sample locations. Confidentiality is thus guaranteed, but accuracy is not.
The Partnership ignores cigarettes, alcohol and pills.
At the University of Michigan, Dr. Lloyd Johnston, a research scientist, conducts an annual survey of high school students for N.I.D.A. According to Johnston, the mall intercepts are an inexpensive method of measuring trends,
but they lack the sampling precision of a household survey. Nonetheless, Johnston's surveys do bolster the PATS conclusions.
Most teens remember the anti-drug ads and report being influenced by them. "There's no guarantee advertising did it per se" says Johnston, "but it's clear things have moved in the right direction. "The PATS five-year summary reports that illegal drug use by students is dropping, but falls to mention that tobacco and alcohol are still teenagers' drugs of choice. Johnston's latest statistics show that 40 percent of tenth graders report drinking within the past month and getting very drunk within the past year. "The other thing that comes out of our surveys," says Johnston, "is that smoking has not dropped among young people for almost a decade." Nineteen percent of high school seniors are dally tobacco smokers, and hundreds of thousands of them, Johnston sadly predicts, will die of lung cancer one day.
The Partnership has traditionally attacked marijuana, cocaine and crack, drugs deemed widely available to schoolchildren. But if the Partnership's mission is to stop kids from experimenting in the first place, why not go after cigarettes and beer? The answer is obvious. According to Falco, "It would be suicidal if the Partnership took on the alcohol and tobacco industries. The Partnership is living off free advertising product and space, and the media and ad agencies live off alcohol and tobacco advertising." Theresa Grant acknowledges that the decision to focus on illegal drugs was "pragmatic." based on the desire to "get the airtime and space and not alienate the people who are making this possible." The Partnership's condoning of legal drugs doesn't bother Falco. "The message may not be complete"' she chirps, "but it's better than nothing!" Many public health researchers, however, are concerned about a new generation of teens who smoke' drink and pop pills. Experts believe that children begin using drugs in the order of availability, and they're more likely to try marijuana if they've already tried alcohol and cigarettes. "The natural
thing in a prevention campaign," says Dr. Botven, "would be to focus on the three gateway substances: alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. The Partnership starts with marijuana, and my concern is they're skipping the most important ones in terms of fatality." Johnston believes the Partnership has the
ability to target legal drug abuse, and says he "would be delighted if they would." When asked if he thinks that could happen, he pauses. "A betting man would say no."
In the Partnership's early days, its primary supporter was the American Association of Advertising Agencies. That group knew better than to alienate the legal drug industry. But the mandate must have been reinforced in 1989, the year Burke came from Johnson & Johnson, bringing with him a $3 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a prominent health care philanthropy. The foundation described its unusually handsome grant to the Partnership as "pivotal in leveraging ... support from other private foundations."
On cue, the other foundations rolled over. In 1989 and 1990, the ten largest foundation grants for alcohol and drug abuse totaled $12.4 million. The Partnership took $4.7 million from that pool, or 38 percent. Many an individual donor gave its largest anti-drug grant to the Partnership. In other words, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation accelerated a trend: the channeling of foundation money into public awareness, which is considered a less effective form of drug-abuse prevention than school- and community-based programs.
The Partnership's funders are usually kept secret, says Grant, to protect them from other grant seekers and from the legalization lobby. But the Partnership's 1991 tax return reveals another motive for secrecy: conspicuous support from the legal drug industry. From 1988 to 1991, pharmaceutical companies and their beneficiaries contributed as follows:
* the J. Seward Johnson, Sr, Charitable Trusts ($1,100,000)
* Du Pont ($150,000)
* the Procter & Gamble Fund ($120,000)
* the Bristol- Myers Squibb Foundation ($110,000)
* Johnson & Johnson ($110,000)
* Smith Kline Beecham ($100,000)
* the Merck Foundation ($75,000)
* and Hoffman-La Roche ($30,000)
Pharmaceuticals and their beneficiaries alone donated 54 percent of the $5.8 million the Partnership took from its top twenty-five contributors from 1988 to 1991. That 54 percent is conservative. It doesn't include donations under
$90,000, and it doesn't include donations from the tobacco and alcohol kings: The Partnership has taken $150,000 each from Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and RJR Reynolds, plus $100,000 from American Brands (Jim Beam. Lucky Strike).
Coincidence? Hardly. The war on drugs is a war on illegal drugs, and the partnership's benefactors have a huge stake in keeping it that way. They know that when schoolchildren learn that marijuana and crack are evil, they're also learning that alcohol, tobacco and pills are as American as apple pie.
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Gen. Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton's director of national drug policy, has declared flatly that underage drinking is the single biggest drug problem among adolescents, and is intimately linked to the use of illegal
drugs. But as things stand now, the $195 million national media campaign that McCaffrey is running this year to dissuade youngsters from using illicit drugs will not spend a penny in Federal funds to warn teenagers about the Dangers of drinking.
The White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy offers two reasons for not including alcohol in the antidrug campaign. The first is that it would dilute the basic message, which is that kids should avoid illegal drugs. That is strange reasoning, given the solid evidence showing that teenage drinking is often a gateway to illicit drug use. Indeed, the first goal of the White House's national drug strategy is to "educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco." It also notes that adults who started drinking as children are nearly eight times more likely to use cocaine than adults who did not do so.
The second reason is that Mr. McCaffrey believes at the statute granting his office authority to combat controlled substances leaves him no room to target alcohol. That rigid interpretation is open to question. In any case, the statutory problem can be quickly remedied by legislation.
Representatives Lucille Allard, Democrat of California, and Frank Wolf, Republican of Virginia, have introduced a measure that would explicitly give General McCaffrey the authority to include underage drinking among the campaign's targets.
Ms. Allard and Mr. Wolf have lined up powerful support from groups like the American Medical Association. The National Beer Wholesalers' Association opposes the measure, as does the Partnership for a Drug Free America, a nonprofit coalition of advertising firms that has been working on the campaign. The Partnership argues that an antialcohol message would dilute the antidrug message, but some of the Partnership's members earn lucrative fees for promoting alcohol products. The measure, an amendment to an appropriations bill, deserves support. If warning about the dangers of excessive drinking is not statutorily part of General McCaffrey's job, it ought to be.
Partnership for a Drug-Free America Sources of Funding from 1988-91 as extracted from Federal Tax Returns (figures are approximate) by the Washington Hemp Education Network, also from the Los Angeles Times:
LIQUOR FIRMS
Anheuser-Busch
Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc.
Coors Brewing Co.
Hiram Walker-Allied Vintners, Inc.
Stroh Brewing Co.
TOBACCO COMPANIES:
Brown & Williamson
RJR Nabisco, Inc.
RJ Reynolds
Lorillard, Inc.
American Brands
Phillip Morris
PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS
J. Seward Johnson, Sr. Charitable Trusts $1,100.000
Du Pont $25,000
Proctor and Gamble Fund $120,000
Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation $115,000
Johnson & Johnson $100,000
Merck Foundation $85,000
Hoffman-LaRoche $75,000
OTHER COMMERCIAL DRUG MANUFACTURERS
Perry Drug Stores, Inc.
The Pfizer Foundation, Inc.
Rohrer Group, Inc.
Schering-Plough Foundation, Inc.
Smith-Kline Beecham, Inc.
Sterling Drug Co.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Johnson and Johnson manufactures Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug that has much worse side effects than marijuana. This comes from a FAQ on Haldol:
My sister has been on Haldol for a period of 4-5 years. and is experiencing side effects in the form of involuntary twisting of the left arm as well as shaking. She is afraid to come off this drug and is convinced her side effects will be permanent. Is the damage permanent, has she been on too long, and what can I do to help her. Any advice relating to this drug would be welcome.
Answer: Haldol(haloperidol) is used in many situations for sedation. It is a major tranquilizer and is used in major agitation. One of the potential unfortunate side-effects is movement disorder. These may be temporary and go away or be permanent(called Tardive Dyskinesia). Stopping the drug will not exacerbate the problem and is the usual treatment.
[BEVIS ON HALDOL]
BEVIS ON HALDOL
Trade Name Haldol, Serenace
How Available tablet, liquid, injection
Drug Group Anti-psychotic drug (Butyrophenone)
Prescription Required Yes
Major Uses Haloperidol is used in the long term treatment of schizophrenia and to reduce aggressive behaviour. It is often used when alcohol withdrawal leads to confusion, hallucinations and aggressive behaviour. The medication can also be used to treat nausea and vomiting associated with advanced cancer.
Johnson and Johnson wants Americans to buy Haldol as an anti-nauseant rather than marijuana.
THE JOHNSON FAMILY HEIRS
Children of John Seward Johnson (d. 1983), with sisters, Elaine (see Wold), Diana, brother J. Seward Jr., heir to Johnson & Johnson fortune. Most of estate went to third wife and former chambermaid, Barbara Piasecka Johnson (see). She battled the kids in court, settled 1986. Jennifer: photographer; husband, Joseph, designs furniture. James: gentleman farmer, painter. Sister Diana Johnson Firestone: breeds and races horses; shares recently worth $380 million. Brother J. Seward Johnson Jr: accomplished sculptor, director of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute; shares recently worth $230 million. Oldest sister Mary Lea Johnson Richards (d. 1990) produced Broadway hits (22 Tonys), films (The Shining) with husband Martin. Half of estate to Martin, half to children, grandchildren; those shares recently worth $200 million. Siblings first appeared on list 1992.
Many of the Johnson family are artists, sculptors and Broadway producers. Don't they know that artists and actors have often used marijuana to enhance their ability to produce art. Why don't they insist that the Partnership exclude Marijuana from the list of dangerous drugs they are against?
HOFFMAN-LaROCHE: PRODUCERS OF ROOFIES
Rohypnol, aka Roofies, is a sedative used in date rape that is sold abroad, but is illegal in the United States. The Partnership has been pointing out the dangers of roofies lately, but did not reveal the fact that one of its sponsors produced them except for a reference to a slang terms for the pills -LaRoche. Here is what the Partnership has to say about roofies: "Rohypnol is the brand name for a drug called Flunitrazepam, which is a sedative that is 10 times more powerful than Valium. Rohypnol is not legally available for prescription in the United States, but is legal in over 60 countries worldwide for treatment of insomnia. The drug has gained popularity in the last few years as a recreational drug called "roofies" among young people, especially in the South and Southwest. The drug creates a sleepy, relaxed, and drunk feeling that lasts 2 to 8 hours and a single dose costs from $1.50 to $5.00. "Roofies" are frequently used in combination with alcohol and other drugs. They are sometimes taken to enhance a heroin high, or to mellow or ease the experience of coming down from a cocaine or crack high. Used with alcohol, "roofies" produce disinhibition and amnesia. "Roofies" have recently gained a reputation as the "date rape" drug. Girls and women around the country have reported being raped after being involuntarily sedated with "roofies," which were often slipped into their drink by an attacker. The drug has no taste or odor so the victims don't realize what is happening. About 10 minutes after ingesting the drug, the woman may feel dizzy and disoriented, simultaneously too hot and too cold, and nauseated. She may experience difficulty speaking and moving, and then pass out. Such a victim will have no memories of what happened while under the drug's influence."
MERCK: PRODUCERS OF PHARMACUTICALS FOR HITLER
The Merck-Dupont company history stated: "At the end of the war - American troops occupied the factory on March 25, 1945 - the greater part of the plant had been reduced to rubble and 70 to 80% of the production capacity destroyed."
SCHERING PHARMACEUTICALS: PRODUCERS OF PHARMACUTICALS FOR HITLER
Schering pharmaceuticals are being sold in the U.S. under the name of Schering & Glatz -- Schering's distributor until World War I, when the company's U.S. operations were nationalized by the U.S. government. 1942: Schering is once again taken over by the U.S. government following the United States' entry into World War II. 1952: The U.S. government divests itself of Schering and Schering becomes a public American company. Schering is another German firm that operated during World War II on behalf of Adolf Hitler, who did not smoke marijuana.
SMITH, KLINE AND FRENCH
"In 1952, after seven years of research and development, the first time-released capsule, Dexedrine, was marketed and used in a Spansule. Spansule was a major therapeutic breakthrough and provided a novel and much needed form of drug delivery." -Smith, Kline and Beecham corporate history.
In the early 1950's numerous housewives got strung out on Dexedrine, which was widely prescribed as a weight loss pill. Today, medical practitioners are not allowed to prescribe it for weight loss as they once did.
[MARIO COMA]
MARIO CUOMO IS NOW HEAD OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG FREE AMERICA. CUOMO'S KID WAS ONCE ARRESTED FOR COCAINE!!!
NORML'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE WITH THE "PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG-FREE AMERICA" SPECIAL REPORT - ATTENTION: TELEVISION STATION MANAGERS
As you may know, the so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free America boasts that it has received over one billion dollars in free air time and ad space from America's media. Recently, many television stations ran one of the Partnership's spots about marijuana called "Statistics." In this ad they cited a number of alarming statistics on how violence in America impacts young people. For example, 60% of rape victims are under the age of 18. But the ad ends by telling the viewers (paraphrasing): "These are the 90s, not
the 60s. Tell your children the facts about marijuana. There is no such thing as a harmless drug."
NORML called the Partnership and asked them what was the connection between marijuana and these statistics on violence. They replied that they had not claimed that there was any connection. They promised to send us a story board of the spot, but it never arrived. NORML called them back several times over one month's time and they repeatedly promised a story board. Finally their "public relations" officer called and flatly stated that they do not send out story boards. The Partnership will not send NORML even a
transcript, hence the paraphrase.
Suggestion: Call the Partnership and ask for a story board on their recent spots on marijuana such as "Statistics." Ask them why they will not give them to us. Better yet, ask them to justify their ads. They cannot. NORML calls it lying by skywriting. Run a quick lie that will be seen by millions of people and then another and another, allowing no opportunity for rebuttal. Somehow the American media are comfortable being used in this way. Why? [Please contact the Partnership for a Drug-Free America at 212-922-1560.]
ALCOHOL: INTOXICANT OF CHOICE OF THE COUNTER COUNTER CULTURE
Alcohol is America's most dangerous drug because of the wide degree of acceptance and distribution it receives in this society. Alcohol is far more toxic than marijuana, but it is not illegal. Why? Because alcohol is the drug of choice of Republicans and white America and is not associated with blacks or long haired hippie creeps. Jack Anderson found empty bottles of scotch in J. Edgar Hoover's trash. America is an alcoholic culture from the sophisticated bars of New York City to the roadside Inns scattered across America, where driving and drinking go hand in hand. Alcohol kills far more people than marijuana, causes far more problems, yet no-one seriously considers reinstituting booze prohibition. Let's forget the sociological stuff and get down the medical problems associated with booze.
Heart Disease. Although modest consumption of alcohol seems to reduce the risk of heart attacks by improving cholesterol levels, larger doses of alcohol can trigger irregular heart beats and raise blood pressure even in people with no history of heart disease. A major study found that those who
consumed more than three alcoholic drinks a day had higher blood pressure than teetotalers, with blood pressure rising with heavier drinking. People who were binge-drinkers had higher blood pressures than even people who drank regularly. A recent study found that binge drinkers (people who have
nine or more drinks once or twice a week) had a risk for a cardiac emergency that was two and a half times that of nondrinkers. An estimated 11% of all cases of hypertension are caused by excess alcoholic intake. Chronic alcohol
abuse can also damage the heart muscle leading to heart failure; women are particularly vulnerable to this disorder.
Cancer. Alcohol may not cause cancer, but it probably can enhance the carcinogenic effects of other substances, such as cigarette smoke. Daily drinking increases the risk for lung, esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, urinary tract, and brain cancers and for lymphoma and leukemia. About 75% of cancers of the esophagus and 50% of cancers of the mouth, throat and larynx are attributed to alcoholism. Smoking combined with drinking enhances risks for most of these cancers dramatically. The risk for liver cancer increases in alcoholics, and even moderate drinking --three to nine drinks a week--can increase the chance of developing breast cancer in women.
Gastrointestinal and Liver Problems. The liver is particularly endangered by alcohol. Here, alcohol converts to an even more toxic substance, acetaldehyde, which can cause substantial damage, including cirrhosis in 10% of people with alcoholism. Liver damage is more common and develops more quickly in women than in men with similar histories of alcohol abuse. Within the GI tract, alcohol can contribute to the cause of ulcers and pancreatitis, a serious infection of the pancreas. On a minor scale, it can cause diarrhea and hemorrhoids.
Pneumonia and Other Infections. Alcohol suppresses the immune system and people with alcoholism are prone to infections. Acute alcoholism is particularly strongly associated with a serious form of pneumonia, which may be due to factors other than an impaired immune system. One animal study suggests that alcohol specifically damages the bacteria-fighting capability of lung cells.
Mental and Neurologic Disorders. A recent study found that alcohol has wide-spread effects on the brain. It appears to suppress activity in the parts of the brain where learning and memory occur and increases activity in the areas involved with emotion, sensory responses, and stress. The habitual use of alcohol depresses the central nervous system, producing clinical depression, and confusion. In chronic cases, gray matter is destroyed, possibly leading to psychosis and mental disturbances. Alcohol can also cause milder neurologic problems, including insomnia and headache
(especially after drinking red wine). Except in severe cases, neurologic damage is not permanent and abstinence nearly always leads to recovery of normal mental function.
Skin, Muscle, and Bone Disorders. Severe alcoholism is associated with osteoporosis, wasting away of muscles with swelling and pain, skin sores and itching. In addition, alcohol-dependent women seem to face an increased risk for damage to muscles, including muscles of the heart, from the toxic effects of alcohol.
Hormonal Effects. Alcoholism increases levels of the female hormone estrogen and reduces levels of the male hormone testosterone, factors that contribute to impotence in men.
Diabetes. Alcohol can cause hypoglycemia, a drop in blood sugar, which is especially dangerous for people with diabetes who are taking insulin. Diabetics who are intoxicated may not be able to recognize symptoms of hypoglycemia, a particularly hazardous condition.
Malnutrition and Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome. A pint of whiskey provides about half the daily calories needed by an adult, but it has no nutritional value. In addition to replacing food, alcohol may also interfere with absorption of proteins, vitamins, and other nutrients. Malnutrition can cause many problems in people with alcoholism, but deficiency of the B-vitamin thiamin is a particular hazard. It can result in a serious condition, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, that can cause permanent brain damage and death. In one study of people being treated for alcoholism, 40% of those with this syndrome died. Symptoms are severe staggering, confusion and memory loss. Another serious nutritional problem is deficiency of the B vitamin folic acid, which can cause severe anemia.
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a sometimes fatal form of lung failure that can be caused by several medical conditions (including heart and lung bypass surgery, severe infection, trauma, blood transfusions, pneumonia, and other lung infections). A recent study indicates that intensive care patients with a history of alcohol abuse have a significantly higher risk for developing ARDS during hospitalization.
Drug Interactions.
The effects of many medications are strengthened by alcohol, while others are inhibited. Of particular importance is its reinforcing effect on drugs that also depress the central nervous system, including antianxiety, sedative, antidepressant, and antipsychotic drugs. Alcohol interacts with many drugs used by diabetics. It interferes with drugs that prevent seizures and with those used to prevent blood clotting. It increases the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding in people taking aspirin or other nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs. In other words, taking almost any medication should preclude drinking alcohol.
Pregnancy and Infant Development. Even moderate amounts of alcohol may have damaging effects on the developing fetus, including low birth weight and an increased risk for miscarriage. High amounts can cause fetal alcohol syndrome, which can result in mental and growth retardation. One study
indicates a significantly higher risk for leukemia in infants of women who drink any type of alcohol during pregnancy.
Problems for Older People. As people age, the body metabolizes alcohol differently. It takes fewer drinks to become intoxicated, and organs can be damaged by smaller amounts of alcohol. In a study of people with alcoholic
cirrhosis, the mortality rate for people over 60 years old was 50% as compared to only 7% for younger people. Also, up to one-half of the 100 most prescribed drugs for older people react adversely with alcohol. Physicians may overlook alcoholism when evaluating elderly patients, mistakenly attributing the signs of alcohol abuse to the normal effects of the aging process.
[coffin nails]
TOBACCO: COUNTER COUNTER CULTURE DRUG
Tobacco smoke consists of droplets of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide and other gases. The amount of nicotine (the main active ingredient) and other substances that is absorbed through the lungs depends on how much and how deeply the smoke is inhaled. Nicotine is a stimulant and smokers feel that tobacco helps relieve boredom and tiredness and also helps reduce stress and anxiety. The effects are almost immediate but fade quickly, which encourages continual use. Some people may experience nausea and dizziness when they
inhale tobacco smoke for the first few times.
The more a person smokes, the more likely they are to suffer from heart disease, blood clots, cancer, strokes, bronchitis, bad circulation and ulcers. Tobacco contributes to around 110,000 premature deaths a year in the UK. Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have smaller babies and run a bigger risk of losing the child before and shortly after childbirth. Tobacco is also likely to cause physical and psychological dependency in a short space of time if it is smoked regularly. People who stop smoking after a period of time are likely to suffer withdrawal symptoms, such as irritability, depression and craving for tobacco.
THE PUSHERS
THE PARTNERSHIP
by CYNTHIA COTTS,
The Nation Magazine
"This is your brain on drugs," goes the fried egg ad. "Any questions?" -After seeing the ad some teenagers have stopped taking drugs-and some 4 year olds have stopped eating eggs. "Fried Egg" is one of hundreds of ads released under the imprimatur of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
Launched in 1986 in New York City, this nonprofit group uses advertising to reduce the demand for illegal drugs. It's a flashy concept, but, as "Fried Egg" demonstrates, propaganda can breed misconceptions. The Partnership means well, but it sends a self-serving message. The ads themselves exaggerate and distort, relying on scare tactics to get people's attention. Ad strategies are based on market research rather than public health policy. Even worse, the Partnership has accepted $5.4 million in contributions from legal drug manufacturers, while producing ads that overlook the dangers of tobacco,- alcohol and pills. This "drug-free" crusade is actually a silent partner to the drug industry, condoning the use of "good" drugs by targeting only the "bad" ones.
Of course, the pharmaceutical and advertising industries have long been intertwined. James Burke, who resigned as chairman and C.E.O. of Johnson & Johnson in 1989 to become chairman of the Partnership, is no stranger to marketing. In the mid-1980s, he engineered a classic campaign to restore
public confidence in Tylenol after the cyanide scare.
A few years later, Johnson & Johnson sued Bristol-Myers Squibb for claiming in its advertising that Aspirin-Free Excedrin is a better pain reliever than Extra-Strength Tylenol. At the Partnership, Burke has implemented a concept
borrowed from the pharmaceutical industry: If ads can sell drugs, they can unsell them, too.
More than 100 agencies have made Partnership ads pro bono, and the media kick in ad space and air time for free. The incentive? Creative directors get to show off, giving their ads titles like "Candy Store" and "Tricks of the Trade" and submitting them for industry awards. The actors involved get
exposure, and the media outlets can pat themselves on the back for contributing to a good cause.
Typically, Partnership ads are melodramatic. They trade on scare tactics (the school-bus driver snorts coke) and stereo-types (black boys sell crack in the schoolyard). With their hard line on marijuana, Partnership ads revive an old message: One puff, and you're hooked. Dr. Gil Botven, who
studies drug abuse prevention programs at Cornell Medical College, thinks "what the Partnership is doing is great." But, he adds, "scare tactics have never been demonstrated to be effective."
Partnership spokeswoman Theresa Grant doesn't like the term scare tactics. "We feel it's appropriate to arouse people's attention," she says. A recent print ad shows a preteen in a denim jacket under the headline, "What she's going through isn't a phase. It's an ounce a week." The ad copy alerts
parents to the dangers of pot smoking, and in doing so, it exaggerates slightly-not many 10-year-olds could afford an ounce of marijuana a week, let alone smoke it and stay on their feet.
When questioned about the exaggeration, Grant said the ad had just come under review. A few weeks later, the "Not Just a Phase" girl was back, taking up a full page in The New York Times.
Fact checking is a sensitive issue for the Partnership. They've caught so much flak over the years for inaccuracies that the review process has been overhauled; now, the factual content of all ads is scrutinized before they're produced. The first screamer was a 1987 TV ad depicting the brain wave of a l4 year-old smoking pot. It was actually the brain wave of a coma patient. In 1990 Scientific American uncovered some cooked figures in a cocaine ad. Those early mistakes were really "born of naivete," says Grant. "Nobody intentionally distorted facts. In those days, they really thought they had the kind of substantiation they needed."
A 19% print-ad reels off marijuana slang terms and concludes, "No matter what you call it, don't call it harmless!" The ad cites potential damage to the lungs and reproductive system. But calls to the National Cancer
Institute and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (N.I.D.A.) didn't turn up any casualties, just a lot of inconclusive studies.
One study did find "reduced gas exchange capacity" in the lungs of fifteen women who were chronic pot smokers. As for reproductive risks, scientists have injected a lot of pregnant monkeys with THC, the key psychoactive chemical in marijuana, but they've yet to come up with hard evidence. In
fact, the health issue is "nebulous," Grant concedes, so the Partnership is switching its tack on marijuana. Future ads won't tell you it's dangerous, just that it's uncool.
Like its mentors in the pharmaceutical industry, the Partnership has learned to backpedal. In the fall of 1990 the campaign sent ads to Alaskans for a Drug-Free Youth, a parent group that was campaigning to put recriminalization of marijuana on the ballot. Recriminalization was passed
that November, and the Partnership crowed about the victory in its Winter 1991 newsletter.
When asked about the Partnership's effort, Grant denies a political motive. "It wasn't any different than if we provided messages to a community group in Iowa," she says. "I must be remiss, because I never looked at it from the
perspective of assisting in a political campaign."
To maintain its good reputation, the Partnership has to offer hard proof of advertising's impact on drug abuse. So, even though experts have concluded that media campaigns do not in themselves change behavior, Burke goes around
trumpeting the power of the media to save children from drugs. Burke is echoed by Mathea Falco, a former Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters, who is now writing a book on drug prevention programs. The Partnership's greatest achievement, says Falco, is
to convey the message that using drugs is silly. They're making it socially unacceptable, and that's the best way to bring about social change"
No one can prove that the ads are responsible for declining drug use or indeed that all drug use is down. The latest government surveys show a rise in the use of cocaine and heroin by urban youth, and in the use of LSD by college students nationwide.
When he needs proof Burke can quote the Partnership Attitude Tracking Survey (PATS), conducted annually at the Partnership's behest by the Gordon S. Black Corporation. The PATS research suggests a correlation between teens who have seen the anti-drug ads, teens who disapprove of drug use and teens who say no to drugs. But when Burke cites PATS, he doesn't mention that Gordon Black is a market research firm, or that PATS is based on "mall intercepts." That is, participants fill out questionnaires anonymously at shopping malls in sample locations. Confidentiality is thus guaranteed, but accuracy is not.
The Partnership ignores cigarettes, alcohol and pills.
At the University of Michigan, Dr. Lloyd Johnston, a research scientist, conducts an annual survey of high school students for N.I.D.A. According to Johnston, the mall intercepts are an inexpensive method of measuring trends,
but they lack the sampling precision of a household survey. Nonetheless, Johnston's surveys do bolster the PATS conclusions.
Most teens remember the anti-drug ads and report being influenced by them. "There's no guarantee advertising did it per se" says Johnston, "but it's clear things have moved in the right direction. "The PATS five-year summary reports that illegal drug use by students is dropping, but falls to mention that tobacco and alcohol are still teenagers' drugs of choice. Johnston's latest statistics show that 40 percent of tenth graders report drinking within the past month and getting very drunk within the past year. "The other thing that comes out of our surveys," says Johnston, "is that smoking has not dropped among young people for almost a decade." Nineteen percent of high school seniors are dally tobacco smokers, and hundreds of thousands of them, Johnston sadly predicts, will die of lung cancer one day.
The Partnership has traditionally attacked marijuana, cocaine and crack, drugs deemed widely available to schoolchildren. But if the Partnership's mission is to stop kids from experimenting in the first place, why not go after cigarettes and beer? The answer is obvious. According to Falco, "It would be suicidal if the Partnership took on the alcohol and tobacco industries. The Partnership is living off free advertising product and space, and the media and ad agencies live off alcohol and tobacco advertising." Theresa Grant acknowledges that the decision to focus on illegal drugs was "pragmatic." based on the desire to "get the airtime and space and not alienate the people who are making this possible." The Partnership's condoning of legal drugs doesn't bother Falco. "The message may not be complete"' she chirps, "but it's better than nothing!" Many public health researchers, however, are concerned about a new generation of teens who smoke' drink and pop pills. Experts believe that children begin using drugs in the order of availability, and they're more likely to try marijuana if they've already tried alcohol and cigarettes. "The natural
thing in a prevention campaign," says Dr. Botven, "would be to focus on the three gateway substances: alcohol, tobacco and marijuana. The Partnership starts with marijuana, and my concern is they're skipping the most important ones in terms of fatality." Johnston believes the Partnership has the
ability to target legal drug abuse, and says he "would be delighted if they would." When asked if he thinks that could happen, he pauses. "A betting man would say no."
In the Partnership's early days, its primary supporter was the American Association of Advertising Agencies. That group knew better than to alienate the legal drug industry. But the mandate must have been reinforced in 1989, the year Burke came from Johnson & Johnson, bringing with him a $3 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a prominent health care philanthropy. The foundation described its unusually handsome grant to the Partnership as "pivotal in leveraging ... support from other private foundations."
On cue, the other foundations rolled over. In 1989 and 1990, the ten largest foundation grants for alcohol and drug abuse totaled $12.4 million. The Partnership took $4.7 million from that pool, or 38 percent. Many an individual donor gave its largest anti-drug grant to the Partnership. In other words, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation accelerated a trend: the channeling of foundation money into public awareness, which is considered a less effective form of drug-abuse prevention than school- and community-based programs.
The Partnership's funders are usually kept secret, says Grant, to protect them from other grant seekers and from the legalization lobby. But the Partnership's 1991 tax return reveals another motive for secrecy: conspicuous support from the legal drug industry. From 1988 to 1991, pharmaceutical companies and their beneficiaries contributed as follows:
* the J. Seward Johnson, Sr, Charitable Trusts ($1,100,000)
* Du Pont ($150,000)
* the Procter & Gamble Fund ($120,000)
* the Bristol- Myers Squibb Foundation ($110,000)
* Johnson & Johnson ($110,000)
* Smith Kline Beecham ($100,000)
* the Merck Foundation ($75,000)
* and Hoffman-La Roche ($30,000)
Pharmaceuticals and their beneficiaries alone donated 54 percent of the $5.8 million the Partnership took from its top twenty-five contributors from 1988 to 1991. That 54 percent is conservative. It doesn't include donations under
$90,000, and it doesn't include donations from the tobacco and alcohol kings: The Partnership has taken $150,000 each from Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and RJR Reynolds, plus $100,000 from American Brands (Jim Beam. Lucky Strike).
Coincidence? Hardly. The war on drugs is a war on illegal drugs, and the partnership's benefactors have a huge stake in keeping it that way. They know that when schoolchildren learn that marijuana and crack are evil, they're also learning that alcohol, tobacco and pills are as American as apple pie.
