ANTI-DRUG ADS WON'T HURT - AT BEST

Unless you never watch commercial television you can't have missed the fact
that the Howard Government has launched an expensive campaign against
illicit drug use among children and adolescents.

The question raised in radio talkback and news pages over the past couple
of days is whether the government has wasted money better spent on
treatment or other prevention programs.

To try to analyse this dispassionately, let's start with the campaign
itself and what it says and seems to set out to achieve.

The television advertisements unlock fears harbored by most parents of
adolescents, namely that their teenagers will fall prey to drugs, ruin
their lives and possibly end up dead. The advertisements skilfully exploit
those fears, finishing on the image of a young face being zipped over in a
body bag.

The international literature is mixed on fear campaigns. They may work for
a short time but often lose their effect. What the research is absolutely
clear on is that when it comes to preventing drug and alcohol use (alcohol
by the way - the most widely used drug of abuse, along with tobacco, in
young people - is not targeted in this campaign), media campaigns of
whatever kind do not work by themselves.

This is obviously known by the government because the action the
advertisements seek from parents is to watch for the printed material
they'll be sent soon, and use it to talk to their children about drugs.

That means all the television component is doing is preparing the ground,
providing motivation and giving credibility to the leaflet drop. It will
also be provoking conversations at work, at dinner parties and over the
back fence - again part of the "softening" process and a well-recognised
sign that campaigns are being noticed and have a chance of being effective.

So most attention should be paid to the material that each family will
receive in the next few days.

Some of the advisers to the campaign privately admit concern about it, but
say they have achieved the best they could in the face of a government that
has set as its prime aim the elimination of illicit drug use among young
people. It's a laudable aim, but most international authorities would say
it is unachievable - as experience in the United States and Sweden has found.

These advisers were intent on harm minimisation - minimising the risk of
the government making the situation worse by an ill-considered campaign
that could have increased drug use, as some overseas ones have in the past.

It is known what doesn't work. Straight drug information campaigns don't,
nor do personal growth programs for children. School-based education over
several years, tailored for ethnicity, age and gender, does have a modest
effect.

The core goal of the printed material is to get parents to talk to their
children about drugs. It provides facts and figures, almost a script, for
parents to follow.

It is very hard to find in the international literature strong support for
this sort of approach.

The risk factors for drug abuse in young people make a long list and
include being disaffected and disadvantaged, having a conduct disorder,
poor family communication, a family history of drug use, a
sensation-seeking difficult temperament, a history of emotional distress,
exposure to drug use at home, older siblings' adverse influence, perceived
parent permissiveness, inconsistent discipline, and disconnect between
parents' attitudes. The more of these risk factors, the worse the outcome,
and the earlier a child starts using drugs, the more severe the problem
tends to be.

What's protective is authoritative parenting - where a loving parent sets
limits and is consistent - and a school that also sets limits and shows it
really cares about the child. Setting realistic expectations is also
important, especially in regard to school performance.

Giving your children information about drugs does not feature strongly as a
protective factor, and is probably a confounder, since parents who can talk
to their children about drugs may not have a problem in the first place.

The difficulty with the government campaign is that it doesn't
differentiate between the drug focus and the parenting, so that the mother
or father can appreciate where he or she should spend most of their efforts.

So it's moot whether Mr Howard et al have done our taxpayers' dough -
although actual harm seems an unlikely result.