METH

As Linnemann and Wall say in their article, projects like Faces of Meth reaffirm and obscure the boundaries of white privilege. A powerful form of fear-induced name-calling expressed by middle and upper class whites, ‘white trash’ objectifies and stigmatizes whites living in poverty and lacking proper decorum.

Faces of Meth doesn’t represent an objective reality of meth use. They select the most shocking images exaggerate meth’s effects with the implication that all users eventually will appear as the faces in the ads do. Also, as Linnemann and Wall say, it is highly unlikely that the people selected by FOM use meth exclusively, making it a questionable strategy at best to name these images the ‘faces of meth’ or the ‘face’ of any other drug for that matter. Finally, and perhaps most importantly the images are deeply racialized, each featuring what appears to be a white body.


In my opinion, Faces of Meth should refocus their campaign. First of all, not all meth addicts are white. And second, not all meth addicts are in the same condition as the ones pictured on the ads. As said before, Faces of Meth only puts together the worse cases, therefore constructing a false reality. Linnemann and Wall article helped me be aware of the stereotypes within the meth world, and how even if ads are meant to be a help against the use of meth, they can also cause false expectations about the consumers.