Editor's Note: Amanda Shaffer is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section.

An innovative documentary that will reduce drug abuse or a sick exploitation of Atlanta's homeless in their most vulnerable moments?As my Internet search for anti-drug messages continues, I have uncovered a "documentary" that shows purported crack addicts performing a variety of acts on the streets of urban Atlanta (including everything from dancing and singing to having sex).  Click here for the news report from Fox 5.

"Crack Heads Gone Wild" producer Daryl Smith pays people addicted to crack to perform these unfathomable acts, encouraging and even cheering them on at times. Smith professes that the purpose of this film is not to sell DVDs, but to expose the dangers of drug abuse in the hopes of preventing others from using drugs.

Has Smith successfully rekindled a previously popular method known as the "scared straight" tactic? Or is it a sleazy ploy to make money?

I set out to learn the truth by contacting the film's producers. After numerous unanswered emails and phone calls, I was finally able to get in touch with a spokesman from the company. The first strange thing that occurred during our conversation was his skepticism of who I was. I told him I was a college student doing a research paper on drugs and the media (which is true), and he proceeded to ask me questions regarding where I was calling from and how old I was.

After the brief interrogation, he was willing, but reluctant, to answer my questions. The spokesman informed me that the film has currently sold over 100,000 copies, however this figure is most likely higher due to the sales from bootleggers. I then asked him, "How much money has this film grossed to-date." He responded, "Approximately $1.5 million." Next I explained to him that I watched the Fox interview where Smith made a promise to donate a portion of the film's proceeds to charities. I wanted to know if they had followed through. He replied, "As I said earlier the film was bootlegged so we haven't made any money off of this movie." Hmm…that's odd… at the time of the aforementioned interview, before it was stolen by bootleggers: Smith announced the film had made $250,000. Also, how would he have known that $1.5 million was grossed if the money wasn't going to the company? Something here just isn't adding up.

My next question involved the type of feedback they have received. The spokesman stated, "most people say it is interesting, they think it needs to be edited down so it can be shown in middle and high schools, that is why we are releasing a second version that is edited down more. The first film was more exploitative and was really not made to be educational; the second installment is an anti-drug film." This response speaks for itself, the film was never meant to be a prevention tool but simply to make some dough. Why was Smith preaching about exposing the truth in the Fox News interview? It appears quite evident he wanted to quiet the critics.

So is the creation of the second installment (subtitled "Scared Straight") truly meant to be an anti-drug film? The spokesman directed me to the trailer on YouTube.com to see for myself.

An anti-drug film he says? I felt it more closely resembled a horror movie. And what aspects of the film were "edited down" to be more youth-friendly? The trailer showcases a topless woman taking a hit of crack. I sincerely doubt any parents would want their 13-year-olds viewing clips of this movie in health class.

Seriously, who are the producers of these atrocious films trying to fool? The only difference I found in the two films is that the first uses humor (albeit of the sick variety) to attract the audience, while the second specifically focuses on fear. I find it hard to believe that either of these films was created to prevent drug use. I mean, what professionals/academics did they consult to decide their methods? 

Additionally, there is a clear morality issue at stake. Crack addicts are being paid to act out on camera when they are at their most vulnerable moments. Smith is encouraging this deviant behavior and is then promoting it through the media. Smith even acknowledged that he is exploiting these people during the Fox interview, "These people are at a point where nothing else matters. They don't care if it's 5 in the morning or a camera is on, they will do anything for 5 bucks." Is it fair to say that one person's health and livelihood is more important than another? Also, who is Daryl Smith to deduce that someone's life is hopeless, and that even with proper treatment they have no chance of recovering? I do not believe he has a degree in psychology or neuroscience.

If the producers of Crack Heads Gone Wild are really trying to make a difference on the streets of Atlanta as well as the rest of the country, they would stop exploiting addicts for money and start helping them acquire the treatment they desperately need.

Editor's Note: Amanda B. Shaffer is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section at http://stopthedrugwar.org/about/staff

As Scott yesterday blogged, this past Wednesday Comedy Central aired an episode about children getting high off of cat urine resulting in the banning of cats in Southpark. The DEA gets called in to enforce the ban. At the end of the episode, Gerald (the man who leads a fight to prohibit cats) gets high himself off of cat urine. After being caught, he publicly states cats should once again be legal because “Cats aren’t the problem, we are the problem.”

The cat urine episode is based, in part, on reports that surfaced a few months ago about kids saving human feces, fermenting it, and then inhaling the gasses to get high. The show referred to the squirting of cat urine in one’s face as “cheesing,” likely a send-up of a hybrid drug that involves mixing heroin with over-the-counter cold tablets such as Tylenol PM. The mixture is snorted rather than injected like pure heroin.

The message here is that some kids will get high. If illegal drugs are inaccessible, curious youths will find other ways to alter their consciousness. Clearly outlawing cats is just as absurd as outlawing human feces.

However, this is not the first Southpark episode to deal with drugs, and I doubt it will be the last. The first episode concerning drugs was in season 4 entitled “Timmy 2000.” The episode discussed the overprescribing of prescription drugs to children, specifically Ritalin. In 2000, the overprescribing of Ritalin (a drug used for ADD) became a nation-wide concern. Southpark broached the subject by showing how dull all of the kids became when they took it, eventually landing them at a Phil Collins concert. A remedy made by Chef removed the Ritalin from their systems, and the children then realized that they openly chose to go an extremely lame concert.

A few episodes feature the character Towelie. Towelie is an engineered smart towel that appears whenever the boys’ conversation involves water. Towelie is known for always wanting to get high. But every time he does he runs into some sort of trouble. Mostly he forgets what he is doing or comes up with a bad idea. It seems to me that Stone and Parker use the Towelie character to illustrate that marijuana isn’t harmful; it just can make one forgetful sometimes and possibly leave one unable to decipher good ideas from the bad ones.

2004: the year steroid controversy engulfed the sports world and Southpark’s “Up and Down Steroid” aired. The episode depicted the dangers of using steroids when Jimmy turns to them to win top athlete in the Special Olympics. In the end Jimmy wins the honor of top athlete, breaking many Special Olympic records along the way, but also hurting the ones he loves. Eventually, guilt overcomes him, and Jimmy returns the medal presented to him by baseball superstars (and notorious steroid users) Mark McGuire, Jason Giambi, and Barry Bonds. He follows with a speech, stating that “Taking steroids is like pretending to be handicapped at the Special Olympics because you are taking all of the fairness out of the game.” Once again Parker and Stone brilliantly brought to light a serious and adverse issue.

During the same season, Southpark aired the episode “Quest for Ratings,” which depicted the dangers of cough medication (at least those containing dextromethorphan). Misinformed, some of the students drink cough syrup in order to come up with creative ideas to boost ratings for the Southpark Elementary’s News Show. After waking up with a hangover and without any ideas, the boys realize the dangers of cough medicine and agree to report on the use going on in school. They learned that getting high doesn’t necessarily aid in the creation of masterpieces; it isn’t until they are sober that the clever idea is thought up.

I am ecstatic that a popular television show continues to cleverly address drug issues. The show is truthful and is able to attract a large audience, and at the end of the episodes one of the children usually makes a speech about what was learned from all the crazy antics.

Kudos to Southpark for standing above the crowd.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Amanda Brooke Shaffer is an intern at StoptheDrugWar.org. Her bio is in our "staff" section at http://stopthedrugwar.org/about/staff

Is the American public getting tired of government lies and exaggerations about drugs? If the ballooning number of anti-drug parodies on the Internet is any measure, it sure seems so.

The emergence of YouTube.com and other popular video websites has enabled and emboldened Internet users to express their opinions about the often criticized, government-sponsored anti-drug PSAs through video clips and commentary. The public is busy at work making innovative and bold statements.

I attempted to view as many anti-drug parody ads as possible; however, I didn’t expect the search engine on YouTube.com to turn up such a high volume of videos. It soon became quite obvious that the trend of the parody ads is to expose the ridiculousness of the claims made in the anti-drug PSAs. The clip that follows is an anti-drug PSA sponsored by the government. The second is the parody of it produced by an Internet user.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jgJdVEoVbgg, http://youtube.com/watch?v=m6FL0pmJeaE&feature=related

Clearly the second clip flat out mocks the first one by completely contradicting the message the government is portraying.

Below each video clip is space for viewers to comment. One of the numerous remarks about these two ads resembled something like this, “If I smoke then my dog will talk to me??? Puff, Puff, Pass!” This was just the tip of the iceberg of what users had to say.

A study was done on a variety of ads including the above mentioned “dog” ad to determine the effects on the youth of America. Guess what? The results showed an increase of marijuana use in girls aged 12-13 through making drug use by peers appear to be more familiar and acceptable. See: http://newrecovery.blogspot.com/2007/02/12-billion-later-national-youth-... and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06818.pdf and http://www.nida.nih.gov/DESPR/Westat/Westat502/ExecSummary502.html

Why are we spending our dwindling tax resources on commercials that send the wrong message to their target audience? The anti-drug media campaign creates artistic and abstract ads that are unrealistic, when all Americans really need, and want to see, are commercials that tell them the truth.

Another approach the campaign employs is using upbeat and positive messages to attempt to deter youths from using drugs. It is known as “What’s Your Anti-Drug?” This parody clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eDXxA0hMo1I) twists the government’s message to expose the fallacy of the marijuana as a “gateway” to harder drugs myth through the line, “Weed is my anti-drug.”

It seems that no matter how hard the government works to embed the gateway myth into the public consciousness, those pesky studies that disprove a causal link to using harder drugs keep informing the public of the truth. Many clips I viewed expressed the notion that weed prevented them from using other drugs by satisfying their desires and curiosities.

I felt one parody rose above the rest. Not only was it the most viewed parody anti-drug ad I came across, but it had me and all my friends rolling on the floor with laughter. It is an ad featuring our Commander in Chief, President Bush. Bush, known for his binge drinking and cocaine use by a large majority of Americans, is an ideal person to exemplify the long-term consequences of drug abuse. This ad has the right stuff -- a notable figure and a realistic message that is powerful and clear to the viewer. Check it out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eGgTLMC9GXg.

I think it is quite obvious why Americans are taking precious time out of their daily lives to speak out. Simply put, the extremely expensive anti-drug media campaign employed by the government over the last two decades is laughable, and government-funded research continues to conclude that these ads are ineffective at preventing and reducing drug use among youths. Yet, despite the increasing mounds of evidence proving the campaign’s ineffectiveness, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) disputes the critical conclusions of these studies and has the audacity to ask the government for even more money. The good thing is that the ease of accessing these reports, thanks to the Internet, is making it progressively harder for ONDCP to ignore the facts and hide them from the American people.

You see, the D.A.R.E. generation has had enough of the lies and distortions, and it’s fighting back with truth and sense.