Top Political Stories of 2019: #4 – Meth. Have you heard about it?
“Meth. We’re On it.”
The tagline didn’t just grab attention, but exploded across social media like a white-hot comet the instant the media campaign was announced from the Department of Social Services with the full endorsement of Governor Kristi Noem.
You wouldn’t know it from the way people have carried on, but the Governor has actually been talking about the dangers of methamphetamines for some time.
In 2018, early on in her Gubernatorial campaign, the then candidate Kristi Noem made some promises regarding meth education and prevention programs:
SAFER COMMUNITIES, STRONGER FAMILIES
PREVENT WHEN POSSIBLE
Close the gateways. Whether the gateway drug is marijuana or a legal prescription painkiller, the slope toward addiction can often be a slippery one. As governor, I will oppose all attempts to legalize marijuana. At the same time, I will work with medical professionals and the state legislature to enact reasonable limits on opioid prescriptions and support provider education and training.
Implement research-based meth prevention programs. Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death among Americans under age 50. In South Dakota, drug use, including methamphetamine use, is rising dramatically. In fact, drug arrests hit their highest point in a decade last year. We must change course. My administration will work to expand evidence-based education and prevention programs. Every South Dakotan should know and understand the signs of addiction as well as the dangers of meth use to aid in early intervention.
The expansion of meth education and prevention programs was foundational to the Governor’s campaign for office, and the Governor had made efforts on it earlier this year, such as when she urged HHS Secretary Azar to Address Meth Epidemic, and entered into a contract with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to expand treatment options. The Governor added specific troopers in the Highway patrol to address meth interdiction, and hosted 10 tribal leaders for a luncheon at the Governor’s Residence to discuss ways we can work together to educate people on the dangers of meth and root out meth.
Literally, Kristi’s first weekly column as Governor promised to “work to expand prevention and treatment programs” and to “do more to educate our young people about the effects of meth and give them strategies to avoid it.” She also noted that the state would “help every South Dakotan learn to identify the early signs of meth use to increase early referrals to treatment.
Since nearly day one of her campaign, in no uncertain terms Governor Kristi Noem has been promising to expand education and prevention of meth.
So, what happened? She actually went and did something that did more than the ho-hum, run of the mill “don’t do drugs” education effort that has been going on for time immemorial. The Governor approved an education program that grabbed people’s attention.
And not just a little. It got the attention of not just South Dakota, but a million armchair quarterbacks across social media. It was everywhere.
As I wrote after the campaign came out, like it or not, the “Meth – We’re on it” ad campaign has had a societal impact, and raised it from a ho-hum issue to what newspaper ad people call “Top of Mind Awareness.” It’s reached the point where people are familiar enough with the tagline to parody it – and have others know what the reference is.
Looking back across the year, it seems as if people who weren’t paying attention point to the meth campaign and try to claim it was bad or it wasn’t successful in some manner. But they’d be wrong.
The Governor promised an expansion of education programs on meth. And it looks like she’s delivering.
And unlike some state-led drug education campaigns in the past, I think she has all our attention.
But, is it working? Less than 100 phone calls is not a lot.
https://www.sdstandardnow.com/home/when-it-comes-to-meth-treatment-attorney-jay-davis-says-south-dakotas-claim-that-were-on-it-is-a-gross-exaggeration
“exploded across social media like a white-hot comet”
Hotter than a two dollar pistol.
Brilliant campaign.
Those who don’t like it, I estimate, are embarrassed about being on meth or one of its cousins?
Word on then street is that a counter campaign is being organized by the dentists union, headquartered in Golden Valley, Arizona.
“Save the meth, do more coke.”
da da, CHING!
At least she took a shot, but it was clearly an airball. Anyone that doesn’t see that, is looking through partisan lenses.
I’m an Independent with a Masters degree (MS, not MBA) from a very good school and 20 years experience in business (some of which was marketing).
This campaign was an absolute home run .. some campaigns are designed to direct sell, others are designed to build awareness.
Meth is a HUGE issue in South Dakota.
I call it the magical work ethic methacorn.
No meth means a level playing field at work for people who don’t use performance enhancing drugs .. and like having whiter teeth.
The thing about this that bothers me is that there’s no change to how we treat drug addicts. We’re still locking them up at record rates. Who’s going to admit they have a problem when there’s a chance they’ll go to jail and make everything worse? Kristi wants people to think she’s on it but awareness doesn’t mean spit if no one takes action for fear of persecution. Ravnsborg isn’t helping when he wants to repeal presumptive probation. The war on drugs is over, drugs won. Now let’s re-think this problem beyond a risque marketing campaign.
But what does a bumper sticker slogan and a few cute ads accomplish? What was the purpose of the advertising campaign? Saying “we’re on it” and actually doing anything about it are two different things.
Are we supposed to support funding for treatment of addiction? Really? Is the governor going to ask taxpayers to pick up the tab for self-inflicted medical problems? How many of us want to pay for that? There’s a point at which people go back to saying “it’s not my problem; you did this to yourself, pay for your own treatment.”
An ad campaign which tells us that meth addiction is everybody’s problem eventually slams into a reality check: it’s NOT everybody’s problem.
This ad, just like “dont jerk and drive” adheres to the idea that no publicity is bad publicity, and as someone in advertising, I will tell you that statement is plain false. The actual cost (over a million dollars) as well as the reputation ding on the state and it’s head politician certainly weigh on the opposite side of people knowing meth use is a problem.
The failure of the dont jerk and drive campaign to solicit even a single positive recall on this site just a few years after it’s “viral moment” goes to pretty decisively show that these dollars (and their reputation) could be better spent elsewhere.
This ad campaign is a bold and effective campaign to raise the discussion about meth from the shadows to the front-line conversation in our homes, workplaces and among social circles (it came up again in my breakfast group this morning).
Meth is not like opioids which requires a campaign different than others.
1) Opioid addiction doesn’t happen overnight. In most cases, it starts with licit, prescribed usage to alleviate pain. Meth addiction mostly occurs with just one ingestion.
2) Opioid addicts are more likely (not all the time) to have a traditional support structure for an intervention to occur and the means/access to treatment. Meth users are too often from a subculture able to operate more under the radar of family and employers (friends are often users which again can be different from opioid addiction).
3) Unless we are part of the subculture, we are likely to know opioid addicts and less likely to know meth addicts. This reality means we are more likely to be engaged in the opioid prevention vs. meth prevention. However, because meth addiction occurs so fast (and a re-wiring of the brain occurs faster), it is critical all of us are more aware of the meth problem (similar to how understanding of safe environments training has made us all better at seeing signs of children in need of some form of protection.
4) While the money spent is a big number, because the lifetime societal and direct financial lifetime costs of just one meth addict is so high, this campaign doesn’t have be a huge success to be cost effective. Prevention of a dozen addictions might pay for the ad campaign. If it stops 100 ingestions, it is the proverbial home run.
5) While most of the commentators (here or in the coffee shop) appear (based on depth of the comments) to be neither advertising experts or big users of advertising and thus not advertising experts, even if it wasn’t “the best campaign,” wouldn’t we all be better off as citizens to embrace the intent and act as if it was better than sliced bread? Isn’t the problem of meth bigger and more important than being armchair quarterbacks scoring points against the Governor?
6) There is a maxim in business (a well-executed bad plan is more effective than a poorly executed great plan). Since the intent of the plan was to raise awareness and engage the greater population in the fight against meth, spending all our efforts to criticize is in effect working against the effort to reduce meth usage.
Ahhh Troy, I see you have abandoned your logic that the don’t jerk and drive campaign proves this one is viable.
Is this because not a SINGLE person on this site could even recall the point of that campaign (including yourself) or was there another reason?
The idea that the government should just throw money at a problem because “a bad plan is better than no plan” or whatever garbage you were spewing is quite possibly the least conservative thing I have read on this blog!
Troy – this kind of common sense reminds me of my Grandma (daughter of Norwegian immigrants, born and raised in the Northern Black Hills). Thank you!
John
I respectfully disagree with you Troy. Meth use usually starts out with a stroke of a pen. Just look at all the children K-12 that are on it. Look at all the Indian kids that are dumbed down with perscription drugs. Many of these children are contracted out by the state via foster care and group homes. Instead of dealing with meth, it might be better dealing with the source of the problem rather than the result. It takes a family, neighborhood, churches and community to deal with drug addiction not some fancy add campaign. I think government has done enough harm on the war on drugs. Get back to the basics. Children need to be involved solving the drug problem.
Tara: Exactly the thrust of The Governors strategy. So why are you opposed?
Anonymous: Can you read? You can’t even properly describe what I said. No wonder you can’t grasp the point of the campaign. Sign your name and I will find you somewhere you to take a remedial reading class. Or get you meth treatment.
LOL……..geeze Troy, get on it…….how many more years before you figure it out that the war on drugs has been a complete failure. Pat, did you take some of my educational videos down? I really posted some good stuff. I don’t know Troy, maybe I am wrong, but you sound like a political operative.
Tara – I don’t see your position as completely orthogonal to Troy’s. These problems – and their solutions – are nonlinear.
When we can speak the truth about it, we can solve the problem more easily.
“We” are on it is a true statement about meth, which has a long and problematical history in SD (my mom grew up here, and I was exposed to a lot of honesty regarding the nature of the problem and how it related to several family tragedies).
So John, maybe we should be asking….why are you on it, or what prompted you to want to be on it? I am very curious to find out why people choose to be on it.
“we” – the quotes imply that I personally am not, but that I am surrounded by people who are on it. Mostly, it is used to create competitive advantage at the work place, incentivizing those not on it to get on it or fall behind (in the shorter term).
Most definitely am not on it. Never even tried, but not for lack of opportunities.
I think the college kids are using it to focus and get a head. These topics are yet to be discussed. I also saw it happening in the schools middle and high schools while I was a substitute teacher.
Troy, you ignore the best empirical data point we have, one that you yourself (incorrectly) cited as proof that this campaign would work.
What say you about the dont jerk and drive campaign’s utter failure?
Ad hominem attacks suit you, but they are not persuasive, you know my reading level is just fine.
Not evident you read well since you don’t articulate coherent thought.
Your simplistic logic fallacy (Adhominem attack) of asserting relevance of my misremembering that the jerk and drive was about slippery roads does not change the reality people Law enforcement believes it had a positive impact on awareness and safety.
But, your cowardice to attack me while never exposing your name says it all.
Ahhhhh but it was YOU who originally asserted relavence between the campaigns. The fact that you misremembered the point of the campaign means that the campaign (which you cited as empirical and relavent) was an absymal failure, it did not effectively raise awareness or change attitudes about slippery roads. It actually had people misquoting it and discussing roadkill!?
Thats not an ad hominem attack, (which would be one that attacks you for something personal and unrelated to the argument) an example of an ad hominem attack would be claiming that one’s has an poor reading comprehension level whilst discussing advertising policy outcomes.
Take a logic class there pal.
The fact that I can school you 3 ways to Sunday on the issues without you being able to bring my personal life into it must just grate you, why else would you be so obsessed with my name?
But to answer your question, you don’t argue my points. You focus on criticizing me personally. Further, you make statements like the campaign was a big failure but offer no rationale except you say so (logic fallacy appeal to stone). Without your name how can I judge if you have any credentials to be considered. Or, as it appears, you dislike me and the Governor more than you want to meth use to decline, which makes you a petty, pitiful little man
School me with your name. Big talker. Coward.
Why do I need “credentials” if my argument, based on YOUR examples, is logically sound. Thats actually called “appeal to authority” yet another logical fallacy on your end.
My point is that the dont jerk and drive campaign is an apt comparison. You have also asserted that in the past on this site in regards to this issue, so we can move forward with that premise.
Not a single person on this page had a positive recall of that empricially similar campaign, you yourself actually misattributed it to something about animals, proving that a poorly done “awareness” campaign can not only not work, but can also backfire by misinforming. It seems pretty logically sound that if the example you cited as the best emprical data point is proven to be a failure, the comparison will also fail.
Despite all the name calling (coward? really?) on your end I have not once in this discussion attacked you, or the governor personally because frankly, nothing about your personal life has anything to do with the fact that you are proven wrong by your own words here.
When you want to discuss the relationship of this ad campaign to others like it, and their effectiveness, come back to this thread. Everything else is pretty off topic and just making you look sillier with every post.
Your arguments are replete with logic fallacies. By definition, they are unsound and nonsense.
Wowza, haven’t seen someone beaten so soundly in an argument that they resorted to, “your arguments are so bad I won’t even answer them” in a long time, touche!
This whole thread is ridiculous. Just like the whole “meth we’re on it” campaign.
Whoop-Dee-Doo, it raised awareness. What color ribbon do we wear on our lapels to show how deeply we care about meth addiction?
Troy hit the nail on the head when he said meth addiction is part of a subculture, which is perhaps a polite way to say that meth addicts are losers, and they were losers before they became addicted.
How many millions of dollars will it take to convince the rest of us that we should care? Or maybe just get us to pin a loop of ribbon on ourselves and pretend we care? We can all pretend we care.
What color ribbon?
Maybe the most disturbing thing about meth is that it makes people stop caring.
I agree. It is destroying more and more young lives, lives we will support in our prisons, welfare, and health costs for decades. And they are just dismissed as losers not worthy of the faintest concern.
That is the attitude Noem has taken on to change by appealing to those of us outside the subculture to get on the team. And, as we can say, some will never care but we can’t let their apathy infect us. We are called to care for all Gods children.
Devine fecundity notwithstanding, I’m glad there is focus on stopping meth while allowing cannabis. Cannabis was bastardized to cross sell other nasty chemicals, and we need to work together to roll that back.
That said, through the legalization of cannabis, I would rather not create a monopoly for big pharma, who created meth in the first place.
There is a very reverse-engineerable (but not necessarily “good”) reason why this problem is so pervasive.