Should cold medicines sponsor Olympic athletes?

That's the question I asked myself when I saw this ad on TV (or was it preroll? Hard to remember anymore):



 I was immediately reminded of the tragedy of Andreea Răducan, the young Romanian gymnast who had her gold medal taken away in the 2000 Australian Summer Games when she tested positive for pseudoephedrene—a common decongestant which was also a banned stimulant. The story was that her team doctor had given her medication for sniffles. The drug was not banned by the international gymnastics federation, but is on the IOC "doping" list.

According to Wikipedia, pseudoephedrine was removed the banned substances IOC list in 2004, when the IOC adopted the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list. Although WADA initially only monitored pseudoephedrine, it was put back on the banned list for WADA/IOC in 2010.

Fast Forward to Sochi in 2014, and pseudoephedrine is back in Olympic news:

Sweden’s star center Nicklas Backstrom wasn’t allowed to play in the gold medal game against Canada after testing positive for a banned substance. 

An NHLPA source told Yahoo Sports that Backstrom violated anti-doping rules after tests showed an elevated level of pseudoephedrine, a banned substance by the IOC and the World Anti-Doping Federation. 

Backstrom has taken Zyrtec-D for several years for allergies. He said he takes on pill per day.

Zyrtec-D contains cetirizine and pseudoephedrine. And Sweden lost the Gold Medal game to Canada, 3-0.

I can't believe that national team doctors are not aware of a banned substance that is in many, many, cold remedies that can easily remove a star athlete from the games. I find it even more odd that a cold medication is promoting its use by athletes.

But there's a loophole here. Because pseudoephedrine is the main ingredient used to synthethize street meth, the United States government restricts its sales. Vick's was forced to replace the pseudoephedrine with phenylephrine. Everywhere else, including Canada, the over-the-counter cold meds still have the (in my experience, much more effective) pseudoephedrine. Phenylephrine is also a stimulant, but it is only "monitored" by WADA.

So these American ads show an athlete taking a brand medication where everywhere except his home country would disqualify him from the Olympics (if, for example, he picked some up while competing abroad). Is that really a good idea, Vicks? Is it?

Ted Ligety earned Gold in the men’s giant slalom at Sochi. Presumably, he didn't take the wrong medicine.

Pro-pot ads address the hypocrisy of legal booze

Don't get me wrong — I like the drink. But since I was old enough to understand such things, in the '80s, I have railed against a legal system in which alcohol and tobacco are perfectly legal drugs for adults and something as soft as marijuana is not.

As a matter of fact, my very first paid writing job was a full-page 1990 op ed in the Kingston Whig-Standard in which I looked at the history of drug legislation as one of socially accepted versus not-accepted drugs. It's a history that often had to do more with racism and industry than with medicine or other sciences.

So I have to admit that I like this bold campaign by The Marijuana Policy Project in Portland, Maine. According to NY Daily News, the organization spent $2,500 on a transit campaign that support's the city's ballot measure to legalize recreational adult cannabis use.

Despite complaints from people who claim the ads will encourage pot smoking by youth, the transit system says they have no choice but to leave them up, because they are genuinely political. “If we’re going to allow one type of political advertising, we have to allow it all,” a spokesperson told the Portland Press Herald. It is also notable that Greater Portland District Transit allows alcohol ads on their buses (but not tobacco), rendering the "won'tsomeonepleasethinkaboutthechildren" argument another double-standard. Medical marijuana use is already legal and regulated in Maine.

But is pot safer than booze? The death toll of alcohol through overdose, liver damage, drunk driving and alcohol-fuelled violence is well documented. Pot's potential harms, besides  are barely understood.

According to the US National Institutes of Health, the problems with alcohol are simple (if sometimes devastating) but well-understood:

Alcohol affects every organ in the drinker's body and can damage a developing fetus. Intoxication can impair brain function and motor skills; heavy use can increase risk of certain cancers, stroke, and liver disease. Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is a diagnosable disease characterized by a strong craving for alcohol, and/or continued use despite harm or personal injury. Alcohol abuse, which can lead to alcoholism, is a pattern of drinking that results in harm to one's health, interpersonal relationships, or ability to work.

The same organization takes a lot longer to explain the harmful effects of marijuana, partly because the research is sparser and less conclusive:

Marijuana use can have a variety of adverse, short- and long-term effects, especially on cardiopulmonary and mental health. 

Marijuana raises heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug. This may be due to increased heart rate as well as the effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in older individuals or in those with cardiac vulnerabilities. 

Marijuana and Driving 

Because it seriously impairs judgment and motor coordination, marijuana also contributes to accidents while driving. A recent analysis of data from several studies found that marijuana use more than doubles a driver’s risk of being in an accident. Further, the combination of marijuana and alcohol is worse than either substance alone with respect to driving impairment. 

Marijuana smoke is an irritant to the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems experienced by tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. One study found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers, mainly because of respiratory illnesses. 

A number of studies have shown an association between chronic marijuana use and mental illness. High doses of marijuana can produce a temporary psychotic reaction (involving hallucinations and paranoia) in some users, and using marijuana can worsen the course of illness in patients with schizophrenia. A series of large prospective studies also showed a link between marijuana use and later development of psychosis. This relationship was influenced by genetic variables as well as the amount of drug used and the age at which it was first taken—those who start young are at  increased risk for later problems. 

Associations have also been found between marijuana use and other mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts among adolescents, and personality disturbances, including a lack of motivation to engage in typically rewarding activities. More research is still needed to confirm and better understand these linkages. 

Marijuana use during pregnancy is associated with increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in babies. Because THC and other compounds in marijuana mimic the body’s own cannabinoid-like chemicals, marijuana use by pregnant mothers may alter the developing endocannabinoid system in the brain of the fetus. Consequences for the child may include problems with attention, memory, and problem solving. 

Finally, marijuana use has been linked in a few recent studies to an increased risk of an aggressive type of testicular cancer in young men, although further research is needed to establish whether there is a direct causal connection.

In my opinion, every drug — whether recreational or medicinal — has the potential to be good, bad or ugly. It's all a matter of how it is used.

You can read the campaign's own comparative argument for legalization at marijuanaissafer.org.

An obituary for the War on Drugs

According to Boing Boing, this ad ran full-page in yesterday's New York Times. It's from the Drug Policy Alliance. Its honourary Board of Directors includes Harry Belafonte, Former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet, Richard Branson and Sting.

Here's the text:

80 Years After the End of Prohibition, Prohibition is Finally Coming to an End 

Voters in Washington and Colorado made history on Election Day when they voted to legally regulate and tax marijuana. Their votes signaled the beginning of the end for the costly and unjust war on drugs. 

Thank you to the citizens of Washington and Colorado. 

The Drug Policy Alliance is especially proud of this milestone, as we worked for years to make this historic day happen. 

We’d also like to thank: President Bill Clinton for acknowledging the drug war’s futility and failure; President Jimmy Carter and Pat Robertson for saying it’s time to legalize marijuana; Governor Christie for calling the drug war a failure and Governor Cuomo for working to end New York’s racially discriminatory marijuana arrest crusade; Congressmen Ron Paul and Barney Frank for introducing the first bill to end federal marijuana prohibition; Presidents Santos (Colombia), Pérez Molina (Guatemala) and Mujica (Uruguay) for breaking the taboo on alternatives to drug prohibition; and, most of all, our many allies around the world for demanding no more drug war. 

We strive for the day when drug policies are no longer motivated by ignorance, fear and prejudice but rather by science, compassion, fiscal prudence and human rights, with education and treatment available for everyone. Help us fight the good fight by making a tax deductible donation.

The DPA is currently hosting a petition to President Obama not to interfere with the state-level legalization.

1980s War on Drugs PSAs do not age well #FdAdFriday

He is pitying the living fuck out of that fool.

Especially when they feature Mr. T and New Edition. (Although I'm not sure Bobby Brown should be giving any lectures about drugs.)



Via Buzzfeed

Nostalgic drug ads? So that happened.

I get what they're trying to do. The parents of today's teens are younger Boomers and older Gen-Xers, many (most?) of whom did not "just say no" back in the day.

So instead of lying that pot will make your kid into a zombie, this one tries to focus on the facts of hard drugs:

This one takes quite a while to get to its point, and I'm not sure the point is all that comprehensible. Purer must be better, right? Just like '70s ditch weed sucks when you compare it to 21st century wheelchair dope?

Seems like this is more of a PSA to let young junkies know how much better they had it than The Stooges.

Meanwhile, this one goes back to the old "lose all credibility among critical thinkers by exaggerating the risks" strategy:

"K2" and "Spice" are street names for synthetic cannabis. Being too effing old, I had to look that up in Wikipedia, where I also read:

No official studies have been conducted on its effects on humans.Though its effects are not well documented, extremely large doses may cause negative effects that are generally not noted in marijuana users, such as increased agitation and vomiting. Professor John W. Huffman who first synthesised many of the cannabinoids used in synthetic cannabis is quoted as saying, "People who use it are idiots. You don't know what it's going to do to you."A user who consumed 3 g of Spice Gold every day for several months showed withdrawal symptoms, similar to those associated with withdrawing from the use of narcotics. Doctors treating the user also noted that his use of the product showed signs associated with addiction. One case has been reported where a user, who had previously suffered from cannabis induced recurrent psychotic episodes, suffered reactivation of their symptoms after using Spice. Psychiatrists treating him have suggested that the lack of an antipsychotic chemical, similar to cannabidiol found in natural cannabis, may make synthetic cannabis more likely to induce psychosis than natural cannabis.

Doesn't sound half bad.

I would also like to point out that Lucasfilm does not take kindly to social marketing campaigns that "borrow" its intellectual property.

Besides which, we middle aged hipsters all know that R2-D2 is more of a tobacco guy:



Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey ads Via Animal NY

Does it really matter?

I read a great article on UPI this morning about the effectiveness of PSAs. It didn't propose anything surprising, to anyone in the business, but it did provide some perspective.

It also took me down memory lane:



Remember that one? I sure do. And so does Robert Thompson, professor of pop culture at Syracuse University: "I've never in my life taken illegal drugs but if I would've seen that 'This is your brain on drugs' one more time, I was ready to go and score some cocaine just to spite the commercial. It was so irritatingly preachy and not effective, either. And of course, that isn't your brain when you take drugs, it doesn't fry like an egg."

And this is the problem. Over-dramatizing an issue fails the cause. Especially with an issue like drugs, for which the approaches have been so out of touch with reality as to beg for ridicule.

Like many students of the late '80s, I had this up in my room:

I still have the poster, and I've considered framing it in my office to remind me how wrong social marketing can be. Whether it uses the tactics of shock, or shaming, humour, or even sexuality, a PSA is only as good as its ability to change behaviours.

The UPI article cites research by the Center for Behavioral Research in Cancer at the Cancer Council Victoria in Australia, published in October's Lancet, which found uneven success in social marketing campaigns worldwide.

On the positive side, they found that campaigns against drunk driving and smoking correlated with a reduction in these behaviours — but noted that legislative and punitive tax measures had worked hand-in-hand in the causation.

However, they found campaigns against other high-risk drinking and drug behaviours were largely ineffective. This echoes the findings of the Kellogg School of Management that campaigns such as the LCBO's "The best night of my life" — intended to scare students away from binging — were abject failures.

Somewhere in the middle were health messages that told people to eat better, exercise more, and get screened for cancer, which were described as "moderately effective".

What does this mean for social marketers? Well for one, advertising alone is never enough. Real social change is the result of the kind of social engineering libertarians hate: sin taxes, bans, and other disincentives.

But they also require changes to systems that make positive behaviours more accessible. There's no point in telling people to have safer sex unless they have easy access to condoms. Promoting breastfeeding requires legal protections and accommodations for nursing mothers. Cancer screening only works when people have universal healthcare.

As well, the study implies that small changes are the easiest ones to sell: "A PSA campaign can be very good at making people do stuff that doesn't require that much of a sacrifice, like going and getting a colonoscopy, or a mammogram or waiting to get to your garbage can to throw away your litter," says Professor Thompson.

But does that mean we need to give up on the big issues?

The article quotes Paul Fishlock, the Australian CD behind this campaign:



"I see some of our work in communication as providing unremitting background noise," he said. "I think if we took our foot off the accelerator a bit, if that noise wasn't out there and continually being refreshed, that the tide wouldn't be going out in quite the way that it is."

What do you think?