D.A.R.E.

I'm always suspicious when a program becomes an industry. I don't doubt for a minute that thousands of caring people have been involved with DARE over the years; I've met many of them personally and know them to be fine people. I also know, however, that the program is imperfect and has taken on a life of its own that falls far, far short of the hype.

Bluearcher, thanks for the back-up.

bluearcher says, in part:

'There have been no less than two scientific studies that have shown DARE to be ineffective and a waste of money.'

WHAT studies?

No problem quoting research, but it is traditional to offer proof of such research...

Glad you asked Robert!

http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/library/dare6.htm

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/dare/index.cfm

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n797.a09.html

This is just a small sample.

In a society were there is at least one parent at home whenever the kid is there, then morals and ethics shouldn't be the burden of the state... unfortunately, the reality is that many kids have only one parent in the household or both parents have to work out of the household... yeah, I was a latchkey kid, fortunately we had programs like this and the Boys Club (now the Boys and Girls Club), and (probably the MOST effective program that, unfortunately I haven't seen much of since I was in high school back in the 80s) Scared Straight... My mother did her best, and when she could, did all that she could in teaching ethics and morales, and I was fortunate to have several uncles and aunts around to "keep an eye out" as well as family friends (OK, it helped that my mother had gone to high school with the local Chief of Police, and my aunst and uncles went to school with much of the police force-- not to mention a good healthy dose of a catholic mother's guilt, and we lived a block from our parish church!), but many kids that were in the same situation as me "slipped through the cracks"... as Ohiogal pointed out above, if it even helps one kid, then it's worth the effort...

Think that the program is outdated or "out of touch"? Then volunteer with the program to help create change from within the system.

Uncle Nick - that's a fantasy society, sir. In homes where at least one parent is at home whenever the kid is there you'll likely find that parent strung out in front of the television or the computer or so stressed from poverty and unemployment that enriching the child's world is just another chore there isn't the energy for.

This is not 1959 or 1969 or even 1999.

But thank you for ending on the right note:

Then volunteer with the program to help create change from within the system.

I don't advise volunteering with DARE, but I do advise volunteering with community organizations that help support families.

Uncle Nick - that's a fantasy society, sir. In homes where at least one parent is at home whenever the kid is there

LOL, that was my point there, Kate... the belief that only the parents should be responsible for morals and ethics, at least to me, is an odd notion, as even in previous times, children were influenced by their church/synagogue/mosque, responsible neighbors, and programs such as the Boys and Girls Club-- though I also left out the importance of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (smacking myself in the head for that one!)

I'm truly not a big advocate of DARE, even after having worked in law enforcement, for kids older than say early middle school/early junior high... it's not a program that is going to truly influence older kids.

Oh and you're right on the ball about trying to teach abstinence as a means of preventing teen pregnancy/STDs... Why is it we can have television advertisements about products to make "it" bigger or last longer, or make the "act" more intense and feel better, yet there is a taboo on condom ads in this country???

Think that the program is outdated or "out of touch"? Then volunteer with the program to help create change from within the system.

Uncle Nick, i think that is a great idea. If their message and the age group they delivered it too were a bit different along with the accompanying laws about drugs and drug use, and along with a different set of priorities in treatment (more of a public health issue) i think that could be very effective.

Realistically some drugs and household substances are very dangerous and/or very addictive and should be avoided. Discouraging any drug and alcohol use to children is also a good idea, but you have to be careful what behavior you stigmatize and why. For example to paint a picture of anyone who smokes pot at all as a "druggie" to stupid or apathetic to care about anyone or anything and a danger to society might skew people's opinion. Combined with a media campaign (and censorship of opposing arguments from from major media outlets) the lies travel to lots of people. Add a ton of money to that, from the black market and from all of the industry thriving from the war on drugs and you can have a real problem. Throw in a good reason to get people into prison and it becomes downright evil.

The drug war is a weird beast; money everywhere, along with a very strange system of responsibility and accountability. I will be very disappointed if the direction the country takes does not change. I am not sure what part in that D.A.R.E could play, but i think the more good, moral and caring people who look at all the facts and all the evidence that goes with drug use the better. Most intelligent people i discuss the issue with think of some drugs as relatively little problems and others of grave concern. It would be nice if policy and the information these type of groups along with governmental agencies put out better reflected not only the facts, but the opinions of the majority of people.

To me 40-50% of the people supporting legalization of pot given the current climate is astronomical to not be addressed better in federal policy along with where the money and sentiments lie. I think it is funny the prohibitionists like to say the legalization movement for pot is funded by a few rich folks, when it seems to me the opposite is true. D.A.R.E could be a lot better of an organization if they focused more on the individuals they are trying to help rather than a particular political agenda. Why couldn't they become advocates for giving people the most chances to live a good life and stay away from the horrors of addictionby protecting them from lifetime criminal records, imprisonment and other negative sanctions currently associated with much drug use (that has nothing to do with the actual effects of the drug itself). Why can't they better promote which drugs truly are dangerous to teenagers and adults such as meth, heroin, pcp, many of the opiates among other things? Why can't they stress how stupid it is to do things like huff gasoline, or even more dangerous things. At the same time you run the risk of how are you going to treat nitrous oxide? the infamous whippits......not nearly as dangerous as gas but certainly not something you want to encourage.

Drug use is as weird as the war against it. The attitudes and positions of those who truly want to do good really could and should be shifted to actually create positive change. And for that reason Uncle Nick, i think your advice to volunteer and/or do something is good. I just hope those who are in charge actually are about making positive change, or are they about money, power...ect

To further support my position and from the D.A.R.E Site:

D.A.R.E. is Community Policing

D.A.R.E. is universally viewed as an internationally recognized model of community policing. The United States Department of Justice has identified how D.A.R.E. benefits local communities:

D.A.R.E. "humanizes" the police: that is, young people can begin to relate to officers as people

D.A.R.E. permits students to see officers in a helping role, not just an enforcement role

D.A.R.E. opens lines of communication between law enforcement and youth

D.A.R.E. Officers can serve as conduits to provide information beyond drug-related topics

D.A.R.E. opens dialogue between the school, police, and parents to deal with other issues

The bottom line--to combine the best research and science with the world's most effective delivery system--D.A.R.E

If i could think of one things communities need it is this. However the relationship of humanizing needs to work both ways. To make this list much more powerfunl (and therfore effective) i would add: and "humanizes" young people; that is, police can begin to relate to young people as people to their first bullet.

The relationship has to run both ways. But looking at those ideas of community policing is perhaps the only way the nation can get a grip on the drug problem and begin to move past the horrors associated with drugs in general. It is either that or governmental surveillance, or worse yet, private surveillance for the government. What is both great and bad at the same time is how much cheaper it would be to do it with these type initiatives over drug testing the entire population and strictly enforcing horrid authoritarian laws.

I would love nothing more than to see police and the policed get along better. In fact i may be making that my main mission in life. At the very least i hope to do something to help figure this out.

Lenny - well said, all around.

thnx

Thanks, Dave. I don't consider being compared to John Stossel a compliment, but I won't hold that against you. And on this, he is correct.

I think often people are afraid to criticize a program, such as DARE, because they feel doing so is somehow an endorsment of the problem the program is supposted to work to prevent. I see it differently - I speak against DARE because I don't feel it's an effective program and I do believe education is an important part in getting kids to not abuse drugs and alcohol. I happen to believe education requires giving factual information; DARE fails to deliver on that.

I have to admit, Kate, that I was a little surprised hearing criticism about D.A.R.E. coming from someone who describes herself as Progressive/Liberal/Feminist.

I see it differently - I speak against DARE because I don't feel it's an effective program...

I'm not sure why you consider being compared to John Stossel uncomplimentary. He has spent several years pointing out, in other areas, just the type of thing you are criticizing here.

Would you prefer being compared to Michael Moore? :>)

Would you prefer being compared to Michael Moore?

No!

Both have their strengths, of course. But I feel both go overboard and forget about the truth in the course or making a point. I believe if you lose the truth, the point is meaningless.

Not to mention the fact that a cop trying to convince a high school kid of the "evil consequences" of smoking pot is futile. They know better, either through personal experience or from interacting with their peers.