A MISTAKE IN PRIORITIES

I think you did a good job in covering many of the issues about the
Montana Meth Prevention Project. I do think I may have
miscommunicated a couple of points.

I did say that "reefer madness" approaches are thought to be
counterproductive. To the extent that the Montana Meth Project
promulgates inaccurate, scare-based information, I agree it is
probably not going to be effective and may be counterproductive.

However, I have not studied the Montana Meth Project materials and,
except for a piece on the national news, I haven't seen any of the materials.

From what I have learned, there was considerable target group input
into the creation of some (or all?) of the materials, and this is
very positive and important.

Until you told me about the data collection being done to evaluate
the program, I didn't know there was an evaluation being done. This
is an extremely important and positive aspect of this program. In
many areas, media are used to present anti-drug messages with
absolutely no evaluation. It is good to see that a quality evaluation
is being done.

Clearly, it is too early to expect to see dramatic effects on meth
use, but some data do appear to be tentatively positive.

After doing a bit of reading about the overall campaign in Montana,
which includes community-based activities and cooperation across many
stakeholders, I can see that this campaign is not a one-note "reefer
madness" campaign. I still don't know the nature of all the media
spots, and I think it is safe to say that media spots that use
dramatic, high-quality production approaches are not necessarily
"reefer madness" scare tactics, but may, in fact, be communicating in
an MTV-like language, which may, in fact, be extremely effective with
the target groups.

I spend most of my life going around the U.S. speaking on meth and
its harmful impact on people and communities inside the U.S. and
outside. One of my very strong messages is that we have done a
horrible job of communicating to potential users about the dangers of
meth. I think the Montana project is an extraordinary experiment in
drug prevention. However, it is, at present, an experiment that has
not been completed, and while the investment of private dollars in
Montana is a laudable and praiseworthy effort, in my opinion, the
initiative needs to show that it works before large amounts of
taxpayer dollars should be invested to replicate it elsewhere.

Unfortunately, tax dollars spent in one area typically mean that they
are taken from other areas. There are thousands of meth-addicted
individuals in Arizona who need treatment today. If the money for an
unproven prevention campaign is taken from funds that could go to
effective treatment services, I think this is premature and a mistake
in priorities.

I do think the project is one of the most important drug-prevention
programs undertaken in the U.S. in recent memory. I do think it goes
far beyond reefer madness (although some of the elements may have
this flavor). I think the organizers should be praised for their
concern over the severe meth problem in Montana, and I applaud their
willingness to invest their own private money into this effort. I am
very impressed with their evaluation effort, as this is the component
that is critical for us to learn from this investment, and it is the
part that is often neglected. Richard A. Rawson, Los Angeles