Cannabis, cannabinoid medicines and advertising – where should the line be drawn?

Poll: Does our advert "trivialise" and "promote" drug use?
Yes (2)
No (2)
Badges: 14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
The University of Reading wants to hear the forum’s views – about cannabis, cannabinoid medicines and where to draw the line between provocative and responsible advertising.

Our campaign "Are You Ready?" launched in the last few weeks and focuses on some of the world-class research we do. We had planned to use this image:


to highlight groundbreaking work at Reading to create a new treatment that dramatically reduces and even stops epileptic seizures in children.

Our team of scientists identified and extracted a single, non-psychoactive component from cannabis that had been largely ignored previously. The cannabinoid medicine, Epidiolex, they helped create is now having very exciting results in clinical trials in the United States and has now started tests in the UK. It has the long-term potential to transform the lives of millions of sufferers around the world, including 500,000 people in the UK alone.

However, the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), which sets the rules for advertisers, informed us this month that promoting this research using the image and headline breaches its UK Advertising Codes.

The Committee of Advertising Practice's view

The UK Advertising Codes lay down rules for advertisers, agencies and media owners to follow.

They include general rules that state advertising must be responsible, must not mislead, or offend and specific rules that cover advertising to children and ads for specific sectors like alcohol, gambling, motoring, health and financial products.

The key passages of the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing include stipulating:

1.1 Marketing communications should be legal, decent, honest and truthful.

1.3 Marketing communications must be prepared with a sense of responsibility to consumers and to society.

1.10 Marketers have primary responsibility for ensuring that their marketing communications are legal. Marketing communications should comply with the law and should not incite anyone to break it.

And specifically on the mention of drugs, Section 21.6 is: Marketing communications for rolling papers or filters must not condone or encourage the use of illegal drugs. Except in exceptional circumstances, for example, in the context of an anti-drug message, any reference to illegal drugs will be regarded as condoning their use.

The University wrote to the Committee for Advertising Practice for clarity on the Code and its Copy Advice Team wrote to the University on Thursday 11th June. The crux of the response was:

“We think that in the context of an ad that references the use an illegal drug (albeit in the context of research for medicine), the headline “Are you ready? For drugs that work” alongside the large and familiar image of a cannabis plant, may be seen to trivialise the use of drugs and subsequently may be understood to promote its use. We think that if the ASA were to receive complaints about the ad they would be likely to investigate and that, based on ad as it currently appears, may ‘Uphold’ those complaints. We would therefore recommend against the use of the image and the title in this context...”

It told us our advert "may be seen to trivialise the use of drugs and subsequently may be understood to promote its use". And it told us the Advertising Standards Authority may uphold any complaints it receives from the public, meaning the advert could potentially be banned.

We are proud of our scientists’ work. We credit the public with the intelligence to tell the difference between cannabinoid medicines and illegal drug use. We have a zero-tolerance approach to drugs at the University. And we have put forward strong arguments against this to the CAP.

Our view
There is nothing "trivial" about millions of people across the world suffering from epilepsy treatments that have serious and distressing side effects.

So our argument against the Committee of Advertising Practice’s view was threefold:

First, we credit the public with the intelligence to distinguish between illegal soft drug use and creating new cannabinoid medicines to treat epilepsy.

The medicine has been developed after a team of our scientists identified and extracted a single chemical, non-psychoactive component from the cannabis plant – formulating it as a strawberry flavoured solution, in a sesame oil mix.

In other words, it does not create a high and is from a completely different part of the plant than the Class B drug in dried or resin form.

This research has already had worldwide coverage – being fully peer-reviewed by scientific community; has been presented and debated across the world; and has had global media exposure – and concerns about being seen to promote the use of cannabis has never been raised.

Second, universities exist to promote and provoke debate – that's why our advert has a deliberately strong visual image and headline. It is a clear play on words illustrating that illegal cannabis use is harmful; that current epilepsy treatments leave many sufferers with distressing side-effects; and that the use of the non-psychotic compounds in the cannabis plant can now be extracted to treat the condition.

It is hard to believe that the advert could be seen as condoning drug use.

Third, we take our responsibilities as an advertiser and educational institution very seriously. The advert has a clear disclaimer that the University has a zero tolerance approach to drug abuse and links to anti-drugs information on the Talk to Frank campaign.

We are in the extraordinary position of one of the leading research-intensive universities in the UK being advised and potentially prevented from promoting genuinely top-class work as it sees fit.

Universities exist to promote and provoke debate - that's why our proposed advert is deliberately strong. One has to question where the line should be drawn when a normally pretty staid publication like National Geographic puts a cannabis plant on its June front page to promote its “Science of Marijuana” cover story.

However, as a responsible institution, we must operate within the rules for advertisers – so while we have run the poster on our own campus, we do not plan to use it elsewhere for now.

But what do you think? Have we got this right?

Does this advert “trivialise” drug use? Should advertisers be able to discuss the use of cannabinoid medicines – and if so how? Where should universities draw the line in promoting their own research? And do universities have wider responsibilities to young people in how they market themselves?

The Epilepsy Society has much more information about the condition. For broader advice and information on drugs go to the Talk to Frank website.

We welcome your thoughts and comments so please join the debate in the forum.

Charles Heymann
Head of News & Content
University of Reading
Badges: 3
Report 5 years ago
I think the focus could be more on the drug itself rather than the compound derived from cannabis - the large cannabis leaf along with the fact that the text doesn't blankly state "don't take drugs" could be (and evidentially has already been) seen as promoting its use.

Advertisers should be allowed to discuss the use of cannabinoid medicines, but as I mentioned before, with more emphasis on the effects/users of the medicines than their cannabis elements.
Badges: 15
Report 5 years ago
To be fair most people don't walk up to adverts to read them fully.

From a distance, someone walking by would see "Are you ready? For drugs that work" and the cannabis plant, and determine the meaning of the poster from that. Now from that alone it can easily be misinterepreted as being a pro-cannabis activist movement rather than a medical campaign or research show off (and indeed this is how I saw it first before I read the small print).

I would leave the cannabis picture in there for impact, but would change the heading to something that mentions the new medicine and preferably avoids the word "drug".
Badges: 11
Report 5 years ago
The cannabis leaf is takes up too much of the advert, the leaf itself these days is symbolic, easily recognizable, it's basically a logo you see plastered on all sorts of bits of tat like lighters and grinders etc that have negative connotations.

That's probably what people are going to associate the image with, not 'world class medical research', especially as the test tube that the leaf stem is sticking out of is not immediately apparent.
Badges: 7
Report 5 years ago
Absolutely you should be able to discuss the use of cannabinoid medicines; researchers shouldn't feel obligated to downplay breakthroughs just because they involve cannabis. I see where people are coming from with regards to the leaf, but on the other hand it IS an integral part of the research's outcome. Maybe "medication" or a similar word instead of "drugs"?

Although no, I don't personally feel that your poster is promoting or trivializing drug use.
Badges: 19
Report 5 years ago
(Original post by amyyy24)
The cannabis leaf is takes up too much of the advert, the leaf itself these days is symbolic, easily recognizable, it's basically a logo you see plastered on all sorts of bits of tat like lighters and grinders etc that have negative connotations.

That's probably what people are going to associate the image with, not 'world class medical research', especially as the test tube that the leaf stem is sticking out of is not immediately apparent.
Didn't even see the test tube - only saw it after I read this and then checked it!

Tbh I don't see why you have to make such a big deal of the cannabis thing? Okay you're advertising a new drug/potential drug, why not focus on the benefits of that rather than where it came from? You wouldn't see a poster with a massive willow tree if someone was advertising aspirin - you'd see an individual holding their head in pain or something... It seems you've drawn attention to the cannabis nature of the drug because you like the controversy, so why are you surprised that the controversy has been picked up!?

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
new posts
to top
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.


What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (126)
Uncertainty around my education (378)
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (283)
Lack of purpose or motivation (359)
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (119)
Impact of lockdown on physical health (155)
Loneliness (218)
Financial worries (94)
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (106)
Exposure to negative news/social media (120)
Lack of real life entertainment (135)
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (224)
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (241)

Watched Threads

View All