Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
ISSN: 0279-1072 (Print) 2159-9777 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
New Perspectives on Drug Education/Prevention Marsha Rosenbaum Ph.D. To cite this article: Marsha Rosenbaum Ph.D. (2016): New Perspectives on Drug Education/ Prevention, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2015.1117690 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2015.1117690
Published online: 22 Jan 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujpd20 Download by: [Flinders University of South Australia]
Date: 26 January 2016, At: 12:52
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2015.1117690
REVIEW ARTICLE
New Perspectives on Drug Education/Prevention Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. Director Emerita, Drug Policy Alliance, San Francisco, CA, USA ARTICLE HISTORY
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 12:52 26 January 2016
ABSTRACT
In 2014, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia joined Colorado and Washington as voters approved initiatives to legally regulate and tax marijuana for adults. Other states, including California, are likely to follow in 2016. While none of these new laws allow sales to minors, there is widespread concern about the potential impact of these reforms on teenagers. Many worry that legalization will “send the wrong message,” and increase access and availability, leading to an escalation in teenage use. This new social, political and cultural context presents a new challenge, as marijuana gradually becomes a normal part of the adult world, akin to alcohol. The movement toward legalization provides an opportunity to re-think our approach to teen drug education/prevention. This is the moment to examine current approaches, and devise innovative, pragmatic strategies for dealing with teens and marijuana (and other drug use). As we examine the issue of drug education/ prevention in the context of legalization, we detail efforts that have been tried, and what is realistically possible to accomplish, with the health and safety of teenagers our highest priority. A reality-based approach advocates honest, science-based information; encourages moderation, if experimentation persists; promotes an understanding of the legal consequences and social context of drug use; emphasizes safety through personal responsibility and knowledge; and encourages the delay of experimentation with all intoxicating substances until adulthood.
Teenagers have used marijuana (along with alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and a host of other intoxicants) for decades. Parents and educators have consistently advocated abstinence, but despite their admonitions and advice, significant numbers of teenagers have continued to “experiment.” Even with federal drug prevention expenditures topping $1.3 billion per year, coupled with its illegal status, the annual Monitoring the Future survey of high school students’ drug use shows that nearly half of all high school students will have tried marijuana by the time they graduate (Johnston et al. 2014; Office of National Drug Control Policy 2014). In 2014, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia joined Colorado and Washington as voters approved initiatives to legally regulate and tax marijuana. Other states, including California, are likely to follow in 2016. While none of these new laws allow sales to minors, there is widespread concern about the potential impact of these reforms on teenagers. Many worry that legalization will “send the wrong message” and increase accessibility, leading to an escalation in teenage use.
CONTACT Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. © 2016 Taylor & Francis
[email protected]
Received 24 October 2015 Accepted 26 October 2015 KEYWORDS Adolescent;
drug education; prevention
There is concern about what can be done about teen marijuana use in this new context of legalization. Such concern is nothing new. Americans have been trying to prevent teenage drug use for more than a century—from the nineteenth-century Temperance campaigns against alcohol to Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No.” A variety of school-based programs, characterized by scare tactics, resistance techniques, zero tolerance policies, and random drug testing, have been used to try to persuade, coax, and force students to abstain from the use of marijuana and other drugs. Legalization presents a new challenge, as marijuana gradually becomes a normal part of the adult world, akin to alcohol. The movement toward legalization for adults provides an opportunity to re-think our approach to teen drug education/prevention. This is the moment to examine current approaches, and devise innovative, pragmatic strategies for dealing with teens and marijuana (and other drug use). As we examine the issue of drug education/prevention in the context of legalization, it is important to clarify our intentions, efforts that have been tried, what is realistically possible to accomplish, and how to get there.
2500 Steiner Street, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA; phone: +1-415-533-4987.
2
M. ROSENBAUM
Intentions
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 12:52 26 January 2016
There is little dispute that abstinence is the best choice for teenagers, for a myriad of sociological, psychological, and physiological reasons. However, given the persistence of marijuana use among young people, and despite our best efforts to date, a more comprehensive strategy (similar to that of comprehensive sexuality education) is required. Supporting “abstinence-plus” education does not mean teachers, parents, and other concerned adults condone marijuana use. Instead, the focus on comprehensive education acknowledges the persistence of marijuana use, combined with its changing legal status, and stresses health and safety.
Problems with current prevention strategies Failure to distinguish between use and abuse In the effort to stop teenage experimentation, prevention messages often pretend there is no difference between use and abuse of drugs. Some use the terms interchangeably; others emphasize an exaggerated definition that categorizes any use of illegal drugs as abuse (Cohen 2012; Nicholson et al. 2013). Teens too often dismiss this assertion because they see adults routinely making distinctions, recognizing, in some cases, that their own parents may have used marijuana or another drug at some point in their lives without abusing it or even continuing to use it (Room 2012). Of course, any substance, including marijuana, involves the risk of developing abusive patterns of use. But if teachers and parents fail to discuss marijuana in a sophisticated and nuanced manner, and distinguish between use and abuse, they lose credibility with students.
Utilizing misinformation Information about marijuana has consistently been mischaracterized in an effort to frighten young people into abstinence. Today, in light of the growing movement to legalize marijuana, opponents’ claims of marijuana’s severe dangers are especially exaggerated. Although the old “Reefer Madness”-style messages have been replaced with assertions of scientific evidence, many of the most serious allegations, such as inevitable addiction, dangerousness due to increased potency, progression to “hard” drug use, and the suggestion that marijuana causes lung cancer and irreversible brain changes, are questionable. No drug, including marijuana, is completely safe, especially for teenagers. Yet the mischaracterization of
marijuana may be the Achilles’ heel of current prevention approaches because such messages too often contradict young people’s own observations and experience. As a result, many have become cynical and lose confidence in what teachers and parents tell them. Failure to provide “Harm-Reduction” education Most drug education programs are aimed solely at preventing marijuana and other drug use. After instructions to abstain, the lessons end. No information is provided about how to avoid problems or prevent abuse for those who do experiment. Abstinence is treated as the sole measure of success, and the only acceptable teaching option (Midford 2010). The abstinence-only mandate puts adults in the unenviable position of having nothing to say to the young people we most need to reach—those who refuse to “just say no” to marijuana use, thereby foregoing the opportunity for having real conversations about how to reduce risk and stay safe (Giles et al. 2012; Tobler and Stratton 1997).
Recommendation: A reality-based approach Despite its legal status for adults, the reality is that adolescents ultimately make their own decisions about whether or not to use marijuana. Despite admonitions and advice to abstain, large numbers of teenagers will occasionally experiment, and some will use more regularly. Central to providing honest, comprehensive education, teachers must acknowledge teenagers’ intelligence and ability to draw independent conclusions from their own experiences. Effective drug education should utilize a truly interactive learning process. Students want and respond to open dialogue, integration of personal experience, and respect from their teachers (Botvin and Resnicow 1993). Keeping teenagers safe must be the highest priority. To protect them, a reality-based approach enables students to make responsible decisions by: ●
Providing honest, science-based information; Encouraging moderation if experimentation persists; ● Promoting an understanding of the legal and social consequences of drug use; ● Understanding the social context of use; that the setting, and one’s own mindset, may have as much a role in a drug’s effect as the drug itself; ●
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS
●
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 12:52 26 January 2016
Prioritizing safety through personal responsibility and knowledge (Rosenbaum 2014); ● Encouraging the delay of experimentation with all intoxicating substances until adulthood. A reality-based approach acknowledges the need for intervention and assistance for students who need help. A useful model can be found in Student Assistance Programs (SAPs), which emerged in the 1980s as school-based analogs of Federal Employee Assistance Programs. SAPs are designed to provide such help—not only for substance abuse, but also for other kinds of personal problems that create barriers to learning. The core foci of SAPs are school retention and improved learning performance. Such programs can provide a range of preventive services, including: drug education—not just for students, but school staff, and parents; how to identify students in need; intervention counseling; and support groups for students in various stages of substance use (Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana 2015). The ultimate goal, if abstinence eludes us, is to grapple with the reality of teen drug use in today’s world, encourage innovative approaches, and create programs that truly educate young people and help to keep them safe.
Acknowledgment An earlier version of this paper also appeared as part of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy report, found at https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/.
References Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana. 2015. Policy pathways report: Policy options for regulating marijuana in California. https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2015/07/BRCPathwaysReport.pdf
3
Botvin, G., and K. Resnicow. 1993. School-based prevention programs: Why do effects decay? Preventive Medicine 22 (4):484–90. doi:10.1006/pmed.1993.1039. Cohen, J. 2012. Drug education or drug propaganda? In Harm reduction in substance use and high risk behavior, eds. I. R. Pates and D. Riley, 17–29. West Sussex, UK: WileyBlackwell. Giles, S. M., M. M. Pankratz, C. Ringwalt, J. JacksonNewsom, W. B. Hansen, D. Bishop, L. Dusenbury, and N. Gottfredson. 2012. The role of teacher communicator style in the delivery of a middle school substance use prevention program. Journal of Drug Education 42 (4):393–411. doi:10.2190/DE.42.4.b. Johnston, L. D., P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and R. A. Miech. 2014. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/ mtf-vol1_2013.pdf Midford, R. 2010. Drug prevention programmes for young people: Where have we been and where should we be going? Addiction 105 (10):1688–95. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.2009.02790.x. Nicholson, T., D. F. Duncan, J. White, and F. Stickle. 2013. Focusing on abuse, not use, in drug education. Journal of Substance Use 18 (6):431–39. doi:10.3109/14659891. 2012.689922. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2014. National drug control budget: FY2015 funding highlights. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of National Drug Control Policy. https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/about-con tent/fy_2015_budget_highlights_-_final.pdf Room, R. 2012. Preventing youthful substance use and harm —Between effectiveness and political wishfulness. Substance Use & Misuse 47 (8–9):936–43. doi:10.3109/ 10826084.2012.663297. Rosenbaum, M. 2014. Safety first: A reality-based approach to teens and drugs. Drug Policy Alliance. http://www. drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_SafetyFirst_2014_ 0.pdf Tobler, N. S., and H. J. Stratton. 1997. Effectiveness of schoolbased prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 18 (1):71–128. doi:10.1023/A:1024630205999.
ISSN: 0279-1072 (Print) 2159-9777 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
New Perspectives on Drug Education/Prevention Marsha Rosenbaum Ph.D. To cite this article: Marsha Rosenbaum Ph.D. (2016): New Perspectives on Drug Education/ Prevention, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2015.1117690 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2015.1117690
Published online: 22 Jan 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujpd20 Download by: [Flinders University of South Australia]
Date: 26 January 2016, At: 12:52
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2015.1117690
REVIEW ARTICLE
New Perspectives on Drug Education/Prevention Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. Director Emerita, Drug Policy Alliance, San Francisco, CA, USA ARTICLE HISTORY
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 12:52 26 January 2016
ABSTRACT
In 2014, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia joined Colorado and Washington as voters approved initiatives to legally regulate and tax marijuana for adults. Other states, including California, are likely to follow in 2016. While none of these new laws allow sales to minors, there is widespread concern about the potential impact of these reforms on teenagers. Many worry that legalization will “send the wrong message,” and increase access and availability, leading to an escalation in teenage use. This new social, political and cultural context presents a new challenge, as marijuana gradually becomes a normal part of the adult world, akin to alcohol. The movement toward legalization provides an opportunity to re-think our approach to teen drug education/prevention. This is the moment to examine current approaches, and devise innovative, pragmatic strategies for dealing with teens and marijuana (and other drug use). As we examine the issue of drug education/ prevention in the context of legalization, we detail efforts that have been tried, and what is realistically possible to accomplish, with the health and safety of teenagers our highest priority. A reality-based approach advocates honest, science-based information; encourages moderation, if experimentation persists; promotes an understanding of the legal consequences and social context of drug use; emphasizes safety through personal responsibility and knowledge; and encourages the delay of experimentation with all intoxicating substances until adulthood.
Teenagers have used marijuana (along with alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and a host of other intoxicants) for decades. Parents and educators have consistently advocated abstinence, but despite their admonitions and advice, significant numbers of teenagers have continued to “experiment.” Even with federal drug prevention expenditures topping $1.3 billion per year, coupled with its illegal status, the annual Monitoring the Future survey of high school students’ drug use shows that nearly half of all high school students will have tried marijuana by the time they graduate (Johnston et al. 2014; Office of National Drug Control Policy 2014). In 2014, Oregon, Alaska, and the District of Columbia joined Colorado and Washington as voters approved initiatives to legally regulate and tax marijuana. Other states, including California, are likely to follow in 2016. While none of these new laws allow sales to minors, there is widespread concern about the potential impact of these reforms on teenagers. Many worry that legalization will “send the wrong message” and increase accessibility, leading to an escalation in teenage use.
CONTACT Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. © 2016 Taylor & Francis
[email protected]
Received 24 October 2015 Accepted 26 October 2015 KEYWORDS Adolescent;
drug education; prevention
There is concern about what can be done about teen marijuana use in this new context of legalization. Such concern is nothing new. Americans have been trying to prevent teenage drug use for more than a century—from the nineteenth-century Temperance campaigns against alcohol to Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No.” A variety of school-based programs, characterized by scare tactics, resistance techniques, zero tolerance policies, and random drug testing, have been used to try to persuade, coax, and force students to abstain from the use of marijuana and other drugs. Legalization presents a new challenge, as marijuana gradually becomes a normal part of the adult world, akin to alcohol. The movement toward legalization for adults provides an opportunity to re-think our approach to teen drug education/prevention. This is the moment to examine current approaches, and devise innovative, pragmatic strategies for dealing with teens and marijuana (and other drug use). As we examine the issue of drug education/prevention in the context of legalization, it is important to clarify our intentions, efforts that have been tried, what is realistically possible to accomplish, and how to get there.
2500 Steiner Street, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA; phone: +1-415-533-4987.
2
M. ROSENBAUM
Intentions
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 12:52 26 January 2016
There is little dispute that abstinence is the best choice for teenagers, for a myriad of sociological, psychological, and physiological reasons. However, given the persistence of marijuana use among young people, and despite our best efforts to date, a more comprehensive strategy (similar to that of comprehensive sexuality education) is required. Supporting “abstinence-plus” education does not mean teachers, parents, and other concerned adults condone marijuana use. Instead, the focus on comprehensive education acknowledges the persistence of marijuana use, combined with its changing legal status, and stresses health and safety.
Problems with current prevention strategies Failure to distinguish between use and abuse In the effort to stop teenage experimentation, prevention messages often pretend there is no difference between use and abuse of drugs. Some use the terms interchangeably; others emphasize an exaggerated definition that categorizes any use of illegal drugs as abuse (Cohen 2012; Nicholson et al. 2013). Teens too often dismiss this assertion because they see adults routinely making distinctions, recognizing, in some cases, that their own parents may have used marijuana or another drug at some point in their lives without abusing it or even continuing to use it (Room 2012). Of course, any substance, including marijuana, involves the risk of developing abusive patterns of use. But if teachers and parents fail to discuss marijuana in a sophisticated and nuanced manner, and distinguish between use and abuse, they lose credibility with students.
Utilizing misinformation Information about marijuana has consistently been mischaracterized in an effort to frighten young people into abstinence. Today, in light of the growing movement to legalize marijuana, opponents’ claims of marijuana’s severe dangers are especially exaggerated. Although the old “Reefer Madness”-style messages have been replaced with assertions of scientific evidence, many of the most serious allegations, such as inevitable addiction, dangerousness due to increased potency, progression to “hard” drug use, and the suggestion that marijuana causes lung cancer and irreversible brain changes, are questionable. No drug, including marijuana, is completely safe, especially for teenagers. Yet the mischaracterization of
marijuana may be the Achilles’ heel of current prevention approaches because such messages too often contradict young people’s own observations and experience. As a result, many have become cynical and lose confidence in what teachers and parents tell them. Failure to provide “Harm-Reduction” education Most drug education programs are aimed solely at preventing marijuana and other drug use. After instructions to abstain, the lessons end. No information is provided about how to avoid problems or prevent abuse for those who do experiment. Abstinence is treated as the sole measure of success, and the only acceptable teaching option (Midford 2010). The abstinence-only mandate puts adults in the unenviable position of having nothing to say to the young people we most need to reach—those who refuse to “just say no” to marijuana use, thereby foregoing the opportunity for having real conversations about how to reduce risk and stay safe (Giles et al. 2012; Tobler and Stratton 1997).
Recommendation: A reality-based approach Despite its legal status for adults, the reality is that adolescents ultimately make their own decisions about whether or not to use marijuana. Despite admonitions and advice to abstain, large numbers of teenagers will occasionally experiment, and some will use more regularly. Central to providing honest, comprehensive education, teachers must acknowledge teenagers’ intelligence and ability to draw independent conclusions from their own experiences. Effective drug education should utilize a truly interactive learning process. Students want and respond to open dialogue, integration of personal experience, and respect from their teachers (Botvin and Resnicow 1993). Keeping teenagers safe must be the highest priority. To protect them, a reality-based approach enables students to make responsible decisions by: ●
Providing honest, science-based information; Encouraging moderation if experimentation persists; ● Promoting an understanding of the legal and social consequences of drug use; ● Understanding the social context of use; that the setting, and one’s own mindset, may have as much a role in a drug’s effect as the drug itself; ●
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOACTIVE DRUGS
●
Downloaded by [Flinders University of South Australia] at 12:52 26 January 2016
Prioritizing safety through personal responsibility and knowledge (Rosenbaum 2014); ● Encouraging the delay of experimentation with all intoxicating substances until adulthood. A reality-based approach acknowledges the need for intervention and assistance for students who need help. A useful model can be found in Student Assistance Programs (SAPs), which emerged in the 1980s as school-based analogs of Federal Employee Assistance Programs. SAPs are designed to provide such help—not only for substance abuse, but also for other kinds of personal problems that create barriers to learning. The core foci of SAPs are school retention and improved learning performance. Such programs can provide a range of preventive services, including: drug education—not just for students, but school staff, and parents; how to identify students in need; intervention counseling; and support groups for students in various stages of substance use (Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana 2015). The ultimate goal, if abstinence eludes us, is to grapple with the reality of teen drug use in today’s world, encourage innovative approaches, and create programs that truly educate young people and help to keep them safe.
Acknowledgment An earlier version of this paper also appeared as part of the California Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy report, found at https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/.
References Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana. 2015. Policy pathways report: Policy options for regulating marijuana in California. https://www.safeandsmartpolicy.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2015/07/BRCPathwaysReport.pdf
3
Botvin, G., and K. Resnicow. 1993. School-based prevention programs: Why do effects decay? Preventive Medicine 22 (4):484–90. doi:10.1006/pmed.1993.1039. Cohen, J. 2012. Drug education or drug propaganda? In Harm reduction in substance use and high risk behavior, eds. I. R. Pates and D. Riley, 17–29. West Sussex, UK: WileyBlackwell. Giles, S. M., M. M. Pankratz, C. Ringwalt, J. JacksonNewsom, W. B. Hansen, D. Bishop, L. Dusenbury, and N. Gottfredson. 2012. The role of teacher communicator style in the delivery of a middle school substance use prevention program. Journal of Drug Education 42 (4):393–411. doi:10.2190/DE.42.4.b. Johnston, L. D., P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, J. E. Schulenberg, and R. A. Miech. 2014. Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2013: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/ mtf-vol1_2013.pdf Midford, R. 2010. Drug prevention programmes for young people: Where have we been and where should we be going? Addiction 105 (10):1688–95. doi:10.1111/j.13600443.2009.02790.x. Nicholson, T., D. F. Duncan, J. White, and F. Stickle. 2013. Focusing on abuse, not use, in drug education. Journal of Substance Use 18 (6):431–39. doi:10.3109/14659891. 2012.689922. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2014. National drug control budget: FY2015 funding highlights. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President of the United States, Office of National Drug Control Policy. https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/about-con tent/fy_2015_budget_highlights_-_final.pdf Room, R. 2012. Preventing youthful substance use and harm —Between effectiveness and political wishfulness. Substance Use & Misuse 47 (8–9):936–43. doi:10.3109/ 10826084.2012.663297. Rosenbaum, M. 2014. Safety first: A reality-based approach to teens and drugs. Drug Policy Alliance. http://www. drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_SafetyFirst_2014_ 0.pdf Tobler, N. S., and H. J. Stratton. 1997. Effectiveness of schoolbased prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 18 (1):71–128. doi:10.1023/A:1024630205999.
