Loading

Study: Marijuana Imagery In Anti-Pot Ads Encourages Teen Use

  • by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director September 9, 2009

    [Editor’s note: This post is excerpted from this week’s forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML’s media advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up for NORML’s free e-zine here.]

    Anti-drug public service announcements that feature teens using marijuana are less likely to dissuade viewers from experimenting with pot than are advertisements absent such images, according to survey data to be published in the journal Health Communication.

    Investigators at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania assessed the attitudes of over 600 adolescents, aged 12 to 18, after viewing 60 government funded anti-marijuana service announcements. Specifically, researchers evaluated whether the presence of marijuana-related imagery in the ads (e.g., the handling of marijuana cigarettes or the depiction of marijuana smoking behavior) were more likely or less likely to discourage viewers’ use of cannabis.

    Messages that depict teens associating with cannabis are “significantly less effective than others,” the researchers found.

    This negative impact of marijuana scenes is not reversed in the presence of strong anti-marijuana arguments in the ads and is mainly present for the group of adolescents who are often targets of such anti-marijuana ads (i.e., high-risk adolescents),” authors determined. “For this segment of adolescents, including marijuana scenes in anti-marijuana (public service announcements) may not be a good strategy.”

    Since 1998, Congress has appropriated over $2 billion to fund anti-drug advertisements as part of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Independent reviews of the campaign have determined that the ads fail to discourage viewers from trying marijuana or other drugs.

    In 2006, a study published in the journal Addictive Behaviors reported that teenagers who were most often exposed to the ad campaign were also most likely to hold positive attitudes about marijuana and were most likely to express their intent to use it.

    68 Responses to “Study: Marijuana Imagery In Anti-Pot Ads Encourages Teen Use”

    1. Real Change says:

      “after viewing 60 GOVERNMENT FUNDED anti-marijuana service announcements. ”

      YOU are paying for this people!! Vote out EVERY incumbent in 2010 and 2012, including nobama. Vote 3rd party of your choice where you can. REAL CHANGE.

    2. EA says:

      I would say this is for a reason. The Government wants people to use Marijuana. Fines are the business. If no one was smoking, the prisons would not be nice and full, and everybody would not be on probation.

    3. RELLY TONKIN says:

      my hubby smokes dope and couldent care less i hate achole how aNy times do you hear of a person getting so stoned that they bash there wivwes lol
      worst thing thst happens is he eats to many biccs i dont smoke cause i dont like the feeling but have nothing againts him smoking so FUCK WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.
      AS LONG AS LIKE3 ANY HABIT YOU HAVE IT IN CONTROL THEN ITS FINE THE ONLY THING GOVERMENT HAS WRONG WITH DOPE IS THEY CANT CONTROL THE GROWTH THERE FOR THEY CANT GET THE TAX.
      TAX IS THE ONLY FUCKEN PROBLEM AND TO ALL THE WANKERS HOW THINK OTHER WISE HAVE A BONG AN CHILL THE FUCK OUT .
      NO TAX NO WORRIES

    4. aric wells says:

      wow that was the stupidest fucking commercial ive ever seen they must think us kids are allready stupid. that would have been something to show my lil sister whos 6 and a half and i doubt she would have even found it interesting

    5. Stompedonmyrights says:

      THE CRIMINAL CHARGE: Mr. Harry J. Anslinger, an agent for the Federal Government, did willfully and wantonly committed Fraud and Constructive Fraud, of which Mr. Anslinger perpetrated upon the United States people as a whole and their United States Congress for the sole purpose “ to impair or injure public interest” in the cannabis plant as a traditional medicine or as a valuable agricultural crop.

      Fraud: as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, “An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”

      Constructive Fraud: as defined by Bovier’s Law Dictionary – 1856 Edition which states, “Constructive fraud: A contract or act, which, not originating in evil design and contrivance to perpetuate a positive fraud or injury upon other persons, yet, by its necessary tendency to deceive or mislead them, or to violate a public or private confidence, or to impair or injure public interest, is deemed equally reprehensible with positive fraud, and therefore is prohibited by law, … ”

      Harrison Narcotics Act – 63rd US Congress 1914
      Marihuana Tax Act – 75th US Congress April 14, 1937, signed August 2, 1937
      The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act – 91st US Congress October 27, 1970

      The Legislative Branch of the United States, sitting past & present, lacked / lacks the constitutional privilege or right granted to Congress by the United States Constitution in which to abrogate the natural inalienable rights secured by the people unless the U.S. Legislative branch has reviewed valid evidence, held fair, impartial, and publicly transparent hearings which showed, or shows, that our nation’s health and or welfare would be, or is, negatively effected should the United States peoples’ continue to execute their natural inalienable right of access to the cannabis plant can it be outlawed. Absent of these reasonable conditions Congress can not, may not use it’s privilege or right of abrogation of Constitutional Rights secured by the people.

      It is only upon the reasonable presentation of scientific evidence which presents a valid social claim, and or an individual claim of harm that negatively impacts upon the whole, or part of, the Nation’s people does Congress have the responsibility to secure the nation’s health and welfare by use of it’s congressional privilege or right of abrogations by due process to secure said health and welfare of the Nation. But no U.S. Legislative body, past or present, has the congressional privilege or right to abrogate the natural inalienable rights secured in the United States people based on distortions, fanciful conjecture, and intentionally misleading medical and legal information. No where in the people’s founding contact adopted by the people and sworn to by this elected government does it allow deception, criminal and civil fraud, intentional misinformation, purposely tainted testimony, and the denial of any expert testimonies as bases for granting any elected and sworn U.S. Legislative body present or past with the misuse of it’s privilege or right of abrogation which allows the outlawing of the inalienable rights of the peoples’ of these United States without proper due process of law.

      Therefore the foundation laid in Congress to abrogate the natural inalienable rights of the people lacked any real evident that the cannabis plant is or was, ever a safety issue which negatively impacted the health and welfare of the American Society, in part or as a whole. Furthermore, the U.S. Congress did not, can not, and still does not have the privilege or right granted in the United States Constitution to write any such legislation that would abrogate the American people from their natural inalienable rights to use the cannabis planet for reason of traditional medicine, or as a traditional food supplement, as an alternative fuel source, for the making of clothing, used as a replacement for wood, used in the making of traditional paper, and or for the peoples’ ancient spiritual, religious, or cultural practices of which is clearly protected for all time sake by our founding fathers’ constitutional preamble and the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution.

      Hence, the United States Legislative actions known as the Harrison Narcotics Act of the 63rd legislative session, the Marihuana Tax Act of the 75th legislative session, and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of the 91st legislative session and all those sub-action therein, which abrogate the natural inalienable rights of the people to have unfettered access to the cannabis plant is built upon a fraudulent act and therefore unconstitutional because these legislative foundations are based on fanciful propaganda which lacks any real legal scientific evident that demonstrates any negative impact on society by the use of the cannabis plant. The three legislative action listed above do adversely effect the safety and welfare of the America. These fraudulent acts of congress continue to harm the nation and drain the people of their valuable resources. Most importantly these acts have eroded the relationship between all three branches of government and the people they are suppose to represent.

      Our Federal Congresses in the above named sessions have acted upon the U.S. constitutional provision involving the American peoples’ natural inalienable rights and have unlawfully abrogated those natural unalienable given rights of the United States people based solely on questionable congressional witness testimonies, a bombardment of fraudulent media presentations, and grossly misquoted medical and legal data, of which is still pervasive today in the minds of the American people. There is however an overwhelming, and ever growing mound of world-wide scientific data that demonstrate to the contrary the fraudulent education material perpetrated upon our society as well as the 63rd, 75th, and 91st United States Congresses. Our U.S. Congress therefore lacked then and still lacks now it’s constitutional privilege or right to abrogate the cannabis plant from the American people. All legislation, status, and laws written and enacted from these fraudulent act of intentional misguided legislation should be ruled by the Supreme Court in the land as null and void because they are repugnant to the foundation of the United States Constitution.

      “ The Constitution is a written instrument, as such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

      “To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation.” “Every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added.” Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1

      “ Every word appears to have been weighted with the utmost deliberation and its effect to have been fully understood.” Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938)

      “All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.” Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176 (1803)

      “If the legislator clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right.” Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619. (Congress)

      “Where rights are secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

      “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.” State v. Sutton Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459)

      “The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees to each citizen the equal protection of the laws and prohibits a denial thereof by any federal official.” Bolling v. Sharpe, 327 U.S. 497

      . “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.” i.e. Documents, Constitutions, Court Decisions….. U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61

    6. […] to interact and befriend pushers of other illegal, more dangerous drugs. It compels young people to dismiss the educational messages they receive pertaining to the potential health risks posed by the use of “hard drugs” and […]

    7. Jinx says:

      don’t you all get it?
      the ads are countereffective for a reason.
      they’re subliminally promoting pot.

    8. […] care de obicei incurajeaza consumul de droguri mult mai periculoase. Pentru ca ii determina sa respinga mesajele educationale referitoare la potentialele riscuri ale drogurilor mai grele asupra sanatatii sau a drogurilor […]

    9. Auron Renius says:

      The propaganda campaign against marijuana is nothing new as this medieval story from the ‘Arabian Nights’ shows. The described affects of the drug are nothing like the actual high, but are exaggerated to make readers afraid to go near the drug.

      “he found a quiet corner and taking out a piece of Hashish, swallowed it. Presently the fumes mounted to his brain and he rolled over on to the marble floor. Then the Hashish made him fancy that a great lord was shampooing him and that two slaves stood at his head, one bearing a bowl and the other washing gear and all the requisites of the Hammam…….

      Then the slave opened it and brought out three kerchiefs of silk, one of which he threw over his head, a second over his shoulders, and a third he tied round his waist. Moreover, the eunuch gave him a pair of bath-clogs, and he put them on; after which in came white slaves and eunuchs and supported him (and he laughing the while) to the outer hall, which he found hung and spread with magnificent furniture, such as beseemeth none but kings; and the pages hastened up to him and seated him on the divan.

      Then they fell to kneading him till sleep overcame him; and he dreamt that he had a girl in his arms. So he kissed her and set her between his thighs; then, sitting to her as a man sitteth to a woman, he took yard in hand and drew her towards him and weighed down upon her and lo! he heard one saying to him,

      “Awake, thou ne’er-do-well! The noon-hour is come and thou art still asleep.” He opened his eyes and found himself lying on the marge of the cold-water tank, amongst a crowd of people all laughing at him; for his prickle was at point and the napkin had slipped from his middle. So he knew that all this was but a confusion of dreams and an illusion of the Hashish and he was vexed and said to him who had aroused him, “Would thou hadst waited till I had put it in!”

      Then said the folk, “Art thou not ashamed, O Hashish-eater, to be sleeping stark naked with stiff-standing tool?” And they cuffed him till his neck was red. Now he was starving, yet forsooth he savored the flavor of pleasure in his dream”.

      http://www.primarysourcebook.com/medieval/the-tale-of-the-hashish-eater

    10. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980′s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. […]

    11. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980′s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. […]

    12. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980′s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. […]

    13. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980′s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. […]

    14. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980′s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. […]

    15. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980?s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. No other […]

    16. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980′s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. […]

    17. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980?s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. No other […]

    18. […] so-called Partnership for a Drug-Free [sic] America (PDFA) has been a prolific, yet impotent, anti-marijuana propaganda machine since its inception in the mid 1980?s under President Ronald ‘Just Say No’ Reagan. No other […]

    Leave a Reply