Does Anti-Drug Education Do More Harm Than Good?

Let's say there is a kid named Steve. Steve got the standard (at least as far as I know of standard) anti-drug education that all kids get in elementary and high school. Most of the focus in these programs is on weed. Now Steve is 17 and is offered a bong rip at a party. He tries it and likes it. Now Steve is thinking " hey, they were wrong about that whole devil's lettuce thing. I didn't turn into a drooling addict. I wonder what else they were wrong about."

Now at the next party Steve tries some pills. Again he thinks "that was pretty good, they were wrong again." He goes to another party and tries cocaine. So on and so forth until Steve is full blown addict.

If these anti-drug programs were a little more honest about the immediate and side effects about certain drugs, rather than pushing the same "Drugs are bad, mmmkay" message,that certainly does not work and has never worked, would younger people be more responsible and slightly more wary about experimenting than they would with the current programs?

My vague impression is that most research doesn't make them look all that good although I don't know much about how well-proven those conclusions are. Does anyone else remember a news story from a year or two ago showing that DARE students actually seemed to be more likely to use drugs?

In the UK they've been trying the Frank project the last few years, it seems to emphasise honest appraisal of drugs rather than hysterical "drugs are bad mmmkay"isms.
http://www.talktofrank.com/

I think many people are likely to try many things regardless of what they hear in their education IF a peer recommends it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

Does anyone else remember a news story from a year or two ago showing that DARE students actually seemed to be more likely to use drugs?

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Despite its huge popularity, and hundreds of millions in tax revenue and private contributions, no evidence exists that D.A.R.E. keeps kids off drugs. A large, developing body of studies documenting this conclusion is referenced in the accompanying list of references and other resources. The bottom line is that at best, in the words of the Justice Department-sponsored study by the Research Triangle Institute, D.A.R.E. has a "limited to esentially nonexistent effect on drug use."

The U.S. General Accounting Office reported, "There is little evidence so far that [D.A.R.E. and other "resistance training" programs] have reduced the use of drugs by adolescents" (U.S. GAO/GGD-93-82, "Confronting the Drug Problem," page 25).

D.A.R.E.'s official response to this growing body of research is disdain for science. "Scientists tell you that bumblebees can't fly, but we know better," declared D.A.R.E. Executive Director Glenn Levant upon release of the government-sponsored report that D.A.R.E. doesn't work (USA Today, October 11, 1994). The local D.A.R.E. officers we talked to also claim that the anecdotal evidence is convincing that D.A.R.E. is working extremely well, citing the warm reception they have received by schools and parents. "Besides," they often add, "even if we are reaching only one kid, it's worth all the effort."

(It is not clear why their standard of success is so low. We would hardly declare a math curriculum successful if only one kid learned to add.)

In an editorial October 15, 1993, The Chapel Hill (North Carolina) Herald observed, "If D.A.R.E. isn't doing the job it's supposed to, we owe it to fifth- and sixth-graders to find out why."

---

Honesty is best. Looking at the actual studies that were available to me in my HS library of all places, it kept me from ever trying anything harder than Weed, Hash, Acid and Shrooms. Though I was given Speed once and I think Crystal Meth once. I am all for honesty in education. I was never a heavy user though, so maybe if I used more regularly I would have made the mistake of getting hooked on one of the more addictive drugs. On the other hand, alcohol never took a hold on me, so I think not.

I actually held off of even acid until I started having to take urine tests. It was a relatively safe, cheap drug that would not show on the test. but I was hesitant to try it based on what I read. Having used it for several years recreationally I still consider it much stronger and more dangerous than weed, hash or shrooms.

All this is to say, I do not think the "Drugs are bad, mmmkay" message really works well. But then I believe in legalizing drugs so what do I know.

I didn't know anything about drugs at all until drug education in grade school and now look at me.

Plus DARE is less about educating kids and more about turning them into little narcs to call the cops on mommy and daddy.

Also, I love that they called it DARE. It's like the cops were mocking it from the get go. Want to keep kids off drugs. Go ahead, we DARE you. We DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU.

I remember drug education starting for me when I was in 3rd grade, maybe. We knew drugs and alcohol were bad, not to take things strangers or even a friend offered you, and that drugs could come in pills or be smoked or injected, but were different from the drugs your doctor gave you. And that was about it until high school. Just...drugs are bad.

I'm lucky that my personal drug education was supplemented by my parents, who both did a fair bit of pot smoking and drinking in their younger years. I learned that these things are bad for you but they aren't instant death, they don't make you a bad person, and it's probably not morally wrong (depending on your morals) to do these things in moderation. I had peers who were sneaking alcohol to school, smoking pot, a few who moved on to heavier stuff (around here it's meth) all before graduating high school. I didn't get drunk for the first time until I was 19-with my dad, and I didn't smoke pot until I was 24.

So who wins? :smug:

Kids sometimes don't see the logical end to their actions, but I do think they have a better capacity for reasoning and understanding than we grant them. I'm not saying hand your first grader a joint and let them figure it out, but I think sitting down with your twelve year old and explaining what pot is, what it does, and why you'd rather he didn't partake in it right now is a much more effective approach.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

Kids sometimes don't see the logical end to their actions, but I do think they have a better capacity for reasoning and understanding than we grant them. I'm not saying hand your first grader a joint and let them figure it out, but I think sitting down with your twelve year old and explaining what pot is, what it does, and why you'd rather he didn't partake in it right now is a much more effective approach.

---

I agree that this seems a more effective approach. But then again I'm also an advocate for full and open sex ed, too. There are too damned many people who seem to think you have to scare kids to get them to do anything and if you teach them anything real, they'll be running out to try it that evening.


(A base lie. I never, ever tried to make a thermite reaction run on my own. I just collected the requirements.)

I'm all for full and open sex ed, too. My kids aren't going to grow up calling their bits 'wee wees' or anything, damnit. They're going to know what everything is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RabbitMage

So who wins? :smug:

---

The ones who spent their teen years drunk and fucking like monkeys dosed with spanish fly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Exy

The ones who spent their teen years drunk and fucking like monkeys dosed with spanish fly.

---

Well I hope it was good. I see a good deal of those former classmates on Facebook and Myspace now. Typically unmarried, typically raising at least one kid, and typically working a shitty job.

Where's that :smug: with the extra eyebrows?

I think a lot of the problem with the DARE program in specific is that they lumped alcohol and cigarettes in with their list of things not to partake of. IIRC, it isn't a case of "Alcohol should only be consumed in a moderate and responsible manner by adults who are twenty-one years or older," it was more like "ALCOHOL IS A DRUG!!! DON'T DO IT!!!" How well does that work when a kid goes home to a case of beer in the fridge?

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Back in the 1980s I had my very own "Just Say No!" poster from Nancy Reagan's campaign. We used to smoke dope, look at it, and laugh.

My own anti-drug education in elementary school circa 1970 (probably about the peak time when "the Establishment" was terrified of "hippies") was memorably over the top. In those days I was a very obedient little girl, so I bought the whole "drugs are BAD, mmkay?" schtick.

Although it was more like "DRUGS WILL KILL YOU IF YOU ARE WITHIN SEVEN STATES OF A TINY AMOUNT OF DRUGS THAT SOMEONE IS THINKING OF INGESTING AND YOU WILL HAVE OPEN SORES ON YOUR BODY THAT OOZE AND YOU WILL HALLUCINATE THAT TEN-FOOT LONG SLIMY WORMS WITH BIG FANGS ARE CHEWING ON YOUR EYEBALLS."

When I grew up enough to think critically for myself, I realized how absurd that was. Aside from the gross overstatement of the consequences of minor dabbling, the other illogical aspect of the anti-drug presentations was that they lumped every single drug together. Pot was portrayed as being equivalent to heroin. Which in the minds of drug educators in that era, I suppose it was - certainly if nothing else it was considered a "gateway drug." Do people still talk in those terms?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tinker

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs out there.

---

Be that as it may, it's still entirely legal in most parts of the United States and lumping it in with illegal drugs (in programs like DARE) weakens the arguments against those other drugs when children are faced with the fact that their parents might have a beer after work or wine with dinner.