2209691

Drug Education: Out of Date and Out of Line

The high school bathroom is a magical place. It is home to a breed of student known as

the “fiend”. These nicotine-addicted individuals are known for blowing massive clouds in the

stalls and acting as human air fresheners. They are a staple around the nation, despite the various

efforts made by the government and schools to reduce their population. However, there is much

more to substance abuse amongst the youth than vaping. Marijuana and alcohol are essentials at

high school parties. In fact, it probably is not considered a party if at least one of these are not

present. Some particularly courageous students even elect to use these substances at school. On

the more extreme end of the spectrum, a surprisingly large amount of high school students also

use hard drugs such as Xanax or LSD.

My first major encounter with substances was at a New Years party. I remember walking

in the door and entering a whole new world. I had been exposed to nicotine fairly often around

school, but here I was exposed to everything. There were bottles and solo cups everywhere. The

backyard reeked of weed. Inside, it was like a fog machine. Most people seemed to be having the

time of their lives. Some kids were bouncing off the walls, but some were also completely out of

it. Some people were going off on the dance floor, and some were puking in the bushes.

I personally believe that people should be able to make their own decisions, but as I

looked at my substance-abusing peers, part of me wondered where they went wrong. Did all the

years of PEP and YEP teach them nothing? Were they just stupid? Why would they want to ruin

their life at such a young age? Deep inside, I knew these were naive thoughts, but everything I

had been taught since middle school had led me to these assumptions. Just because one uses

substances does not instantly make them worse. I observed some seemingly innocent people that

1
 2209691

I never expected to drink or smoke do both at the same time. The stigma around substances

directed me to make false assumptions, which in turn made me doubt the whole drug education

system.

Obviously whatever schools teach us about substances does not work. Not only that, but

it is not all factual. They demonize drugs and promote abstinence, which is extremely

unreasonable. I began to wonder what the school bathrooms would be like if we strayed away

from ineffective scare tactics and focused on a more comprehensive drug education system.

Perhaps the fiends would be able to make smarter and safer decisions. The lack of an effective

drug education program and the abundance of substances inside and outside of school led me to

develop my question: ​Which methods of drug education in schools are the most effective at

preventing drug-use amongst the youth?

Proper drug education in schools first began in the late 19th century, during the

Temperance movement. Supporters of the Temperance movement believed that all of society’s

problems were due to alcohol. As a result, all students at this time were taught that the

consumption of alcohol was physically detrimental as well as unethical. In 1920, the United

States government banned alcohol, marking the beginning of the Prohibition. Outlawing alcohol

caused a noticeable rise in crime. With citizens having little to no respect for the law, the

Prohibition ended in 1933. “Ending prohibition was an admission that alcohol could be used

socially. This undermined the foundation of alcohol education at the time and it was largely

abandoned” (Reist).

These first drug education programs failed because they were based solely on opinion. It

would have been extremely difficult to convince students that alcohol was immoral due to how

2
 2209691

popular the substance was at the time and how little evidence educators had to back up their

message. When alcohol was legalized again, any chance that these programs had of succeeding

was thrown out the window. With the government supporting the consumption of alcohol, there

was nothing that teachers could do to persuade kids that drinking was unacceptable.

After the Prohibition, the focus of drug education switched to illegal substances rather

than alcohol. The government began suggesting that drugs such as marijuana were the real

problem in society. They claimed that cannabis caused insanity, violence, rape, and other crimes.

Educators were afraid that if they taught real facts about drugs, then students would be enticed to

try them and experiment. Therefore, they based the new drug education programs on scare tactics

and absurd claims. This method remained popular for countless years, and is still used today.

There is significant evidence that this method of drug education is fruitless. The flaw of

this program lays in its foundation. It is based on fiction rather than fact. There is no evidence

that marijuana turns people into murderers and rapists. These are simply scare tactics that are

meant to deter students from thinking about using drugs. Scare tactics have even been shown to

have the opposite effect than what is intended. “Kids would start to think, hmm, well, I don't

really know what doing drugs is like. Maybe I should try it. And we become curious to close that

gap in information. And in this case, that gap in information is the experience of using drugs”

(Anti-Drug PSAs: Do They Work?). With a lack of real knowledge coming from this type of

drug education program, students are left to fill in the blanks themselves. To do this, many of

them resort to trying drugs themselves. This phenomenon is called the “boomerang effect”, when

talking about drugs results in curiosity about them. Using scare tactics in drug education is

extremely inadequate and it is amazing that it has still survived in this day and age.

3
 2209691

The next wave of drug education programs was fairly similar to its predecessor. It

assumed that substance use was the result of one’s personal weakness or shortcomings. Its goal

was to improve the students’ self-esteem and enhance their decision-making skills. The idea was

that by making an individual more confident and happy with themselves, they would have no

reason to use drugs and would therefore never try them.

This approach was based on a false assumption, just as the first method was. Most adults

have consumed alcohol in their life, not just those with low self-esteem or the inability to make

smart decisions. Not all substance-users are suffering from a personal deficit. These observations

undermine the whole basis of the program. Therefore, it is no surprise that this method of drug

education failed to display effectiveness.

Current drug education programs aim to assist students with resisting the pressures of

society and making the decision not to use drugs. Not much research has been done on these

methods, but it is widely believed that they are not as effective as they could be. When under

optimal conditions, the best of these programs are only forecasted to stop or delay drug use in a

small portion of students.

“Prior to the mid 1980s, the federal drug-prevention budget was $200 million a year or

less… The federal drug-prevention budget peaked at just over $1.6 billion in 1992, after which it

leveled-off in real terms. It is this leveling off that drug-education advocates maintain helps to

explain the recent reversal in the decline of reported drug use among American youth”

(Gorman). The United States has increased funding over the last couple of decades in an attempt

to help students learn the skills that are necessary to become drug-free. However, there has been

a distinct lack of progress with drug education programs despite more government spending. The

4
 2209691

rising rate of drug-use in the United States can partially be explained by the outdated programs

that are being taught in schools around the nation.

Drug education should provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to avoid

harm from alcohol and other substances in the real world. If the message that drug education

programs deliver is refined and the techniques that they use are altered, the public may no longer

view it as pointless and ineffective. By utilizing research on programs from the past as well as

studying programs of the present, the government can learn and institute the most successful

methods of drug education.

A major flaw of modern drug education programs is that they deliver inconsistent

messages. “Some drugs, like heroin, are demonized, while other forms of the same drug are

found in many painkillers. The youth are told not to drink alcohol, yet everywhere it is promoted

as part of the ‘good life’” (McBride). Without proper explanation, statements like these are hard

to believe and take to heart. If marijuana was really so bad, why is legal in several states? It is

important to show students that public opinion and legal status are not true reflections of the

actual harm that drugs can cause.

The best way to do this is to focus on facts rather than fiction. Scare tactics have proven

to be ineffective, so drug education should be based on reality instead. For example, drug

education programs have demonized marijuana for its negative side-effects, but have failed to

even acknowledge its benefits. “Medical marijuana [has] been proven safe and effective,

according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)... The drug was shown to completely

prevent nausea in 33 percent to 36 percent of the patients… [and] has been approved to treat

people with anorexia due to HIV/AIDS” (Steffens). These benefits can explain why, despite

5
 2209691

being potentially detrimental to one’s mind, marijuana is legal in several states. If students are

knowledgeable about substances, they will be able to make educated decisions about them.

It is also important to understand that some youth will choose to try drugs, regardless of

the risks. In order to reduce potential trauma, young people must be taught strategies for keeping

themselves and their friends safe when they encounter drugs.

Marijuana is a generally harmless drug, but if one is unaware of what they are taking or

how to take it, it could result in a distressing situation. Take edibles, for example.

“It can take up to 30 minutes to maybe even an hour or two before it really hits you..

When somebody eats an edible and they don’t really feel the effects… they eat more…

[Then] an hour and a half later? Boom! Like a freight train, they’ve been hit, and, you

know, can barely move or can barely talk, that kind of thing. So they may have to go to

the hospital” (Fiebel).

If drug education discussed the science of drugs such cannabis, students would know how it

works and how to be safe when using them. They would also achieve a better understanding of

how the drug affects people. Teaching kids about drugs is much more likely to prevent drug use

than it is to promote it. Students will realize how substances are bad for them and will have a

concrete reason to listen to educators.

A crucial part of making an effective drug education system is ensuring that everything is

neutral. In an interview with Dr. Charles Hanson, a pediatrician, over email, he stated that “Drug

education should teach kids the facts. Knowing teenagers, if they are told not to do something,

they will probably want to try it. In my high-school, they urged us not to smoke pot and drink

without having any solid reasoning behind it, which resulted in our drug education programs

6
 2209691

actually having the opposite effect on us.” A huge risk that comes with drug education is the

possibility that all the efforts made to prevent drug use have actually had the opposite effect. A

modern example of this is vaping. Current drug education programs focus heavily on this topic

because it poses the greatest threat to the youth. However, due to the boomerang effect, nicotine

addictions amongst students have continued to rise. The best way to avoid the boomerang effect

is to remain neutral. By teaching kids the facts, both good and bad, they are less likely to develop

a curiosity about drugs. This method is beginning to be tested in schools, where students have

given overwhelmingly positive feedback. Kids have reported that this type of program makes

them feel mature and in control.

With smoking and drinking at the forefront of modern drug education, it is vital to ensure

that illegal drugs are also discussed. “It may seem odd that the campaign against tobacco, a legal

drug, has displayed so much more élan than the war on illegal drugs... Making a drug illegal may

discourage some people from taking it, but it also discourages frank conversation and clear

thinking. It is much easier to attack something if it is brought into the light” (Drug Education: In

America, Lessons Learned). The biggest problems students face are with nicotine and alcohol, so

it is logical that these topics are discussed more than the rest. However, by neglecting to educate

the youth about other substances, they are being left to make their own decisions without

sufficient knowledge.

Percocets, Xanax, and LSD are all illegal drugs that are commonly used in society. They

are extremely dangerous, but no effort has been made to prevent kids from using them. Simply

hoping that the legal status of these substances is enough to deter people from trying them is very

7
 2209691

naive. Instead, students should be taught the basics of these drugs. While it is much easier to say

“no” to cocaine than it is to a White Claw, hard drugs should still be discussed in schools.

Another aspect of drug education that is overlooked is the complex social factors that

influence the behaviors of students. Current drug education programs encourage individuals to

resist the influences of their peers. This advocates isolation rather than connectedness. It is

crucial that students are together rather than against each other.

Peer pressure is often exaggerated as a cause of substance abuse. While one’s

contemporaries may play a role in the decision to try drugs, there are often many other factors

that contribute to this decision. A popular motivation for using drugs is stress. As a result, some

drug education programs have begun to introduce students to healthy stress-relieving

alternatives. “Instructors encourage the young people to manage this stress through constructive

activities or by simply talking their problems over with another person. The instructors' goal is to

convince students that they can deal with stress in positive, effective ways--they need never

resort to drugs” (Davis). There are many pathways that can lead to substance abuse. One of the

many goals of drug education should be to redirect these pathways into healthy alternatives.

It is no secret that the public is dissatisfied with modern drug education programs. With

an increase in research involving drug education, it seems as if a long overdue revamp is in the

future. We now know what is effective and what is not. We have scientific evidence that

scare-tactics, false information, and biased viewpoints are detrimental to the mission of drug

education. Studies have shown that the key to successful drug education programs lies within

neutral and fact-based curriculums instead. Research is also being done on other promising

methods of drug education. There are countless different angles that drug education can be

8
 2209691

looked at. With each different tactic that is tested, the programs become more and more

effective. Soon, we will see a neutral and fact-based drug education system, and as time goes on

the methods will only become more and more refined.

9
 2209691

Works Cited

"Anti-Drug PSAs: Do They Work?" Weekend All Things Considered, 28 Apr. 2013. Gale In

Context: High School,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A328324660/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=be1721

96.

Davis, Damon. “Drug Education: Saving America's Youths.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

June 1993.

Dr. Charles Hanson. Email interview. 1 March 2020.

"Drug education: In America, Lessons Learned." The Economist, vol. 390, no. 8621, 7 Mar.

2009, p. 30(EU). Gale In Context: High School,

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A194976736/SUIC?u=wal55317&sid=SUIC&xid=4ff280

c7.

Feibel, Carrie. “With the Rise of Legal Weed, Drug Education Moves from 'Don't'...” Kaiser

Health News, 7 June 2018.

Gorman, D M. “The Failure of Drug Education.” Public Interest, 1997.

McBride, Nyanda. A systematic review of school drug education, Health Education Research,

Volume 18, Issue 6, December 2003, Pages 729–742, https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyf050.

Reist, Dan. “Rethinking Drug Education.” Rethinking Drug Education | Here to Help, 2009,

www.heretohelp.bc.ca/rethinking-drug-education.

Steffens, Bradley. Issues in Society: Is Marijuana Harmful? ReferencePoint Press, Inc., 2017.

10