Dare program lies

Is that really the message we want to send our children? We want them to respect their bodies. We want them to avoid dangerous drugs like meth, cocaine and narcotics. We need to take a serious look at the message we are sending our children, like that 11 year old in Gaylord. Telling obvious lies about marijuana dilutes the serious warnings about crack cocaine.

Dare Propaganda and School Drug Education. Previous Next. Bob Townsend Discusses Drug Education in Schools The article on drug education promotes what amounts to little more than anti-drug propaganda being taught in our schools.

And by , D. Yet D. Last fall, I read with keen interest that the program in Washington State had been notified by national D. The very same D. The didactic approach is gone, replaced by dialogue and discussion. I was encouraged, thinking for a brief moment that the chorus of anti-D. But then I asked Mr. Actually, it was not officially dropped. And what will they be told? As for content, one needs only to peruse www. By now it is commonly known that the extreme dangers of marijuana have been exaggerated, and few users become addicted or graduate to hard drug use; roughly 70 percent of the American population supports medical marijuana; and it is public opinion that is driving initiatives and legislation to make medical marijuana available to people who need it.

And worse, D. So Happy 30th D. Yep,the ole DARE program. The only change D. E was successful at was the change it has caused on the parents. It brought fear to them from their brain washed children. Many families were victims from the D. The Children of the Corn syndrome that were caused by D. After visiting the D.

Here I am on one of the bottom rungs of the economic ladder, stuck in a shitty dead-end job toiling away while people around me are raking in the bucks left and right. There are a few wealthy backers I know of. Thank you, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Soros, Mr. This part of D.

In stating that they wait until a student brings it up D. This reminds me of an incident that happened back in the s. But after he finished his speech, he asked the kids? Only thing DARE taught me taken 3 times 5th grade 6th grade 9th grade was what kind of drugs I wanted to try. The lies that the government tells for the sake of public health and safety! But just how effective was the program at keeping kids away from drugs? Not very, and it might have a lot to do with the way D.

I think there was a really big emphasis on abstinence. They never showed us the realities of drugs and alcohol. We all saw a black lung and looked at a liver with cirrhosis, but the effects on your personal life were skipped over almost entirely. In that vein, here are some common claims that you might have encountered during D. Some of them are no longer being used, while others are still in vogue. But one thing they all have in common: They're patently false.

And actually, there is a correlation between early use of marijuana and other substances. But that correlation isn't as clear as it seems. Scientists have had major doubts about the gateway drug hypothesis since the s. A report published in the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there was "no conclusive evidence" marijuana had any particular pharmacological properties that would encourage the subsequent use of other drugs.

The vast majority of marijuana smokers never touch other drugs. In , 2. According to the Marijuana Policy Project, million Americans have tried marijuana, while just 37 million have tried cocaine. Despite the huge number of pot smokers, less than 0. One study of 12th graders published in the Journal of School Health indicated that if there is a "gateway drug," alcohol would be a more likely culprit.

A review in Drug and Alcohol Dependence noted that A RAND report in even found some evidence that liberal marijuana laws in the Netherlands actually slightly decreased the number of young pot smokers that tried other drugs.

There are a number of ways to explain the correlation between marijuana and other substance use. In the present analysis, we attempted to overcome this difficulty by including a wider range of follow-up reports, from immediate posttests to year postintervention assessments, in an updated meta-analysis of all currently available research articles reporting an outcome evaluation of Project D.

In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of the acquired articles for other potential sources. We initially reviewed roughly 40 articles from these efforts; 11 studies appearing in the literature from to met our 3 inclusion criteria, which were as follows:.

We selected this criterion in an attempt to ensure inclusion of only those studies with rigorous methodologies. As noted, a previous meta-analysis of Project D. The research included a control or comparison group i.

The research included both preintervention and postintervention assessments of at least 1 of 3 key variables: alcohol use, illicit drug use, and tobacco use. We chose to include only those effect sizes that concerned actual substance use behaviors, since the true test of a substance use prevention effort is its impact on actual rates of use. We calculated effect sizes using the procedures outlined by Rosenthal. We calculated both estimations for the individual included studies and for the overall analysis.

As discussed by Amato and Keith, 11 tests of significance used in meta-analyses require that effect sizes be independent; therefore, if 2 or more effect sizes were generated within the same outcome category, we used the mean effect size. We also used the procedure for weighting effect sizes suggested by Shadish and Haddock 12 to ensure that all effect sizes were in the form of a common metric.

The average weighted effect size r for all studies was 0. According to the guidelines developed by Cohen, 13 both of the effect sizes obtained were below the level normally considered small.

Four of the included studies noted no effect of D. Furthermore, the 6 reports indicating that D. The largest effect size was found in a report 14 in which the only outcome examined was smoking. Finally, we conducted a test of cumulative significance to determine whether differences existed between D.

Our results confirm the findings of a previous meta-analysis 3 indicating that Project D. This is not surprising, given the substantial information developed over the past decade to that effect. Critics of the present analysis might argue that, despite the magnitude of our findings, the direction of the effect of D.

While this is the case, it should be emphasized that the effects we found did not differ significantly from the variation one would expect by chance.

Given the tremendous expenditures in time and money involved with D. Our findings also indicate that D. Indeed, no noticeable effects could be discerned in nearly half of the reports, including the study involving the longest follow-up period. This is an important consideration for those involved in program planning and development. As noted earlier, progression in regard to experimentation and use varies over time.

Use of alcohol and other drugs reaches a peak during adolescence or young adulthood and decreases steadily thereafter. Ideally, individuals enrolled in a program such as D. The fact that half of the included studies reported no beneficial effect of D.

One shortcoming of our analysis should be noted. In many of the studies we included, individual students were the unit of analysis in calculating effects. However, the overall effect sizes calculated here were small and nonsignificant, and thus it is unlikely that inclusion of studies making this error had a significant impact on the current findings.

In response to the many critiques of the program, the D. However, at the time of the writing of this article we were unable to find any major evaluation of the new D.