In the 1990s Congress appropriated money for a major ad buy to be be made jointly by DEA and the Office of Nat'l Drug Control Policy.* Among other things, they purchased a lot of broadcast ad placements well in advance.* The industry was glad to sell a big block of advertising at once.* However, a few years later, when the economy and demand for advertising had picked up, broadcasters looked to buy back the time.

ONDCP covertly offered a deal -- swaps of ad time for undisclosed changes to scripts of TV shows.* This, of course, is payola, and is specifically illegal.* However, it went on at quite a few TV shows before it was discovered.* Basically it involved negative portrayal of drugs of various sorts, and was quite out of character for many shows, but money talked, and in this case it talked under the table.

I wouldn't expect that to happen again, but the question remains as to whether there's still pressure of some sort, maybe simply by network standards & practices, to self-censor what would be seen as politically incorrect statements about, or portrayals of, drug use.* The point has been raised in The Fuselage and in Usenet group alt.tv.lost (where I do most of my posting about Lost) that the heroin found on the scene in Lost could be used therapeutically, inasmuch as heroin (originally Bayer's TM for diacetyl morphine, a.k.a. diamorphine) has a long history of safe use against cough and pain, and would also be expected to be effective against diarrhea.* But in the USA, where the primary audience for Lost is, could TV fiction now portray constructive use of heroin?

"Shirt"