Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Generally speaking references to drugs in ads are unlikely to be acceptable. Many of the upheld decisions against ads that have depicted, or implicitly or explicitly referred to, drugs have been taken because the ASA considered that by not condemning drug use marketers were at best encouraging apathy towards and at worst condoning illegal drugs and drug use.
• What types of specific references have breached the Code?
• What about more general references?
• What if it’s relevant to what’s being advertised?
• What about charities and drug rehabilitation centres?
What types of references have breached the Code?
The ASA usually takes a strict line on explicit references to drugs. Showing a rolled up banknote with a white substance on the end, parallel lines of powder and a football player snorting from a white line on a football pitch have all been ruled to breach the Code (VH1, 13 March 2002; Cinnamon Club, 18 July 2001; Channel 5, 11 August 1999).
Also, claims like “Twist and Burn”; "Crack Ice" in conjunction with "NOW BEING SOLD LEGALLY IN PUBS & CLUBS"; “Curled up on the sofa with some grass” and “GET SOME COKE FOR JAMIE'S PARTY” with tick boxes for “1 Gram” and “2 Litres” and "GRASS" with tick boxes for "Mow it" and "Smoke it" have all been ruled against (Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 19 November 2003; Soho Drinks Ltd, 14 August 2002; The Whitbread Beer Company t/a Boddingtons, 8 November 2000; IPC Magazines, July 1999).
Although considered under the BCAP Code, a TV ad for a perfume called ‘Belle D'Opium’ which stated "I am your addiction, I am Belle D'Opium" was ruled to breach the Code because the ASA considered that the female character’s actions simulated drug use (YSL Beaute Ltd t/a Yves Saint Laurent Parfums, 2 February 2011). Had the ad appeared in non-broadcast media, it seems likely that the decision would have been similar under the CAP Code.
More recently, an ad which featured an image of a full hypodermic syringe and needle and stated "... the weekly fix… Inject some fun into your life…" was considered likely to imply recreational and illegal drug use and judged to be irresponsible and offensive in breach of the Code (ICA t/a whatsonhighlands.com, 6 August 2014).
What about very general references?
More general references to ‘addiction’ and ‘drugs’ might be acceptable, provided that the ad does not go as far as reinforcing an interpretation which might condone illegal drugs and drug use.
For example, the claim “THE FIRST DRUG ON TWO WHEELS" in the context of an ad for a motorcycle was ruled to be acceptable because the ASA judged that the likely audience (motorcycle enthusiasts) would relate to the assertion that riding a motorcycle was addictive and they did not consider that the ad implied that the rider was impaired through drug use (KTM-Sportmotorcycle UK Ltd - 1 August 2007).
Also, a press ad that stated "Need drugs to get you through Christmas?... Caffeine. Sugar. Chocolate. All Class 'A', All Legal, No Prescription Needed" was found to be acceptable; on the basis that it was clear that the references were light-hearted rather than a glorification of illegal or destructive drug use (Island Bear Confectionary, 18 February 2015).
What if it’s relevant to what’s being advertised?
Even if it is relevant to the product being advertised, advertisers should be wary that references or allusions to drug use are often in danger of being judged to be socially irresponsible, guilty of condoning illegal activities and offensive.
However, the ASA has sometimes been more lenient on the use of images of drugs in the context of ads for TV programmes, where drug related imagery has been considered unlikely to condone illegal drug use as it merely reflects the content of the programme. For instance, an ad which showed a credit card with white powder along the edge was ruled to be acceptable as it reflected the content of a TV programme rather than glamorising drug use (Channel 4 Television Corporation, 17 January 2007). Much will depend on the context and execution so advertisers are best advised to avoid particularly explicit references to drugs as far as possible.
Although not directly related to the programme’s content per se, an ad for a comedy TV show which stated "TRAMADOL NIGHTS" and featured images of felt animals injecting each other with hypodermic needles was judged to be on the right side of the line because the ASA considered that the images were stylised and clearly removed from reality and that they neither glamorised nor condoned the use of intravenous drugs in humans (Channel Four Television Corporation - 16 March 2011).
What about charities and drug rehabilitation centres?
Marketers of drug rehabilitation centres, abuse clinics and the like may refer to drugs in the context of encouraging users to give up drugs.
It may also be acceptable for charities and similar to show and refer to drugs in the context of providing advice on their safe use, provided that the ads are very carefully and appropriately targeted, through both content and placement, at those who already take drugs to avoid any risk that they could result in people taking drugs when they may not have otherwise.
See also ‘Social Responsibility’ and ‘Legality’.
Updated 16/11/2015