In a college setting, drugs are a part of everyday life. For many students, this is the first time that they can “experiment” with substances of abuse, without the fear of parental repercussions, or societal judgment. This facet of college life is very well understood, and taken full advantage of by some. Amphetamine, prescribed as Adderall or Vyvanse, is a socially acceptable “study drug,” used without hesitation for its ability to promote energy and focus. Regardless of the many health risks associated with prolonged amphetamine use and its high addiction potential, even the smartest students turn to the drug just to gain an academic edge. The related drug, methamphetamine, induces the same effects as amphetamine, but on a colossal scale, culminating in a powerful, euphoric rush. This drug, however, is understood to be a hazard and socially unacceptable. This begs the question, why is meth, a substance akin to amphetamine, not abused by college students? The answer is not simple, however, it is in part due to the influential educational campaigns surrounding the risks of methamphetamine use.
The Meth Project is a methamphetamine use prevention program, whose “…core message, Not Even Once®, speaks directly to the highly addictive nature of Meth.” The goal of The Meth Project is to educate young adults about the inherent dangers of meth use, in order to arm them with the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions about the substance. The Montana Meth Project started off the campaign, producing television spots and other public service announcements, warning young adults about the potential adverse affects of meth use. This television ad, entitled Shadow, was part of the Montana campaign.
I believe that the appeals to pathos found in the television spot contribute to a majority of its efficacy, especially due to the intensity of the scene. The advertisement is extremely effective: so much so, that it is haunting; the slogan, Not Even Once®, lingers on the mind, even long after the ad is over. Though the spot lasts a mere 31 seconds, it feels like minutes. The brilliance lies in the advertisement’s ability to take advantage of the unexpected. Everything that occurs in the scene is completely unexpected: the son’s delusional thinking and abnormal behavior, his subsequent violence, and the resulting paranoia-induced rampage. This promotes a chilling tone and jarring atmosphere, evoking feelings of anxiety and discomfort, thereby leaving the audience perturbed (to say the least). The latter exemplifies one of the many, successful pathetic appeals employed by the ad. Other appeals to pathos include the intense emotions portrayed by the actors in the scene. Their actions and reactions create an emotionally tremulous atmosphere, encouraging the audience’s sympathy. The climax of the scene promotes the highest level of pathetic appeal, when the boy chases after his mother with the bat, screaming, “Who are you?!…I’ll kill you!” In some audience members, fear may even be evoked, which further polarizes the negative feelings surrounding the scene. Additionally, the age and relative socioeconomic status of the boy and his mother allow the audience to relate, promoting even more sympathy. These emotional appeals contribute to the audience’s conclusion that methamphetamine use, even once, is a very negative decision, with very severe consequences.
Although appeals to pathos are the most intense, without appeals to ethos, the ad would lend no credibility. The advertisement is clearly against methamphetamine use, and this is bolstered via the association with The Montana Meth Project. Another ethical appeal arises from the production value of the TV spot. The quality of the advertisement promotes believability, and therefore, credibility. The inclusion of a website address furthers the ad’s credibility, as a source for more information provides access for any audience query. If any of the advertisement’s claims or the purpose of The Montana Meth Project comes into question, access to more information about the subject is clearly provided. Based on the nature of the advertisement and its production, it maintains strong credibility.
The ad employs logical appeal, convincing the audience that use of methamphetamine can lead to scenes of delusional violence. This allows the audience to the draw the conclusion that meth use should be avoided. The main source of this logical appeal is derived from the narrator. When juxtaposed to the chaotic scene, the narrator’s blasé statement promotes the former conclusion: “This isn’t normal; but on Meth, it is.” The matter-of-fact tone, combined with the association of this behavior with meth use, promotes the logical conclusion that using meth is inherently wrong.
Combining the appeals of pathos, ethos, and logos, we can get a sense of the effectiveness of the advertisement as a whole. Without any one of the appeals, the young adults watching this ad would not be fazed by its message. The powerfulness of the advertisement’s message is promoted by the specific alteration of the audience’s emotions, beliefs, and logic. Herein lies an answer to the prior question concerning our negative perception of meth use, but blatant acceptance of amphetamine use: the educational campaigns regarding the dangers of meth use are very efficacious, whereas, the dangers of amphetamine use are not even publicized. Drugs promote a real danger to our health and society, depending on their action and addictive potential. Shocking, realistic advertisements, like those produced by The Meth Project, are very effective at imparting the message of a drug’s potential harms, providing young adults the knowledge necessary to avoid drug use, if ever the situation arises. Hopefully in the future, we as a society will reevaluate what drugs are deemed acceptable, aided in part by jarring ad campaigns. Clearly, there is room for improvement, as drugs like alcohol and Adderall continue to run rampant, only promoted by society’s indifference, and lack of serious intervention.
