KEEPING KIDS OFF DRUGS

Pragmatism Vs. Zero Tolerance -- Let Science Be The Guide

The emotionally charged issue of keeping teenagers off drugs has prompted a
variety of programs and policies. The problem is that we don't know whether
they work.

For more than 20 years we have carried on a huge experiment on our
teenagers. Beginning in the early 1980s with Nancy Reagan's simplistic "just
say no" mantra, we have tried persuasion, encouragement and scare tactics.
We started by subjecting our kids to school-based prevention programs (such
as DARE), and provocative (if ridiculous) commercials (such as the egg in
the frying pan).

Obviously, our teenagers did not stop using drugs. In fact, year after year,
government studies have indicated that by the time they graduate from high
school, half of American teenagers will have admitted trying an illegal drug
and 8 of 10 will have used alcohol.

Frustrated by our inability to get them to stop using drugs, we added
threats and punishment to our repertoire. To show we meant business we
instituted "zero tolerance" policies that included invasive and offensive
procedures such as drug testing, sniffing dogs and locker searches. When
caught, even for the silliest offense (such as theMaine high school student
who brought Tylenol to school to alleviate menstrual cramps), students have
been stigmatized, barred from extracurricular activities or expelled from
school.

As the mother of a teenager and a young adult, I wish we'd done the research
before instituting these draconian policies.

In April the surprising results from the largest national survey of student
drug testing appeared in the American School Health Association's
well-respected Journal of School Health. For educators and others who
thought drug testing would be the panacea that could deter their students'
substance use, and certainly for the ever-expanding, multibillion dollar
drug testing industry, the news was crushing.

The study found that drug testing, (costing from $10 to $70 per student),
while humiliating and alienating them in the process, does nothing to deter
drug use. In school districts that tested students for drugs, 37 percent had
used marijuana during the past year, and 21 percent had used "hard" drugs.
In comparable schools that did not test for drugs, 36 percent of students
had used marijuana and 19 percent had used harder drugs -- a wash at best.

Now that the results are in, I'm hopeful the National School Boards
Association will retreat from its pro-drug testing posture. And just for the
record, I hope the U.S. Supreme Court justices, who ruled in a 2002 case
that it was constitutional (and clearly stated that they believed it
effective) to test students wanting to participate in the choir, the chess
club and any other extra-curricular activities, will find a way to reverse
their misbegotten decision.

Whereas policymakers may not be looking critically for evidence before
making decisions, the good news is that real parents dealing with real
teenagers in the real world seem to be paying attention. Recent news from
the California Parent-Teacher Association suggests that parents fed up with
zero tolerance "horror stories" will lead the way in making pragmatic,
science-based decisions.

After deciding last year to partner with the Safety First project of the
Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates honest drug education and an end to
counterproductive scare tactics, in May the mom-and-apple-pie institution
went even further.

When California PTA Vice President for Community Concerns, Julie Bauer,
reviewed research findings, including those from the comprehensive National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, she learned that school
connectedness has a direct relationship to lowered health risk behaviors,
such as drug use.

At the annual PTA convention held in early May, she did something about what
she had learned. Noting that "suspension or expulsion of students that use
alcohol and drugs, without behavioral intervention, mentoring or
rehabilitative referral, is ineffective and unsuccessful in curtailing
substance abuse among students," she introduced a resolution, urging the
California state PTA to "support in-school suspension, after school
interventions, positive behavior mentoring, student assistance and other
programs that offer counseling and education as preventive disciplinary
response to student drug abuse."

In other words, rather than throwing students out of school for making bad
decisions, let's offer help, keep them busy, locate constructive punishment
for rule-breaking within the school context, and try to increase their
connection to teachers, administrators and other students.

Though there was much discussion and some dissention, in a show of common
sense, pragmatism, and courage, voting members of the PTA overwhelmingly
approved the "Alternatives to Zero Tolerance" resolution.

With parents taking the lead, we hope that high level educators (and Supreme
Court justices) will follow with evidence-based policies, and stop using our
teenagers as guinea pigs.