"The drug problem" has raised its ugly head again here in Australia, where it received top billing at the recent premier’s conference. Drugs in society is a very complex and controversial subject. Diverse views exist as to what constitutes a drug and what should or should not be done about the issue, real or perceived.

The Prime Minister has made drugs, and the need to be tough on them, his personal crusade, reinvigorating the campaign against hard drugs with a three pronged attack – supply reduction involving new powers and more funding to law enforcement agencies, education and treatment. Of the $300 million allocated to "Tough on Drugs", more than half of it, over $160 million, goes to the long arm of law enforcement, the rest to education and the smallest portion to treatment.

The "Tough on Drugs" strategy being cranked up here in Australia is an expropriation of the American "War on Drugs", that has been waged by successive US administrations from Nixon to Clinton. "Tough on Drugs" (a phrase also borrowed from the American vernacular) and the "War on Drugs" provide an eye opening example of the ways in which propaganda is utilised by democratic governments. The first casualty of war is the truth, and after all, this is a War on Drugs.

Imagine putting a sign on your gate post that says "warning extreme danger ahead". Everyone that came to your driveway would imagine what the ‘extreme danger’ was – a vicious dog, a farmer with a shotgun, a rockslide, an electric fence. As the warning is obscure and implies some kind of hazard, people would imagine what the danger might be based on their own fears, insecurities and experiences. An extreme danger may not even exist, yet we would all imagine one.

Vague and emotive words conjure up different meanings to different people. Words like "democracy", "peace", "right", "drug", "health", "violence", "love", "crime", "medicine", "science", mean different things to each individual as they can be used in different ways. Propagandists take advantage of the fact that there are some words which are common and emotive to most people.

Just like the sign on the gate post, everyone has their own idea of what a drug is and what the effects of drugs are. We all have our own beliefs about violence, crime and so on. Our views on these subjects are often shaped by the media: "a crime plague", "violence on the rise", "drug deaths surge"; or by what we see at the movies, or even from an unpleasant personal experience. The result is that whenever propagandists talk of ‘drugs’, for example, everyone immediately conjures up their own personal idea of what a drug is and the consequences of using drugs. This way, propagandists can reach the hearts and minds of us all.

A recent illustration comes via a media release titled "Public Concerned About Illicit Drugs", from the office of Dr Michael Wooldridge, of the Health and Family Services portfolio. The opening paragraph says:

The most consistently mentioned drug issues causing problems for the community are excessive alcohol consumption followed by tobacco use, needle sharing and the use of heroin – however, most see heroin and marijuana mainly comprising the "drug problem".1 (inverted commas used in original)

This media release goes part of the way towards exposing the way that propaganda and disinformation can influence our opinions. While excessive alcohol and tobacco account for the biggest slice of the drug problem in Australia, the drugs that are commonly identified as constituting the "drug problem" are heroin and marijuana. The assumption that illicit drugs constitute the drug problem is reinforced by the title of the media release.

This leads us to a discussion of the frequently quoted drug statistics and well known ‘facts’ about drugs. Statistics can be equally as vague as words, and unreferenced statistics are the most misleading of all. "Facts", on the other hand, can be nothing more than the reinforcement of incorrect public perceptions – such as the perception that the "drug problem" is constituted by illicit drugs. Experts, leaders and people in authority repeat such perceptions, giving them credibility. If it’s repeated often enough, we’ll eventually believe it.

Take this opening paragraph from John Howard’s recent statement, published in The Australian under the heading "Hard drugs demand a tough response".2

"Like many Australians, I am concerned about the impact of illicit drugs on our community. Far too many of our vibrant and creative young people are dying as a consequence of using drugs, and many more are failing to achieve their potential. The impact on families, friends and the broader community is devastating," Mr. Howard said.

Your average reader would think to themselves "Gee, we must have a really bad problem with illicit drugs," or "it must be really bad for the PM to comment about it." If we analyse John Howard’s opening paragraph, we find it is vague. What is "far too many"? Exactly what "impacts of illicit drugs on our community" is he talking about? How many died as a consequence of using "illicit drugs?" How many are estimated to be "failing to achieve their potential"?

The statement also appeals to our emotions – many of us have children or know young adults who are "vibrant and creative". Nobody likes to think that "young people are dying", or that they are "failing to achieve their potential". And , just like the sign on the gate post, we all imagine (or even know from first hand experience) how drugs are "devastating" our communities. Mr Howard has effectively reached the hearts and minds of us all.

To turn now to an examination of the facts about drug abuse in Australia.

* Tobacco is the primary cause of premature and preventable death in Australia. 18 580 people died from tobacco related causes in 1996 – 1997.

* Alcohol is the second most common cause of death and hospitalisation in Australia. 3656 died from alcohol related causes in 1996 – 1997. In the same year, a total of 96 111 hospital attendances were attributed to alcohol.

* 739 people died in Australia due to illicit drug use in 1996 – 1997.

These figures are extracted from the Federal Government’s own publication "National Drug Strategic Framework 1998 – 99 to 2002 – 03", subtitled, "Building Partnerships, A strategy to reduce the harm caused by drugs in our community." It was published by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy in November 1998.

"The cost, both economic and social, of government-sanctioned illicit drug use seems to me to be too high a price to pay," according to John Howard in "Hard drugs demand a tough response."

What is the high price that we pay? What are the economic and social costs? Here is a another example of vague and emotive language. It is not only hard drugs that are affecting the economy. "It is estimated that each year, 80 000 people are hospitalised due to the effects of pharmaceutical drugs." This is another statistic quoted in the National Drug Strategic Framework. Pharmaceutical drugs rank almost as highly as alcohol (with 96 111 admissions) when it comes to hospital admissions.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s publication ‘Australia’s Health 1998’3 estimated that $4 billion of the total health system costs for diseases and injury of the $31.4 billion in 1993-94 could be attributed to the cost of pharmaceuticals, and that 75 per cent of prescriptions dispensed through community pharmacies qualify for benefits under the Commonwealth Government’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

An examination of the facts shows that legal drugs, particularly prescription drugs, have enormous social and economic costs to our society, and yet the focus of the current "Tough on Drugs" campaign is illicit drugs and the need "to protect our kids!"4 But if its mission is to "protect our kids", why not go after cigarettes and alcohol, which are the real killers and the most used ‘gateway’ drugs of all? Why is the government fighting a war on illicit drugs, a problem that is perceived by the public to be the main drug problem in Australia? At best, the answer is that they are responding to public opinion, which has been shaped largely by the previous illicit drug propaganda campaigns. At worst, something far more sinister is at work.

The Howard government has committed more than $160 million of the Tough on Drugs money (more than half of it) for enhanced drug control strategies including the creation of special police strike teams across Australia, and more support for Customs and police to target drug dealers. Let’s now look at the way in which law enforcement is used to combat the illicit drug trade, and the effectiveness of law enforcement to deal with the illicit drug problem which "devastates our communities."

A total of 85 046 offenders were processed for drug related offences in Australia from 1996 – 1997.

The total offenders by drug type according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)5 are:

Illicit drugs are a problem within Australia’s prison system, arguably one of the most controlled and monitored environments. Some offenders enter prison with an existing drug habit. Others acquire a habit during their incarceration because of the availability of drugs in jail and the boredom and stresses of prison life.

Despite surveillance and law enforcement measures inside our jails, it is estimated that over half the prison population in Australia, at any one time, are intravenous drug users.8 The prison example shows that regardless of how much people are controlled and monitored, and regardless of the extent of law enforcement resources, the use of illicit drugs will continue to occur.

All crime has a ‘cost’ to society and there is none so unpleasant as violent crime. A common theme in the propaganda war against drugs is that illicit drugs are related to an increase in street level crime. "Crime" is another one of those emotive and vague words, a favourite of 20th century propagandists.

Propagandists have succeeded in linking "crime’ and ‘violence’ to the use of illicit drugs. With the effect that people not only fear ‘drugs’, but the crime and violence associated with it. While crime itself is indeed, on the increase, so too is the fear of crime, and violent crimes.

The crime control industry, as it is called by criminologists, is a ‘growth’ industry. Witness the rising popularity of residential enclaves, the so called fortress suburbs,9 complete with ever-present security guards and prison style perimeter fencing; the popularity of Neighborhood Watch schemes, security doors and windows, intruder alarms and the growth in demand for personal security devices. And at a national level, while ever there is fear of crime, law enforcement budgets, and crime control legislation continue to grow.

Although violent crime is often linked with the use of illicit drugs, it is generally accepted by criminologists that few illicit drugs cause drug users to behave violently. The government sponsored National Committee on Violence has commented: "The association which is observed between alcohol and violent behaviour is rarely seen in the case of the most commonly abused illicit drugs." One class of drugs that is generally regarded as an exception to this observation is amphetamines.10

Exact figures on the economic costs of crime resulting from the illicit drug trade are unknown, and will probably never be known. When we hear about crime associated with illicit drugs, we often think of street crime, or drug pushers. We very rarely hear about white collar crime, specifically money laundering, associated with profits from the drug trade.

Each year, AUSTRAC, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, a Federal Government agency, makes estimates of the extent of money laundering in and throughout Australia. This is done by appraising the total proceeds of crime and comparing them against figures for the known proceeds of crime.

In its most recent assessment, of 9 July 1998,11 AUSTRAC comments: "It would be expected, of course, that total proceeds is a considerably greater figure than known proceeds, since we are (painfully?) aware that, even now we are less than a hundred per cent successful in tracing criminal proceeds." (brackets used in original)

AUSTRAC estimates an annual amount ranging between $20 million and $40 million are known to be, or at least are strongly suspected of being, the proceeds of crime, and that a considerable proportion of it has been, or is in the process of being, laundered.

Further data on this subject, made available by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence in their 1994 ‘Australian Illicit Drug Report’, suggests a 1994 figure of around $20 million restrained or confiscated as proceeds of crime, for drug offences alone!

Here is AUSTRAC’s list of Restrained and Forfeited Known/Suspected Proceeds of Drug Crime 1994:

These figures show that the majority of money from drugs is laundered in the ACT. In fact, twice as much money is laundered in the ACT as in any other state. Who are the people that live, work and frequent the ACT?

According to AUSTRAC, "the interesting point here is that, if the estimates of total money laundering presented in the previous section are accurate, then only around one percent is currently being recouped through the criminal justice system."

"Zero tolerance in terms of law enforcement is also an issue I am interested in, particularly if it can be shown to be effective in helping reduce the flow of drugs into Australia and in reducing crime", according to the Prime Minister in "Hard drugs demand a tough response."

Today, zero tolerance on drugs; tomorrow zero tolerance on free speech or freedom of movement? Is it possible that zero tolerance is another step towards a totalitarian state?

Let’s take a look at zero tolerance, and what it really means. Zero tolerance is a play on words by the propagandists. Zero tolerance means no tolerance, or intolerance. And, in our so-called open, democratic and freedom loving society, we all know that intolerance means being prejudiced, bigoted and dictatorial. One of the great 20th century advocates of a zero tolerance policy was Adolph Hitler, who had a policy of zero tolerance towards Jews.

One of the aims of "Tough on Drugs" is to adopt a goal of zero tolerance on illicit drugs in schools, and the recent expulsion of students from an exclusive private girls school sets an example, or precedent, for other societal institutions to ‘experiment’ with the policy.

Zero Tolerance was popularised by the US state of New York that declared the policy in response to the ‘drug problem’. New York’s zero tolerance policy has been exceptionally successful – crime has fallen to the level of 30 years ago. The New York experiment has become a model for other US states and many countries throughout the world. The argument for zero tolerance is about to be stepped up in Australia, but again we are only hearing one side of the story. Before we blithely accept what is good for us, we need to fully understand not only the many benefits this strategy will provide to the people, but also the benefits it will provide to our political masters.

All societies that have tried to make the citizen good by compulsion have come to grief, and the grief has almost invariably been that of the citizens, not the leaders. This appears to be the case with New York’s zero tolerance policy. Having cracked down on crime and reduced the problem to an all time low, police are now in a situation where they are issuing summonses for trivial offences such as riding bicycles without bells.

"When zero tolerance tactics were introduced, crime was at an all-time high. Now that crime is way down, an adjustment is required. If we don’t strike a balance between aggressive enforcement and common sense, it becomes a blueprint for a police State and tyranny," according to James Savage, the leader of the New York’s policemen’s union.12

Savage is in a position to know the facts. And the facts are that people in New York are beginning to despise men and women in uniform. Police officers are being pressured to pursue aggressive tactics, but the union wants a go slow for issuing summonses for trivial offences.

What will happen in New York if the pressure is kept up for police to crack down on non-existent crime? If crime is virtually eliminated, one solution would be to think up new crimes, which police could be used to enforce. Perhaps new crimes in areas where traditionally law enforcement has not been required? Once given powers, a government is not likely to rescind them, indeed, it is likely that the powers of the police state will be extended to other parts of New Yorker’s lives.

The policy of zero tolerance only applies to the population being controlled, not to the controllers. Corruption and violence within New York’s law enforcement ranks is still alive and well. Two recent examples serve to graphically illustrate this point: a Haitian immigrant was sodomised by police officers with a lavatory plunger while in custody in Brooklyn and an unarmed West African was killed in a hail of 41 bullets by four members of the Street Crime Unit.

Even New York’s Police Commissioner has been called to account for accepting a free plane trip to the Oscars ceremony; for using police officers as security at his daughter’s wedding; and for getting detectives to interrogate a driver who crashed into his wife’s car.

The other prong of the Federal Government’s Tough on Drugs is, of course, treatment for drug ‘offenders’. This very important area has been allocated the smallest share of the Tough on Drugs funding bag. The government is providing financial assistance to organisations as "partners" in the Tough on Drugs Strategy. So far 200 community organisations have received funding through this partnership approach.

This all sounds very good, until you understand the way governments allocate money to community projects. Federal Government funding to community organisations is allocated according to need, but it is also allocated according to funding guidelines. Organisations that received funding under the Tough on Drugs strategy have met government funding guidelines.

While many guidelines, such as those dealing with financial responsibility, are simply to ensure that money is not misappropriated, other guidelines deal with objectives – principally the objectives of the Tough on Drugs campaign.

The simple fact is that only those who can meet the funding criteria get funded. This way, ground breaking ideas and innovative schemes to rehabilitate drug offenders (schemes such as the Heroin trial, which John Howard maligns) simply don’t get funded, because they are not part of the government’s funding objectives. The other impact of course, is that by forming a partnership with agencies, the community is becoming responsible to the government, and solutions to problems inevitably fit within the government agenda.

Noam Chomsky, the veteran critic of 20th century government propaganda has described the war on drugs as an instrument of population control. In an interview with journalist John Veit, Chomsky describes the way in which the everlasting battle for the minds of men is fought.

This engineering or manufacture of consent is the essence of democracy, because you have to insure that ignorant and meddlesome outsiders – meaning we the people – don’t interfere with the work of the serious people who run public affairs in the interests of the people.

The war on drugs is a perfect example of the manufacture of consent, according to Chomsky.

One of the traditional and obvious ways of controlling people in every society, whether it’s a military dictatorship or a democracy, is to frighten them. If people are frightened, they’ll cede authority to their superiors who will protect them… so the fear of drugs and fear of crime is very much stimulated by state and business propaganda.

The government benefits from the use of these strategies, as the crime control industry is a state industry, and is publicly funded.

"It’s got to a scale sufficiently that high-technology and military contractors are looking to it as a market for techniques of high-tech control and surveillance, so that you can monitor what people do in their private activities with complicated electronic devices and super computers… in fact, the time will probably come when this superfluous population can be locked up in private apartments, not jails, and just monitored to track when they do the wrong thing, say the wrong thing, go the wrong direction," Chomsky predicts.13

The present government campaign to get ‘Tough on Drugs’ is about shaping the minds of young people. Australian Federal Police commissioner, Mick Palmer, addressing the First International Conference on Drugs and Young People14, said: "Our aim must be to fashion opinions, particularly in the young, change behaviours and reduce demand: not simply ‘health protect’ the victims and prosecute the traffickers. But if we are to be effective and give perhaps new and innovative demand reduction strategies the time to bite, then enforcement must continue to play a role. We have to deal with the ‘now’ while we prepare for the ‘future’."

How can we achieve the "fashioning of opinions, particularly in the young"? The answer lies in the American experience and US drug war fighting strategies.

In war it is necessary to know the enemy. In the War on Drugs, the enemy of course is drugs and people who use them. Knowledge on drugs is easy to obtain, but knowledge about people en masse – their psychology and behaviour, is a lot harder to come by. So, who then, knows the people best? Who understands them? Who is best able to be employed in order to shape opinion about the ‘drug problem’? The answer, of course, is the advertising industry.

In any war it is also necessary to demonise the enemy. And the more the enemy is demonised, the more likely people will reject and condemn him (or her) without examining the evidence. The more an enemy is demonised, the more we fear him, and the more likely we are to ask others to protect us. In the war on drugs, who is best able to demonise the enemy? The answer, of course, is the advertising industry.

On average, American children are exposed to media at least eight hours per day through television, radio, movies, recorded music, comics, and video games. By his or her eighteenth birthday, an average adolescent will have seen 100 000 television commercials for beer and will have watched 65 000 scenes on television depicting beer drinking.15 An industry that can popularise one type of drug can demonise another.

Leaders in the entertainment and sports industries and others whose influence reaches every neighborhood and country can play a role in safeguarding our most precious resource: our children. The US National Drug Control Strategy articulates the priority given to protecting sixty-eight million children from toxic, addictive substances. Our National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign recognizes the centrality of the media in any national effort to educate the next generation about the dangers associated with underage drinking and smoking, abuse of psychoactive substances, and all illegal drugs.
— Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy16

In America, the government agency Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) develops and delivers policy strategies to wage the War on Drugs. The ONDCP works in partnership with community organisations, principally, the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA).

ONDCP chief Barry McCaffrey announced recently that the magazine industry had pledged to match the US federal government ad-for-ad in a public service campaign to spread the word about the dangers of drugs. Executives of the American Magazine Conference, held at Walt Disney World, agreed to put the might of their 200 members, covering 1 200 magazine titles, behind the War on Drugs.17

The offer by the magazine industry is actually a response to a request made by the ONDCP itself. The ONDCP initially suggested that the advertising industry might support the War on Drugs by agreeing to match, dollar for dollar, government advertising contributions. The federal government is putting up a lot of money for hard-hitting anti-drug ads, worth $US1 billion over the next five years.

What will happen in this joint initiative between the media and the government? Publications will participate in a ‘roadblock’ where every magazine on a news stand during a particular week or month will carry some anti-drug message. The magazine industry will allow the campaign to target even more specific audiences, such as teens who read Seventeen or their parents who read The New Yorker. Magazines will also run stories, in tandem with advertisements, describing the devastation caused by illicit drugs in the community.

This strategy requires close inspection for it is a very significant gain, for the government, in the propaganda War on Drugs. The government has, through the pledge of $1 billion worth of advertising, ‘bought’ the media, or at least a substantial sector of it.

Further research into the American War on Drugs leads us to inquire into the ‘Partnership for a Drug Free America’, and the Advertising Council Inc., the so-called Advertising Partners of the ONDCP. The Partnership For a Drug Free America touts itself as a non-profit coalition of professionals from the communications industry – in other words, public relations experts. The Partnership "oversees and implements the creation of all paid advertising used in the campaign" – the war on drugs. What this means is that the Partnership vets all advertising which is submitted as part of the War on Drugs to ensure that advertising conforms to government prescription.

The Advertising Council is the other ‘partner’ in the War on Drugs. The Advertising Council is America’s largest provider of public service communications (i.e. government advertising). Accordingly, its role in the War on Drugs is to "screen all ads submitted and ensure that they fit within the overall communication strategy, and meet all broadcast and print quality standards." Thus continuing the cycle of propaganda.

The US magazine of investigative journalism The Nation, has delved into the people behind the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the supposed non-profit organisation. A probe by The Nation18 revealed that the Partnership had accepted $5.4 million in contributions from legal drug manufacturers, while producing ads that overlooked 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.

The Nations’ report discusses how the pharmaceutical and advertising industries have long been intertwined. James Burke, who resigned as chair and CEO of Johnson and Johnson in 1989 to become Chair of the Partnership for a Drug Free America, engineered the classic campaign to restore public confidence in Tylenol after the cyanide scare.

The Partnership’s funders are usually kept secret, but investigation by The Nation revealed that from 1988 – 1991, pharmaceutical companies and their beneficiaries contributed as follows:

* The J Steward Johnson, Sr Charitable Trusts
($1 1000 000)

* Du Pont ($150 000)

* The Procter & Gamble Fund ($120 000)

* The Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation ($110 000)

* Johnson & Johnson ($11 000)

* Smith Kline Beecham ($100 000)

* The Merck Foundation ($75 000)

* And Hoffman-La Roche ($30 000)

Also $150 000 each from Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch and RJR Reynolds plus $100 000 from American Brands (Jim Beam and Lucky Strike).

Partnership ads rely on scare tactics and are often highly exaggerated. One example quoted by The Nation is that of a print ad which showed 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. How many 10 year olds could afford "an ounce a week", let alone smoke it and stay on their feet?

It is not the first time the Partnership has been caught out with regard to incorrect information (some would say propaganda). The first advertisement run by the Partnership in 1987 depicted the brain wave of a 14 year old smoking pot. It later revealed that the brain wave depicted was that of a coma patient.

The advertising industry and the mass media, of course, benefit innumerably from their support of the government’s War on Drugs. Not only do they receive financial rewards, but they also receive an ego massage. Creative directors get to show off, giving their ads with titles like "Candy Store" and "Tricks of the Trade", submitting them for industry awards. The actors get exposure and media outlets can pat themselves on the back for contributing to a good cause.

Chair of the ONDCP, Barry McCaffrey, has said: "Corporations whose productivity depends on healthy, drug-free employees can lend financial backing as well as public endorsement."

This, of course, strikes at the very heart of the War on Drugs. People that are buying drugs, and particularly illegal drugs, are pouring money into the ‘black economy’, so to speak, not into the pockets of multinational corporations.

By supporting the War on Drugs, corporations are in a win win situation. The media corporations get government paid advertising pledges, while other corporations benefit because they end up with money that would otherwise be spent on the purchase of illegal drugs.

The other benefit to corporations is that the War on Drugs, particularly illicit drugs, promotes the idea that you need to be "cool" – that you need to get an ‘image’ and a ‘lifestyle’ – primarily a consumer lifestyle.

A large proportion of early teens (69 percent) and close to half of all teenagers (42 percent) are non-drug users who believe that drug use is risky according to a 1994 PDFA survey. The Partnership refers to these non-drug using adolescents as their "loyal franchise" and suggests that the ‘franchise’ should be maintained by affirming their choice.19 Affirming choices to stay off drugs, of course, means more advertising, and specifically, advertising a ‘cool’ lifestyle.

It is the part of the stated communications strategy of PDFA "to promote the image that teenagers need to be ‘cool’, socially attractive, and earn the respect of peers."

"They should also be part of a close-knit circle of friends and share new and exciting experiences, earn the respect and trust of parents and siblings, work towards one’s academic and career goals, stay fit and perform well in sports," the PDFA says.

In other words, the Partnership for a Drug Free America would like children to be model citizens/consumers, and not rebel against the ‘system’.

Here is a quote from the PDFA about how the "need to be cool" can be projected20:

Positive messages are likely to be effective in reinforcing adolescents’ anti-drug attitudes and in affirming their commitment to refrain from drug use. The tone of these messages should be spirited and celebratory rather than preachy. A strategy that has proved highly successful for many major marketers (e.g., Reebok, Nike, Coke, and Levi) is to depict a desirable image and lifestyle, and then associate that image with their product subtly and obliquely. Drug non-use can be marketed in a similar way by creating a highly desirable image of attractive, smart, and successful drug-free teenagers.

The use of this strategy is graphically illustrated by the Partnership’s advertising, and also by its use of the Internet. One example is the web site FREEVIBE, in the "related links" of the ONDCP web site.21 FREEVIBE, which appears also to have a link to the Disney Corporation, offers young Americans "better things than drugs". The number one thing FREEVIBE advises teenagers to do as an alternative to taking drugs is to make money. This, FREEVIBE says, can be accomplished through having a garage sale, starting a business, or selling off old CDs and books. "Your whole life you’ve depended on your parents for cash. And let’s face it, it’s never enough! Now’s the time to break out and make your own ducats, and spend ‘em the way you want to," FREEVIBE advises.

Other ideas that people may like to take up instead of taking drugs, are (in numerical order): sports, volunteering, arts, writing (keeping a journal), enjoying the outdoors and building web sites.

FREEVIBE regularly features a "celeb". This month’s Celeb happens to be Cameron Dias… "The most promising blue-eyed blond… who confounded Hollywood… a shrewd and savvy actress, who… does the occasional high-paying modeling job," FREEVIBE says, enticingly.

FREEVIBE’s other feature is called "Cool Incarnate". This is an interview with an anonymous young girl, known only by her nickname, "Penny Dreadful", (a nickname once given to Marilyn Monroe – that other all American blue eyed blond!). "Penny" is the antithesis of an advertising profile, used to target market ‘cool’ products to youth culture.

Where does Penny live? She lives with her parents, who are still married, has a sister, two dogs and a hedgehog.

What does Penny think "makes you cool" – she’s a fashion advice columnist for a funky clothing catalogue on the web. She is not paid, but works at a daycare. Dressing differently and people who chase their own goals, even if it means ridicule, are the sorts of things that make you "cool", according to Penny.

Who does she admire? Penny admires her father’s work ethic, her mother’s no-nonsense strength, sister’s charm, and her friend’s practicality. She also admires Tori Amos for her power-femme image, Courtney Love for honesty and Drew Barrymore for her flower-child free-spiritedness.

Penny’s goals are to enrol in an English literature course at college and get married and become a mother (even though it is, as she says, rather 50’s passe).

Penny’s thoughts on drugs: Drugs get people pregnant because they get high and have unprotected sex or contract fatal diseases from dirty needles. IT CAN AND WILL HAPPEN IF YOU’RE NOT CAREFUL, Penny warns. "Trust a grrrl who knows", she says. A girl, a stranger, who won’t even tell us her real name!

And finally, asked for her words of wisdom on life, Penny says patronisingly, "be kind to your fellow human beings, despite their financial status, race, sexuality, religion clique, etc. Be free and never shut your mouth!"

Look at the central elements of Penny’s discussion, and of FREEVIBE itself, in terms of propaganda analysis. Apart from being drug free, Penny is advocating several other things. The work ethic, voluntary labour, reproduction of the species, further education, and of course, fashion. FREEVIBE is encouraging teenagers to "look up to" superstars and fashion models. Why not encourage teenagers to look up to people who are campaigning to save the environment, curing disease or working for peace. Surely these would be better role modes. But, then again, these sorts of things are not as socially attractive or glamorous as ‘being cool’.

Could it be that the Partnership for a Drug Free America is running two advertising campaigns? One to demonise illicit drugs, the other to turn teenagers into unthinking consuming robots?

Another aspect of the War on Drugs that is worth mentioning is the use of sporting heroes. While some may balk at the following analysis, it deserves consideration, given the insidious and Orwellian nature of the War on Drugs.

The ONDCP has launched what it calls an "Athletic Initiative Against Drugs"22 – the catch cry, "If you use, you lose". The ONDCP says this initiative is "based on the premise that the athletic world can be used to educate children about the dangers of drugs and keep them away from drugs." The fact that the athletic world is well known for its use of performance enhancing drugs appears to have been conveniently forgotten.

Part of the ONDCP strategy involves "coaching" kids away from drugs – "to build self esteem and character and learn that their futures are too bright to waste on drugs." "Athletes can also help us in our drive to shape attitudes because young people emulate and look up to them," the ONDCP says. The Athletic strategy is designed to be a mentoring program – "many of our nation’s strongest adult mentors and role models wear whistles and call plays when they aren’t teaching life-long lessons. Coaches are looked up to by children… as mentors coaches are winners."

Think about this statement, carefully. If you have children, do you want them to respond to whistles and obey other people’s calls to "play" – or do you want them to develop freely and of their own accord? What other people do you know that wear whistles and call plays? What organisation requires its members to be fit and athletic? The answer – the military. Are we training a generation of warriors? After all, that was what the Hitler Youth was all about.23

The War on Drugs in America is indeed waging a three pronged attack on society: 1) It is brainwashing and propagandising a generation of young people so that they become consuming robots; 2) It is encouraging people to become model citizens, to be non-rebellious and intolerant of other people’s choices; 3) It is bringing society one step closer to the inevitability of a police state.

In Australia we are being ‘Tough on Drugs’. So far, many of our policy initiatives are adapted from the American experience. We, too, are adopting the three pronged attack on drugs. Educating people against the ‘perils’ of drug addiction, ‘effective’ treatment programs and harsher law enforcement.

Many Australians will no doubt be concerned by the insidious implications of drug-control strategies that are being implemented to "reduce the damage done by drugs to our families and communities". Getting Tough on Drugs is but one example of the way that governments use propaganda against us. Other areas such as health, finance, education, foreign affairs, welfare, law and order, justice and the environment are also subject to government propaganda campaigns.

It was a wise grrrl that once warned, IT CAN AND WILL HAPPEN IF YOU’RE NOT CAREFUL!

REFERENCES

1. Media Release, Dr. Michael Wooldridge, MW 137/98, 26 June, 1998, PUBLIC CONCERNED ABOUT ILLICIT DRUGS

2. Howard, John, "Hard drugs demand a tough response", The Australian, March 2, 1999

3. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, (1998), "Australia’s Health", pp. 192 – 6

4. See the Australian Government brochure "Tough on Drugs…to protect our kids!" available at http://www.adca.org.au/toughondrugs

5. Total Offenders by Drug Type, 1996 – 97, Australian Bureau of Statistics, available at: http://www.abs.gob.au/websitedbs/c311215….Profile/BD43E417E4A4FFD5CA2567220072E9B9/

6. Information summarised from a report in the Financial Review, "We’re losing the drug war", 3 January 1998. Available at http://www.afr.com.au

7. Norberry, Jennifer, Department of the Parliamentary Library, "Illicit Drugs, their Use and the Law in Australia", Background Paper 12, 1996-97

8. Hawks, and Lenton, Harm reduction in Australia: Has it worked? Drug and Alcohol Review, 14, 1995: 291-304 at 298

9. Hope, D, "Safety first in fortress suburbs", The Australian, April 19, 1998

10. National Committee on Violence, (1990), "Violence. Directions for Australia", Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, p. 90

11. AUSTRAC, (1998), Estimates of the Extent of Money Laundering in and Throughout Australia

12. Bone, J, "Zero tolerance sparks mutiny in police ranks", The Australian, April 19, 1998

13. Noam Chomsky commenting on the Drug War Industrial Complex, in the magazine High Times, interviewed by journalist John Veit.

14. Palmer, Mick, in the speech "Young Australians face an increasing battle with illicit drugs", at the First International Conference on Drugs and Young People, Melbourne. Available at http://www.afp.gov.au/publica/platypus/mar99/drugspch.htm

15. Remarks by Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs. In the same speech, McCaffrey also discussed the benefits of ‘vaccinating’ adolescents against drugs through the media.

16. The full text of the speech can be found at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov

17. Available at http://www.mediacampaign.org/inthenews/press_101998.html

18. Cotts, Cynthia, "The Partnership: Hard Sell in the Drug War", The Nation, March 9, 1992. Available at http://www.pdxnorml.org/Nation030992.html

19. This is a quote from the Public Relations Plan prepared by the ONDCP’s advertising partners. Titled, National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Communication Strategy. The full text is available at http://www.mediacampaign.org/partners/statement/contents..html

20. Ibid.

21. http://www.freevibe.com/hangtime/cool_incarnate/index.asp

22. http://www.ondcpsports.org

23. Anyone who cares to research, even a little, the future trends of the military, will find that the future lies in urban combat. In the streets, suburbs and garages where we live. Not in remote jungles or desert outposts.

___________________________________________________________
Susan Bryce is an investigative journalist and researcher whose interests include issues which affect individual freedom, environmental health, surveillance technology and global politics. Susan Bryce, PO Box 66, Kenilworth, QLD 4574, email sbryce@squirrel.com.au