Fuck you, Nazneen.
So, basically I wrote a paper about drug education policy and it wasn't convincing enough so I got bitter and spent too much time on it. And by spent I mean wasted. So I figured after all that time, it might as well be published. And by published I mean posted in my LJ. So, yes, its a paper for school but no, its not super boring (at least I don't think so) but no, you probably shouldn't read it. I'm just bitter.
Drug Education: It’s More Harmful Than We All Thought
The true war on drugs is not being fought with smugglers from Columbia or the junkie down the street, but in classrooms across the nation. It is a war that could be classified as a failure. “A conservative estimate of those in need of substance abuse treatment is between 13 and 16 million” (US Department of Health and Human Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 6) persons. This epidemic number is appalling and, with proper drug prevention techniques, unnecessary. As DARE is being slowly taken out of schools, no nationalized drug prevention program for schools exists and current media campaigns are severely flawed. Those who receive proper drug education are few and should be considered lucky. The children listening to the flawed drug prevention programs and media campaigns may make up the drug users (and sometimes subsequent abusers) of tomorrow. Drug education is in need of a radical reform based on logic and honesty; however ingrained stigmas and government precedent makes this shift difficult.
Messages from the media and society make the current stance on drug education unreasonable. If you turn on the television today, by your second commercial break you are almost guaranteed to witness a commercial by a pharmaceutical company advertising the latest breakthroughs in depression medication. When prescribed and used properly, such medications definitely serve a purpose. However, society today is saturated with messages encouraging self-medication from the omnipresent threat of malicious rap music glorifying recreational drug use to the Starbucks looming at every corner with their promise of caffeinated happiness. Regardless of the fact that caffeine is clearly not a threat to society or that prescription medications are legal, this barrage of images makes it unreasonable to preach drug abstinence to children. The goal for children to abstain from all drug abuse is pure in its intentions but truly illogical and unachievable on a grand scale.
The use of scare tactics is also ineffective and destroys the credibility of many drug education programs. Government scare tactics began in 1937 when the first commissioner of the US Bureau of Narcotics Harry Anslinger proclaimed that “marijuana causes insanity, criminality and death” in its users (Whitebread). More recent (and reliable) studies disprove that outlandish, and damaging, notion saying that “it’s virtually impossible to take a fatal overdose of marijuana” and that “marijuana decreases aggressive behavior” (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 132, 140). Outright lies about drugs plant the seed of stereotyping and prejudice in the mind of America. Today little has changed, and although outright lies could be more reasonably classified as exaggerations or misinformation, the effect on the legitimacy of the entire program is the same. The general theme of many programs is usually to tell youngsters that all drugs are equally addictive to all users. While “anyone with a brain can get addicted to drugs”, most don’t because addiction depends upon a variety of personal, mental and social factors that this paper does not have room to discuss (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 254). When drugs are used, the output of dopamine, which is a chemical in the brain associated with pleasure, is increased and occasionally this leads to addiction. Dopamine is also released because of food, sex or other pleasurable experiences, which hints that there are varying degrees of addiction. It seems absurd to compare the cravings or withdrawal symptoms of a coke addict to that of a chocoholic. The difference between a physical and a psychological addiction is vital as well. The Starbucks enthusiast who occasionally skips his or her mid-morning latte is probably familiar with the physical withdrawal effects of caffeine when his or her head begins to pound. This physical effect occurs with almost all habitual caffeine users however, fewer coffee drinkers experience the cravings associated with an emotional addiction. All of these variables are vital to fully understand drugs, yet none of these factors are accounted for in a standard drug education program. To place marijuana on the same level as cocaine or heroin is incredibly dangerous. If a teenager experiments with marijuana and discovers that the drug is not the soul sucking monster that all the drug programs preached about, isn’t it logical to question the honesty behind the entire message? Then, might misinformed teenagers also wonder if a more dangerous drug such as opium is also not as incredibly destructive as it initially seemed? Lumping all drugs into a single category in order to scare children weakens the legitimacy of the drug education message.
Since no national drug education program for schools exists, national media campaigns are especially important however, many display minor instances of poor logic, which once again damages the credibility of the entire message. Many billboards and ads show factual evidence that a joint contains more carcinogens than a cigarette. Let’s say an average tobacco smoker consumes a pack per day of twenty cigarettes. Is it reasonable to imagine the recreational marijuana user smoking twenty joints in one day? It’s also doubtful that people who choose to smoke cigarettes would decide to refrain from lighting up a bowl of pot because of the amount of cancer they are inhaling. A similar advertisement warns of an increased risk of depression with marijuana use. The “complicated relationship between mental illness and drug addiction” makes this a bold statement (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 254). It seems that kids who are depressed would logically be more likely to experiment with pleasure releasing substances. Such a sweeping generalization is hazardous to make. While these examples may not attack the foundation of the drug education message, they are more instances of dishonesty that can cause some to question the remainder of anti-drug program. It seems less important (and much less reasonable) to attempt to scare teenagers away from drug use in general, and far more crucial to teach them, for example, that marijuana will never kill you, but inhalants can. In fact, a “significant percentage, [20% to be exact], of people who die from inhalants are first time users” (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 113). Truthful statistics based on valid scientific evidence without flaws of logic that the average person can notice could cause teenagers to think twice before experimenting with especially dangerous drugs. Programs today force teenagers to question everything they hear or read and learn lessons the hard way. The propaganda used in anti-drug advertising can serve to destroy a legitimate and necessary message.
Recent campaigns target parents as being “central to preventing teen drug abuse”, but this theory depends too much upon families that may be unpredictable (“The Risks of ‘Experimentation”’). Parents do play a crucial role in their children’s decision on whether or not to use drugs. However, some parents are responsible for emotionally and physically abusing their children, yet drug prevention programs depend mainly on these role models to teach children about drugs. Also, a “family history of substance abuse . . . puts a child at risk for drug abuse” because of possible genetic factors and role modeling (National Institute on Drug Abuse 7). Does it really make sense to depend upon a major risk factor to prevent drug abuse? Using parents as the main preventive measure seems to help those children with lower risk factors while ignoring kids who are truly in need of serious preventive measures. Parents must serve in some capacity as deterrents but a dependence on such an unpredictable source is unwise.
Also, not all parents have enough knowledge about drugs to help their kids make healthy decisions. The blind do not tend to lead the blind well, and while information is easily accessible on the Internet, there is no guarantee that parents will take the time to research the subject. Plus, the online material offers the same misleading advice as television advertisements. Propagating myths and stereotypes is counterproductive and as shown above can be especially damaging to the overall message. Ironically enough, parents are cautioned that “answering [questions about drugs] deceptively can cause [them] to lose credibility with their kids” (“Suspect Your Teen Is Using Drugs or Drinking?” 5). The same websites that discuss risk factors in accusatory terms such as “aggressive behavior” or “academic failure” and speak of drugs as “financing unspeakable crimes throughout the world” through terrorism urge parents to not feel angry or guilty if they suspect their children are using drugs (National Institute on Drug Abuse 7, 9; “Drugs and Terror”). By encouraging a sense of fear and guilt in association with drugs, these prevention programs are discouraging the honest conversation that they consider so crucial. The stereotypes created by anti-drug campaigns hinder what these campaigns consider to be the main preventive factor for drug use.
Instead of this long list of follies in the drug prevention programs, educated health care workers should fight the war on drugs in America’s schools using honest information to reach achievable goals. There should be a nationalized drug prevention program in every school in America taught by those educated in the field to avoid unintentional misinformation. Instead of teaching children that all drugs will irreparably alter their lives, trained educators should differentiate between use, abuse and addiction and also teach symptoms that may hint of an early addiction or lethal overdose. Reformed education programs can go beyond just saying no to incorporate honest advice if a child regrettably decides to say maybe or even yes to drugs.
Children should be taught to experiment with drugs responsibly without explicitly encouraging experimentation. Using drugs responsibly may seem like an oxymoron, but beer commercials promote such an idea everyday. Responsible drug use entails not sharing needles, avoiding dangerous drug interactions and never driving under the influence of controlled substances. This paper does not intend to promote drug use in any context however due to a variety of factors, such as influences from society, the inevitable fact is that some teenagers will choose to experiment with drugs. Teenagers should not suffer unnecessarily because they are simply unaware that Ritalin abuse can sometimes lead to “binge use, psychotic episodes, cardiovascular problems and severe psychological addiction” even though it is a prescription drug that is legal for those to whom it is prescribed (Safety First 1). With the availability of such fact based, scientific evidence, some teenagers might decide that passing their chemistry final isn’t worth the risk. Although the parallel is not perfect, safe sex campaigns have already conceded that many teenagers will choose to have sex despite possible negative consequences and help them have sex responsibly. Safe sex campaigns hand out condoms daily yet a similar approach is almost unthinkable with regards to drugs. Fear that a child will become the stereotypical bum on the street corner with track marks on his arm living for his next hit seems to overshadow the fact that the current approach is simply not working. The shift in drug policy should be swift and radical.
Drug education in this country is in need of serious reform. The thought to not allow perfection to be the enemy of good seems to have been completely ignored. Society should not focus on the unachievable goal of a drug free America but should instead concentrate on saving the lives of those who suffer or die because of misinformation. The majority of the flaws regarding drug policy will unfortunately be difficult to fix. The legality of the drug use complicates matters. Most drugs are still illegal so using federal money for programs that speak of responsible drug use creates a conflict of interest. The perception that drugs are bad (which somehow implies that those who use drugs are bad people) along with a government reluctance to overturn years of precedent in regards to drug policy will also be difficult to overcome. The task may seem daunting but isn’t saving the lives of many worth it in the end?
Works Cited
“Drugs and Terror”. Parents: The Anti-Drug. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 13 April 2006. .
Kuhn, Cynthia, Scott Swartzwelder and Wilkie Wilson. Buzzed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Preventing Drug Abuse Among Children and Adolescents. 2nd ed. October 2003. US Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes on Health. 13 April 2006. < http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/prevention/RedBook.pdf>.
“The Risks of ‘Experimentation’”. Parents: The Anti-Drug. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 13 April 2006. .
Safety First. “Educate Yourself Facts About: Ritalin”. Safety First. 2004. Drug Policy Alliance. 13 April 2006. .
“Suspect Your Teen Is Using Drugs or Drinking?” ¬Parents: The Anti-Drug. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 13 April 2006. .
US Department of Health and Human Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Changing the Conversation: Improving Substance Abuse Treatment. Washington DC: SAMHSA, 2000.
Whitebread, Charles. “The History of Non-Medical Uses of Drugs in the United States”. California Judges Association. 1995.
Drug Education: It’s More Harmful Than We All Thought
The true war on drugs is not being fought with smugglers from Columbia or the junkie down the street, but in classrooms across the nation. It is a war that could be classified as a failure. “A conservative estimate of those in need of substance abuse treatment is between 13 and 16 million” (US Department of Health and Human Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 6) persons. This epidemic number is appalling and, with proper drug prevention techniques, unnecessary. As DARE is being slowly taken out of schools, no nationalized drug prevention program for schools exists and current media campaigns are severely flawed. Those who receive proper drug education are few and should be considered lucky. The children listening to the flawed drug prevention programs and media campaigns may make up the drug users (and sometimes subsequent abusers) of tomorrow. Drug education is in need of a radical reform based on logic and honesty; however ingrained stigmas and government precedent makes this shift difficult.
Messages from the media and society make the current stance on drug education unreasonable. If you turn on the television today, by your second commercial break you are almost guaranteed to witness a commercial by a pharmaceutical company advertising the latest breakthroughs in depression medication. When prescribed and used properly, such medications definitely serve a purpose. However, society today is saturated with messages encouraging self-medication from the omnipresent threat of malicious rap music glorifying recreational drug use to the Starbucks looming at every corner with their promise of caffeinated happiness. Regardless of the fact that caffeine is clearly not a threat to society or that prescription medications are legal, this barrage of images makes it unreasonable to preach drug abstinence to children. The goal for children to abstain from all drug abuse is pure in its intentions but truly illogical and unachievable on a grand scale.
The use of scare tactics is also ineffective and destroys the credibility of many drug education programs. Government scare tactics began in 1937 when the first commissioner of the US Bureau of Narcotics Harry Anslinger proclaimed that “marijuana causes insanity, criminality and death” in its users (Whitebread). More recent (and reliable) studies disprove that outlandish, and damaging, notion saying that “it’s virtually impossible to take a fatal overdose of marijuana” and that “marijuana decreases aggressive behavior” (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 132, 140). Outright lies about drugs plant the seed of stereotyping and prejudice in the mind of America. Today little has changed, and although outright lies could be more reasonably classified as exaggerations or misinformation, the effect on the legitimacy of the entire program is the same. The general theme of many programs is usually to tell youngsters that all drugs are equally addictive to all users. While “anyone with a brain can get addicted to drugs”, most don’t because addiction depends upon a variety of personal, mental and social factors that this paper does not have room to discuss (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 254). When drugs are used, the output of dopamine, which is a chemical in the brain associated with pleasure, is increased and occasionally this leads to addiction. Dopamine is also released because of food, sex or other pleasurable experiences, which hints that there are varying degrees of addiction. It seems absurd to compare the cravings or withdrawal symptoms of a coke addict to that of a chocoholic. The difference between a physical and a psychological addiction is vital as well. The Starbucks enthusiast who occasionally skips his or her mid-morning latte is probably familiar with the physical withdrawal effects of caffeine when his or her head begins to pound. This physical effect occurs with almost all habitual caffeine users however, fewer coffee drinkers experience the cravings associated with an emotional addiction. All of these variables are vital to fully understand drugs, yet none of these factors are accounted for in a standard drug education program. To place marijuana on the same level as cocaine or heroin is incredibly dangerous. If a teenager experiments with marijuana and discovers that the drug is not the soul sucking monster that all the drug programs preached about, isn’t it logical to question the honesty behind the entire message? Then, might misinformed teenagers also wonder if a more dangerous drug such as opium is also not as incredibly destructive as it initially seemed? Lumping all drugs into a single category in order to scare children weakens the legitimacy of the drug education message.
Since no national drug education program for schools exists, national media campaigns are especially important however, many display minor instances of poor logic, which once again damages the credibility of the entire message. Many billboards and ads show factual evidence that a joint contains more carcinogens than a cigarette. Let’s say an average tobacco smoker consumes a pack per day of twenty cigarettes. Is it reasonable to imagine the recreational marijuana user smoking twenty joints in one day? It’s also doubtful that people who choose to smoke cigarettes would decide to refrain from lighting up a bowl of pot because of the amount of cancer they are inhaling. A similar advertisement warns of an increased risk of depression with marijuana use. The “complicated relationship between mental illness and drug addiction” makes this a bold statement (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 254). It seems that kids who are depressed would logically be more likely to experiment with pleasure releasing substances. Such a sweeping generalization is hazardous to make. While these examples may not attack the foundation of the drug education message, they are more instances of dishonesty that can cause some to question the remainder of anti-drug program. It seems less important (and much less reasonable) to attempt to scare teenagers away from drug use in general, and far more crucial to teach them, for example, that marijuana will never kill you, but inhalants can. In fact, a “significant percentage, [20% to be exact], of people who die from inhalants are first time users” (Kuhn, Swartzwelder and Wilson 113). Truthful statistics based on valid scientific evidence without flaws of logic that the average person can notice could cause teenagers to think twice before experimenting with especially dangerous drugs. Programs today force teenagers to question everything they hear or read and learn lessons the hard way. The propaganda used in anti-drug advertising can serve to destroy a legitimate and necessary message.
Recent campaigns target parents as being “central to preventing teen drug abuse”, but this theory depends too much upon families that may be unpredictable (“The Risks of ‘Experimentation”’). Parents do play a crucial role in their children’s decision on whether or not to use drugs. However, some parents are responsible for emotionally and physically abusing their children, yet drug prevention programs depend mainly on these role models to teach children about drugs. Also, a “family history of substance abuse . . . puts a child at risk for drug abuse” because of possible genetic factors and role modeling (National Institute on Drug Abuse 7). Does it really make sense to depend upon a major risk factor to prevent drug abuse? Using parents as the main preventive measure seems to help those children with lower risk factors while ignoring kids who are truly in need of serious preventive measures. Parents must serve in some capacity as deterrents but a dependence on such an unpredictable source is unwise.
Also, not all parents have enough knowledge about drugs to help their kids make healthy decisions. The blind do not tend to lead the blind well, and while information is easily accessible on the Internet, there is no guarantee that parents will take the time to research the subject. Plus, the online material offers the same misleading advice as television advertisements. Propagating myths and stereotypes is counterproductive and as shown above can be especially damaging to the overall message. Ironically enough, parents are cautioned that “answering [questions about drugs] deceptively can cause [them] to lose credibility with their kids” (“Suspect Your Teen Is Using Drugs or Drinking?” 5). The same websites that discuss risk factors in accusatory terms such as “aggressive behavior” or “academic failure” and speak of drugs as “financing unspeakable crimes throughout the world” through terrorism urge parents to not feel angry or guilty if they suspect their children are using drugs (National Institute on Drug Abuse 7, 9; “Drugs and Terror”). By encouraging a sense of fear and guilt in association with drugs, these prevention programs are discouraging the honest conversation that they consider so crucial. The stereotypes created by anti-drug campaigns hinder what these campaigns consider to be the main preventive factor for drug use.
Instead of this long list of follies in the drug prevention programs, educated health care workers should fight the war on drugs in America’s schools using honest information to reach achievable goals. There should be a nationalized drug prevention program in every school in America taught by those educated in the field to avoid unintentional misinformation. Instead of teaching children that all drugs will irreparably alter their lives, trained educators should differentiate between use, abuse and addiction and also teach symptoms that may hint of an early addiction or lethal overdose. Reformed education programs can go beyond just saying no to incorporate honest advice if a child regrettably decides to say maybe or even yes to drugs.
Children should be taught to experiment with drugs responsibly without explicitly encouraging experimentation. Using drugs responsibly may seem like an oxymoron, but beer commercials promote such an idea everyday. Responsible drug use entails not sharing needles, avoiding dangerous drug interactions and never driving under the influence of controlled substances. This paper does not intend to promote drug use in any context however due to a variety of factors, such as influences from society, the inevitable fact is that some teenagers will choose to experiment with drugs. Teenagers should not suffer unnecessarily because they are simply unaware that Ritalin abuse can sometimes lead to “binge use, psychotic episodes, cardiovascular problems and severe psychological addiction” even though it is a prescription drug that is legal for those to whom it is prescribed (Safety First 1). With the availability of such fact based, scientific evidence, some teenagers might decide that passing their chemistry final isn’t worth the risk. Although the parallel is not perfect, safe sex campaigns have already conceded that many teenagers will choose to have sex despite possible negative consequences and help them have sex responsibly. Safe sex campaigns hand out condoms daily yet a similar approach is almost unthinkable with regards to drugs. Fear that a child will become the stereotypical bum on the street corner with track marks on his arm living for his next hit seems to overshadow the fact that the current approach is simply not working. The shift in drug policy should be swift and radical.
Drug education in this country is in need of serious reform. The thought to not allow perfection to be the enemy of good seems to have been completely ignored. Society should not focus on the unachievable goal of a drug free America but should instead concentrate on saving the lives of those who suffer or die because of misinformation. The majority of the flaws regarding drug policy will unfortunately be difficult to fix. The legality of the drug use complicates matters. Most drugs are still illegal so using federal money for programs that speak of responsible drug use creates a conflict of interest. The perception that drugs are bad (which somehow implies that those who use drugs are bad people) along with a government reluctance to overturn years of precedent in regards to drug policy will also be difficult to overcome. The task may seem daunting but isn’t saving the lives of many worth it in the end?
Works Cited
“Drugs and Terror”. Parents: The Anti-Drug. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 13 April 2006. .
Kuhn, Cynthia, Scott Swartzwelder and Wilkie Wilson. Buzzed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. Preventing Drug Abuse Among Children and Adolescents. 2nd ed. October 2003. US Department of Health and Human Services: National Institutes on Health. 13 April 2006. < http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/prevention/RedBook.pdf>.
“The Risks of ‘Experimentation’”. Parents: The Anti-Drug. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 13 April 2006. .
Safety First. “Educate Yourself Facts About: Ritalin”. Safety First. 2004. Drug Policy Alliance. 13 April 2006. .
“Suspect Your Teen Is Using Drugs or Drinking?” ¬Parents: The Anti-Drug. The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 13 April 2006. .
US Department of Health and Human Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Changing the Conversation: Improving Substance Abuse Treatment. Washington DC: SAMHSA, 2000.
Whitebread, Charles. “The History of Non-Medical Uses of Drugs in the United States”. California Judges Association. 1995.