Pubdate: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 Source: Nanaimo News-Bulletin (CN BC) Contact: 777B Poplar St. Naniamo, B.C. V9S 2H7 Fax: (250) 753 0788 Author: John Anderson Note: The author is Chair of the Criminology Department at the Malaspina University-College in Nanaimo, B.C. Related: http://web.mala.bc.ca/crim/dev/DARE_Eval.htm Bookmark: Articles on DARE: http://www.mapinc.org/dare.htm D.A.R.E. OR REALITY-BASED DRUG EDUCATION? One of the best hopes we have to prevent harmful patterns of drug consumption is to educate our youth about the short and long-term effects of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. The question remains as to who should be educating our youth about drugs, and what messages we want them to receive. Drug Awareness and Resistance Education (DARE) is well-intended program but generally fails to provide knowledge which deters school-aged children from trying drugs in their youthful years. The proponents of DARE argue that their drug education program is successful. Program "success" can be demonstrated if the measurements are short-term changes in attitudes of children, or whether or not parents and teachers support the program. However, the real test of DARE effectiveness can only be determined by measuring drug consumption patterns between DARE and non-DARE participants after the program is delivered. The majority of evaluations which are "peer reviewed" (assessed by panels of experts for their conformity to scientific standards before they are published) show that DARE fails to have lasting effects on the choices of youth. Several studies have shown that program graduates are no more or less likely to try drugs and alcohol than non-participants, and there is even the possibility that DARE grads go on to use drugs at a higher rate than those who never participated in the program. Based on these evaluation studies, several US jurisdictions which used the DARE model have dropped the program because of a lack of demonstrated effectiveness in deterring children from using drugs, as measured by follow-up studies ranging from one to ten years. Sometimes the effects are initially positive, but they decay over time as kids age and become more vulnerable to peer pressure and a curiousness for experimentation. Why doesn't DARE work to accomplish its stated goals? The main problem with DARE is its message of total abstinence. Kids are told that "there's no such things as a soft drug", therefore all drugs are bad and should be avoided because they have the potential to lead to harder drugs. Marijuana is second only to alcohol with teens for their recreational drug of choice. The weakest point in DARE education is its demonization of marijuana with the use of poor science (if any) and the portrayal of drug users as weak or pathological individuals. Police may do more harm than good by preaching messages like "marijuana is dangerous and addictive". Many kids will experiment with cannabis. It is likely that they will experience marijuana in a way which is nothing like they have been told, and go on to view police authority on drug issues as less credible when it comes to legitimate warnings about harmful drugs like methamphetamine derivatives or "Ecstasy". A reality-based drug education has several important features. First, it assumes that teenagers can make responsible decisions if they have accurate information. Many teens have seen the outcomes of drug use or have experimented themselves with drugs before receiving DARE messages. Any form of drug education must respect and build upon teenager's own experiences with drugs. Secondly, a realistic drug education program which focuses on safety will realize that total abstinence is unrealistic. We need to base our education to children with information which is not drawn from worse-case scenarios, but the typical pattern of experimentation and later moderation or abandonment of drugs throughout the life-course. Like the patterns of alcohol consumption, most marijuana users go on moderate use without escalating to compulsive use, or the attraction to smoking it is lost entirely. Thirdly, drug education must be built upon knowledge from the most current, scientific research available, and not upon the hunches, experiences or anecdotal information cobbled together by police. Students in high-school with Internet access will have an abundance of impartial assessments of drugs and their effects, and will be in a knowledgeable position to question many of the claims being made in DARE forums. Perhaps the best model for the delivery of drug education messages should be left to skilled educators, or a cooperative model between teachers, parents and police. John Anderson, Chair, Criminology Department, Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo, B.C. - --- MAP posted-by: Eric Ernst