DRUG DIALOGUE, NOT INDOCTRINATION, HELPS

Suppose you're a seventh-grade teacher in an American public school. The
school's new drug education curriculum requires you to lead your
students in an "honest discussion" about marijuana. Drawing from the
curriculum's suggested questions, you ask the students how marijuana use
might affect their schoolwork, their athletic performance, their
friendships and their family life. Then a hand shoots up.

"Excuse me," a student asks. "Did you ever smoke pot?"

Like millions of other American adults, you probably did. Maybe you
still do, every now and then. But if you want to keep your job, you will
dodge the question. Or you will answer it -- with a lie. So much for
"honest discussion."

Recently America's leading drug-education program announced a
fundamental shift in its approach. For almost two decades, Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (DARE) has sent police officers into the nation's
schools to teach children the dangers of illegal narcotics. In the face
of mounting evidence that the program does not deter drug use, however,
DARE officials have decided to try a different tack. Instead of
lecturing on the perils of drugs, police officers will lead discussions
about why people use these substances. Likewise, regular classroom
teachers will conduct role playing and other exercises to provoke
dialogue about drugs -- and especially to help children make
"responsible decisions" about them.

In many ways, these changes echo the historical shift in education about
America's most commonly abused drug: alcohol. By 1901 every state
required instruction in "the dangers of alcoholic drinks." Textbooks
emphasized liquor's damaging effects upon the brain, liver, lungs, heart
and stomach. Even eyesight was imperiled. "Do you remember what we said
about the red eyes of the hard drinker?" one 1906 text asked. "It is
useless for such a person to ask the doctor to cure his eyes as long as
he uses strong drink."

With the rise of medical science, chemists and physiologists began to
challenge many of these claims. So did newly minted experts in the field
of experimental psychology, who charged that scare tactics and
exaggerations would alienate students or even tempt them to drink.
Better to lead the children in a discussion of the full scientific,
historical and sociological facts about alcohol, so that they could
reach their own decisions about whether and how to use it.

By the repeal of national prohibition in 1933, textbooks had dropped
many of their distortions and lies about alcohol. In the guise of
"discussion," however, schools continued to teach the same basic theme
that had permeated the subject from the start: abstinence. Adults now
could use alcohol legally, of course, but they did so at great risk to
themselves and their families. Children must never drink, because even a
small amount of alcohol could lead them into a life of ruin.

The new DARE approach reflects a similar mix of sincerity and duplicity.
We should applaud the program for abandoning its singular focus on the
dangers of illegal drugs, especially its wildly inflated estimations of
their addictive properties.

On the other hand, we should realize that DARE's goal has remained the
same: to deter kids from using drugs. Despite the new rhetoric of
"honest discussion," every lesson will encourage children to choose
abstinence and abstinence alone.

That might be a worthy objective, but it's not honest. It's not even a
discussion. An honest discussion of illegal drugs would have to
acknowledge that many people have used them without harm, that other
democracies regulate them in a different manner, that legal drugs
sometimes cause more damage than illegal ones and so on.

If we truly believed in our children's ability to make "responsible
decisions," we would allow -- even encourage -- this type of dialogue.
Instead, we provide only the information that tends to support our
decision. That's indoctrination, not education. Children always know the
difference, even when educators do not.