By demonizing drug users, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America worsens their plight
By MAIA SZALAVITZ
In response to what is widely perceived as an increase in the appeal of heroin, the nonprofit Partnership for a Drug Free America has recently produced a new ad campaign, available to cooperating media outlets in both television and print versions. Aimed at drug users who have tried everything but the big H, they try to de-glamorize the drug and emphasize the hopelessness of smack addiction.
One TV spot features this monologue, delivered by a bone thin, unhealthy-looking actor: "I'm, you know, I consider myself pretty intelligent . . . And I had, uh, gangrene on my foot that they almost took my foot off, you know [Tries to inject]. See if I can get this here. Yeah. But I got these tracks all over my body . . . By the time '97 rolls around . . . '96 at this time, right, August 17, 18th, whatever it is, you can come over here with your cameras and I'll be a totally different person. I'll be successful."
The tag line at the end reads sarcastically, "Heroin: want some?"
In most of the Partnership's new ads, addicts come across as stupid, shameful losers. One print ad has the subject saying, "I saw a dog and thought, if I was a dog, I wouldn't have a heroin habit. I wish I was a dog."
While there is no question that preventing heroin addiction is a noble goal, these types of ads have never proven effective. Almost no one headed for heroin will believe he or she has anything in common with these creatures because they represent such extreme stereotypes. And, research suggests that this approach can, in some cases, increase use.
Several years ago, I was a part of a panel of ex-addicts asked to address the PDFA about better ways to reach those who use, but are not yet addicted. Each of us emphasized that addicts need hope and that we took drugs not just for pleasure, but because we were in pain. Many felt that the Partnership's previous ads demonized and demeaned us.
Though the members of the panel disagreed about many issues, we concurred that the best way to remedy the situation was to use ex-addicts in ad campaigns -- and show both the negative consequences of drugs and hope for recovery.
But the Partnership's powers-that-be had ruled that approach out before we even spoke. Their press representative told me that the Partnership believes that ads featuring ex-addicts show that you can survive drugs, and thus send a mixed message. Never mind the truth, this is advertising.
In fact, the PDFA considers stigmatizing addicts a big part of its mission. The studies included in its press packet show that what they saw as increased negative feelings towards drug users was a positive effect of their efforts. There's not even the moralist's caution to "hate the sin, not the sinner."
As a result, while the ads might help younger kids develop anti-drug attitudes, they can't reach people who are already interested in getting high. Studies have shown that present users are much less likely to perceive anti-drug ads as deterrents -- probably because they recognize the inherent exaggerations and disrespect demonstrated for their experience and motivations.
Take the "Ashley" TV spot. In it, a pretty but debauched young woman is speaking in a husky, broken voice about the joy of heroin. She goes on: "It was when I started doing dope that part of me died." An old picture of her as a sleekly-dressed art director is flashed. She continues, "That fighter part of me, that part of me that like, found joy and life in just day to day living, it -- it went away."
What the producers miss is that these feelings of hopelessness usually precede heroin use, and that depression and loneliness and despair often lead to addiction, as well as result from it. In order to turn people away from drugs, the Partnership should be highlighting alternate ways of dealing with moods, feelings and -- in many cases though not Ashley's -- poverty. But they concentrate only on the symptom -- drug use -- and not the many causes.
Research by University of New Mexico Psychologist William Miller further undermines the latest campaign. It finds that there are two ways people respond when told that they have or could develop an unhealthy habit. Some stop the behavior, and opt to reduce risk. But many instead choose to reduce their fear -- either by denying that the risk will affect them personally or by minimizing their belief in the chances of any negative consequences. Because of their fear-mongering without positive alternatives, the ads provoke the latter response in those thinking about trying heroin.
Their effect on addicts is even worse: since the spots always emphasize that addiction is a dead end, they imply that there's no way out. As the PDFA puts it, "Heroin. It may not kill you but it will take your life." Because of their fear of sending mixed messages to those who haven't yet used, the Partnership sends a very deadly message to addicts. They say: Recovery will never happen. Give up.
This approach has other negative consequences, as well. Demonizing addicts may result in less money for treatment (who wants to pay if it's hopeless anyway?), less attention to factors preceding drug use (since drugs are the only problem) and an increase in the NIMBY attitude to rehab centers (since addicts are bad). In short, it may have serious effects on important policy decisions.
Yes, people need to be educated about the dangers of drugs and the potential consequences of addiction -- and there is certainly a role for ads which show just how badly drugs can hurt. But a campaign of fear alone is not enough. People need something to go towards if they are to turn away from heroin.
The PDFA hopes that by ridiculing addicts with a smirky, snide Gen X-approach, it can prevent heroin use from increasing. What it doesn't get is that cynicism pushes people towards heroin's warmth, and that those prone to addiction are amongst the most cynical and difficult to reach.
In fact, a similar poster campaign in England in the 1980's -- which featured posters of good-looking, strung-out young men with the tag line "Heroin Screws You Up"-- backfired wildly when teenage girls stole the posters, finding the supposedly gross and scary addicts defiantly sexy and cool. Great Britain has since shifted gears in its drug policy, aiming to reduce the harm done by drugs rather than seeking the ideal "drug free U.K." They try to understand why people use drugs, rather than moralizing about their choices. Because, if you don't understand drug takers and in fact, want to make the world hate those who've preceded them on the path to addiction, how can you help them?
Maia Szalavitz is a journalist and television producer. She has written for the New York Times, Washington Post and Village Voice and is presently completing a book on drug policy from the addict's perspective.