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.
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 specific references have breached the Code?
What about general references?
What if it’s relevant to what’s being advertised?
What about charities and drug rehabilitation centres?
What specific references have breached the Code?
The ASA usually takes a strict line on explicit references to drugs. Any such references are likely to be considered irresponsible because they encourage or condone drug use.
The ASA considered that the claims “London loves acid”, “Poppers” and “Blow” in a grocery delivery ad were irresponsible because they would encourage apathy towards dangerous substances by presenting drugs as a subject of humour (Gorillas Technologies UK Ltd 15 February 2023).
The ASA also ruled that an ad for a music single that featured the consumption of illegal drugs, including a bottle of amphetamine tablets and a powder consumed through a rolled up bank note was irresponsible. The song lyrics also referenced being “drugged up”. (Bamby H2O 24 March 2021)
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.
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 was judged to be irresponsible and offensive in breach of the Code (ICA t/a whatsonhighlands.com, 6 August 2014).
What about 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 the ASA did not consider that the ad implied that the rider was impaired through drug use.
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 if it 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, clearly removed from reality and neither glamorised nor condoned the use of intravenous drugs in humans (Channel Four Television Corporation - 16 March 2011).
Alcohol and drugs
Rule 18.8 states Marketing communications must not link alcohol to illicit drugs. The ASA ruled that references to illicit drugs through imagery and phrases (including references to premises used for the production of drugs, to ‘street name’, ‘street value’, ‘gear’ and to the coercion and exploitation involved in the production of illicit drugs)linked alcohol to illegal drugs and therefore breached the Code. (Au Vodka Ltd 23 August 2023)
In 2019 the ASA ruled against ads for an alcoholic drink that contained hemp and CBD, stating that although simple factual statements about that content would not necessarily be considered irresponsible, the inclusion of language associated with drugs: joint, dealer etc, meant that the ad linked alcohol with illicit drugs and therefore breached the Code (The Cornish Rum Company Ltd 16 October 2019)
Targeting
The ASA considered that an ad for a music single that referred to alcohol and controlled substances (and used explicit and derogatory language) should have been appropriately targeted to avoid the risk of children seeing it. The ASA ruled it may have been appropriate to show before very limited content on YouTube; namely, other music videos of that genre in which similar language had been used. (Global Records SRL 18 January 2023)
Cannabis farms
The ASA banned an ad that featured cannabis plants growing under artificial lights and stated “Spider Farmer UK Summar Sale. Spider Farmer UK official website. Providing all kind of kits for indoor growing” on the grounds that it condoned the cultivation of cannabis plants and was therefore irresponsible. SpiderfarmerLED 15 November 2023
CBD
The Code prohibits claims that state or imply that a food can prevent, treat or cure human disease. Only health claims authorised on the Great Britain nutrition and health claims Register (the GB NHC Register) can be made in ads promoting foods or food supplements. (15.1.1, 15.7)
General health claims are acceptable in ads only if accompanied by a specific authorised health claim (15.2). The ASA has previously found ads for food products containing CBD / CBD oils to be in breach of these rules. For more information see Cannabidiol (CBD) containing products, Food: Health and nutrition general and Asav Consultancy Ltd 26 October 2022 Enigmaa Ltd 26 October 2022
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 organisations 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’.