Dopes Giving the Dope About Dope, For Dopes

New at Reason: Renee Moilanen goes back to drug education school, and finds kids are still cutting class.

Comments

[yelowd]

What? We usually had a dd in my house at college. Either a pledge or one of the younger guys that didn't have a fake. If a pledge, he was just doing what he was told. If he was younger guy, somebody thank him by getting him beer or stoned. Good times for all.

[Russ D]

All I'm saying is MADD likes to make a lot of claims that they have something to do with "fewer deaths" which can be a tenuous link at best.

By the time the oil "crisis" of the 70's was in full swing, cars on the road were definitely more hazardous in themselves: the shit box Horizons and Colts I drove in the 80's were a hell of a lot more dangerous than the Satellite I drove prior to that. Because they were so much more dangerous, you had plenty of automobile safety measures applied since then: air bags, side impact standards, manadatory seat belt laws, etc. Even clean air standards get "questionable" cars off the road.

How can MADD claim anything without taking into account all of these other measures? I suppose you can argue that MADD's activities have upped the stakes for police enforcement, but that's more along the lines of "government coercion" than "safe use education".

[Tommy_Grand]

"I'm not sure if the cause of decline in drunk-driving deaths can be proven one way or the other; I think the point of its inclusion in the article was the virtues of emphasizing harm reduction, as opposed to total prohibition."

I agree that abstinence-only and zero tolerence approaches are stupid. But as the POINT of the [otherwise] excellent article is:

(1) No evidence proved DARE effective;
(2) DARE is being repalced by programs alleging "scientific evidence" of effectiveness; but
(3) The new programs are just as simplistic/myopic as "just say no;" and
(3) The *evidence* supporting the new programs is poor/ biased, etc.

Given this context, citing MADD as effective (w/o evidence of MADD's effectiveness) hobbles the argument.

[thoreau]

I don't know any statistics one way or the other on MADD. What I do know is that MADD at least attempted to achieve a more plausible goal. Eliminating the use of intoxicating substances is impossible, and any effort to do so winds up as a puritanical crusade against the substance itself rather than the harms associated with misuse.

MADD simply focused on the harms of misuse and ways to remedies those harms. I don't know whether their approach is backed by statistics, but I do know that it was a more worthy attempt than prohibition. Likewise, I don't know what the best harm reduction program for currently illegal drugs would be. But I do know that a program attempting to discourage excessive drug use, or irresponsible use (e.g. driving while high, working a dangerous job while high, etc.) or whatever, would at least be tackling a more tractable problem. The best approach to this problem will only be determined by trial and error backed with statistics, but I'd applaud anybody who at least enters the arena and tries to tackle the goal of harm reduction instead of prohibition.

[Shady O'Grady]

Wow, I was surprised to see MADD at the end of this too. If there is a neo-temperance movement, that's it.

At 26 now, I can tell you that there was definately an impact that caused the need for designated drivers in the time I began drinking. It was the extreme penalties involved in drinking and driving.

[SteveInClearwater]

Shameless plug time.

Students for Sensible Drug Policies

http://www.ssdp.org

Drug Policy Alliance has some great alternative education ideas for youth, focusing on harm reduction rather than abstinence only

http://www.lindesmith.org/homepage.cfm

Parents Ending Prohibition

http://parentsendingprohibition.homestead.com/

And JENIFER, I have a friend who teaches in Michigan and they have been working on an offshoot to SSDP, that would be Educators for Sensible Drug Policies. If you'll drop me a note I'll hook you up with them.

[e-mail]

Cheers!

[Jennifer]

Steve in Clearwater--

Thank you, but I don't dare do such a thing until I get tenure. Then I'll be hell on wheels.

[JSM]

"Botvin also sits on the expert panel that deemed his prevention program "exemplary." He is not the only program developer sitting on the expert panel; two other panelists have participated in rating prevention programs they helped develop. All of their programs have received "exemplary" marks."

In the end, isn't this how all decisions on controlling peoples lives are made? Such revelations add credibility to the idea that pot remains illegal only because of how much money is being made keeping it illegal. For instance, some "medical experts" put on a DEA "panel" claiming there is no medical value to marijuana and these "experts" are made up of pharmaceutical puppets.

So these programs have nothing to do with life skills or harm reduction and more to do with profit proliferation by nothing more than con men. (But of course, we have always known this and yet it continues.)

[Russ]

"Since 1982... the number of teenagers killed in drunk driving accidents has plunged 57 percent."

Seeing that the baby boom ended in 1966, the last of the boomers were getting their driver's licenses in 1982.

The subsequent baby bust that lasted from the late 60's until the early 80's, would have meant that there were fewer teenagers around in the first place after 1982, and one should expect a corresponding decrease in teenage drunk driving fatalities.

[Russ D]

I'll also point out that many states have raised their legal minimum drinking age since the late 1970's. MADD may have been partially responsible for that, but again that has less to do with "education" and more to do with "prohibition".

[Warren]

As someone who lived through the 70's and 80's, it's clear to me that social attitudes towards drinking and especially drinking and driving have definitely matured. Changes to the law (i.e. higher drinking age, lower BA threshold levels) along with greater enforcement of existing laws and greater penalties for convictions, are surely a reflection of the sweeping changes in social norms. MADD was out front early, promoting changes to attitudes and behavior regarding alcohol. I therefore conclude that MADD deserves a good deal of credit for the more responsible use of alcohol within our culture.

I also agree that MADD's past success has ironically given it momentum to become an advocate for a more irresponsible alcohol policy (i.e. de facto prohibition).

[Julian Sanchez]

I think it's worth distinguishing between early-MADD, which did a lot to call attention to drunk driving, and contemporary MADD, which does seem to have gone off the rails & become an institution that's more about perpetuating itself than about fulfilling its original mission. Certainly, though, I have a sense that when I was in high school, we were much more conscious of that & more careful to make sure we had a ride with someone sober than had been the kids, say, 5 years older had been.

[Old Texan Timer]

All this talk about MADD made me think back to the good old days, when one would get pulled over for reckless driving, be found drunk, and then escorted home by the cop, either by following in his vehicle or leading, to ensure you got home safely. Now thats protecting and serving!

Once when I was underage, I got caught with a lot of beer. The cop ordered me to dump it all out, collect the empties, then he took me home with empties in hand to my very upset parents, they were not happy to see their beer wasted!

[dj of raleigh]

MADD stats were weak.
Drinking age has gone up, enforcement too, and
driving privileges have been restricted
limiting mileage and kind of driving.
Motor Vehicles takes credit for saving lives too.
Cars are safer built, and seat belts are used more. Just a weak argument making the whole argument seem weak.

=======
As for the kids in the interview:
> "I think it?s bad, but people have the choice to do it, and if they do it, it?s their problem," says one boy.

[dj of raleigh]

Jennifer the teacher says:
> If we teachers could be honest with kids about our own drug experiences, discussing which drugs we've taken with no problems versus which drugs we've tried that turned out to be nasty... but I don't dare do such a thing until I get tenure. Then I'll be hell on wheels.

[Russ D]

I was surprised this sentence at the end of the article got past Reason's editors:

"MADD?s efforts, which made designated driver a household term, seem to have worked: Since 1982, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the number of teenagers killed in drunk driving accidents has plunged 57 percent."

Is there any proof that any reduction in deaths related to drunk driving is the result of MADD efforts?

[Neb Okla]

I've never heard the term "designated driver" used seriously among the high-school/college drinking set.

It's most often heard referring to someone who is about to take a hit off a 30ft beer-bong.

[Matthew]

Russ:

Although I couldn't cite any specific study that shows direct causation, I think it's probably a reasonable assumption that their efforts have had a noticable effect. There's a lot more attention nowadays paid to drinking and driving. Unfortunately, that success seems destined to go to their heads, and they're more likely to push much less reasonable and more damaging types of governmental restricitons that are aimed less at public safety and more at controlling the behavior of all American adults.

[Jennifer]

Russ D,

I'm not sure if the cause of decline in drunk-driving deaths can be proven one way or the other; I think the point of its inclusion in the article was the virtues of emphasizing harm reduction, as opposed to total prohibition. Based on my experience dealing with my high-school students, I'd say it's common for kids to get drunk, but they're usually pretty good about not driving afterwards.

If we teachers could be honest with kids about our own drug experiences, discussing which drugs we've taken with no problems versus which drugs we've tried that turned out to be nasty, I think that would be a lot more useful that telling kids who have already gotten stoned dozens of times that ALL drugs are equally harmful, whatever the circumstances.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I'd say that unless you're teaching 11th or 12th graders, your thousand-orgasm kid probably wouldn't have time to listen to you, anyway.

[AJMB]

Paricularly odious is the MADD ad where the kid explains how he's going to, "have a few beers, date rape your daughter . . ." How is this part of their function. So drunk driving leads to date rape? You'd have to have some kind of coordination, not to mention strength, to be able to rape someone while driving, let alone driving drunk. Idiots.

[Brendan Perez]

It's too bad he threw the MADD semi-praise in at the end.

Yes, accidents have gone down since 1982, but MADD and many like them attribute all of the change in the under 21 group to the 21 drinking age.
Economists Asch and Levy in a 1986 Journal of Policy Analysis and Management study found that the overall effect of raising the drinking age to 21 was to shift deaths from 18-20 year olds to 21-24 year olds.

Mike Males (home.earthlink.net/~mmales)in his books "Framing Youth" and "The Scapegoat Generation" also showed how little or no actual saving of lives occurred when looking at the larger picture. On his site, he notes that in a 2001 American Economics Assocation paper, economists Thomas Dee and William Evans found that raising the drinking age from 19 to 21 cut 18-19 year-olds? traffic deaths by 5% but increased fatalities among 22-23 year-olds by 8%.

If the MADD model works, then he's suggesting prohibition does work-as that's what was done to people under 21.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Man, I never would have cut the anti-drug classes we had back when I was in the 8th & 9th grade. Great little films narrated by Rod Serling, showing a drop of water falling slow motion into a backlit glass beaker, with Rod intoning "L...S...D", christ you just wished you knew somebody who had some of it to sell.

And the psychedelic anti-drug posters were almost as good -- "Don't Meth Around" and "Barbiturates are for Goofballs" I remember in particular.

Now that was entertainment.

[dhex]

"barbituates are for goofballs"

???

sounds like they were trying to increase drug use.

the only thing i remember from my mid-80s dare stuff was officer something or other with his stash of triple-bagged drug samples and a story about a guy on PCP or LSD who fought off 10 officers or something like that.

though i guess dare could claim me a partial success, as i never tried illegal drugs in high school.

"BUT if you have sex, homo/hetero/group/S&M/etc.
this is the way to do it."

well, duh, yeah!

in all seriousness, i'm a bit torn. on the one hand a non-judgemental, harm reduction approach is the only sensible way if your actual goal is harm reduction, and not control, asset seizure and waging war on inert plants and chemicals. on the other hand it really is none of their business or concern.

same thing with sex-ed, really. if you're going to do it, you might as well do it right, though it need not be terribly explicit.

and most high schools have extensive S&M training, but they usually just call it football.

[dj of raleigh]

Jennifer, just remember you are a professional,
and teach your students accordingly each day,
as if your principal was in the room
and the students' parents as well.
Be above board at all times. Be a model

Don't be afraid to state your limits,
professional and personal, to the student.
Refer them on to the counselor who knows
how to guide rather than advise on personal matters.

Students don't know that you used drugs, etc.
Many won't believe you have a private life
or go to the bathroom if you hold yourself high.
Present yourself as an ideal teacher, not a friend or equal.
Kids can make friends among their peers. Play your role, but
don't lose your zeal and burning desire to serve.
I'll bet that you're looked up to and admired daily.
God bless teachers.

[Jennifer]

DJ--
As a teacher, I am NOT saying that my colleagues and I should run around advocating drug use. My point was that, the way things are now, when a kid asks me any question about drugs I am required to parrot the line: "All drugs are harmful and bad and will destroy your life, under all circumstances." I am required to say this to kids who have already tried drugs, who know damn well I'm lying, and who therefore are less likely to believe me when I do tell them the truth.

To make an analogy: I would not want to discuss sex or masturbation in school (I am a bit of a prude that way) but if I absolutely HAD to, I would rather be able to tell the truth than be forced to tell kids, "Don't masturbate or else you'll go blind," especially to a kid who's already enjoyed a thousand self-inflicted orgasms and thus knows from experience that I'm lying.