Red ribbons. Stickers. Police cars. Coloring books. Flashy Police badges. Instead of simply providing facts about drugs so kids can be informed when they are exposed to drugs, they label drug users as evil, pernicious demons. They condition children to fear and hate drugs by using exaggeratedly graphic depictions of drugs. (I am well aware of the deleterious effects of certain drugs like meth and heroin. Marijuana? Not so much). They utilize a psychological phenomenon known as splitting; they make non-drug users look all good and drug users look all bad. This is also known as the "Us and Them" phenomenon.
- Both use splitting, as previously discussed.
- Both indoctrinate children into unquestioning belief through misinformation and half-truths.
- Both use bold, flashy logos and symbols to solidify support and engender a sense of unity against a common enemy. (Drug users/ ethnic minorities)
- Both use children as informants. (1984, anyone?)
- Both idolize the nation's police force. (Police /SS (It is worth noting that D.A.R.E. wasn't designed to usher children into the military or police (yes this is a parentheses inside a parentheses inside a parentheses- Inception)))
Studies
[edit]1992 - Indiana University
Researchers at Indiana University, commissioned by Indiana school officials in 1992, found that those who completed the D.A.R.E. program subsequently had significantly higher rates of hallucinogenic drug use than those not exposed to the program.[11]
[edit]1994 - National Institute of Justice
Other researchers found D.A.R.E. to be counterproductive in 1994.[12] In 1994, the National Institute of Justice published a summary[13] of a study conducted by the Research Triangle Institute.[14] The study suggested that D.A.R.E. would benefit from a revised curriculum. This was launched in the fall of 1994.
After the 1994 Research Triangle Institute study,[13][14] an article in the New Times Los Angeles stated that the “organization spent $41,000 to try to prevent widespread distribution of the RTI report and started legal action aimed at squelching the study.”[15] The director of publication of the American Journal of Public Health told USA Today that "D.A.R.E. has tried to interfere with the publication of this. They tried to intimidate us."[16] After reporter Dennis Cauchon published a story questioning the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. in USA Today, he received letters from classrooms around the country, all addressed to "Dear D.A.R.E.-basher," and all using nearly identical language.[16]
[edit]1995 - California Department of Education
In 1995, a report to the California Department of Education by Joel Brown Ph. D. stated that none of California's drug education programs worked, including D.A.R.E. "California's drug education programs, D.A.R.E. being the largest of them, simply don't work. More than 40 percent of the students told researchers they were 'not at all' influenced by drug educators or programs. Nearly 70 percent reported neutral to negative feelings about those delivering the antidrug (sic) message. While only 10 percent of elementary students responded to drug education negatively or indifferently, this figure grew to 33 percent of middle school students and topped 90 percent at the high school level." [17]
[edit]1998 - National Institute of Justice
In 1998, A grant from the National Institute of Justice to the University of Maryland resulted in a report to the NIJ, which among other statements, concluded that "D.A.R.E. does not work to reduce substance use."[18] D.A.R.E. expanded and modified the social competency development area of its curriculum in response to the report. Research by Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum in 1998,[19] found that D.A.R.E. graduates were more likely than others to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco and use illegal drugs. Psychologist Dr. William Colson asserted in 1998 that D.A.R.E. increased drug awareness so that "as they get a little older, they (students) become very curious about these drugs they've learned about from police officers."[20] The scientific research evidence in 1998 indicated that the officers were unsuccessful in preventing the increased awareness and curiosity from being translated into illegal use. The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use.[21] Studies funded by the National Institute of Justice in 1998,[18][22] and the California Legislative Analyst's Office in 2000[23] also concluded that the program was ineffective.
[edit]1999 - American Psychological Association
A ten year study was completed by the American Psychological Association in 2006 involving one thousand D.A.R.E. graduates in an attempt to measure the effects of the program. After the ten year period no measurable effects were noted. The researchers compared levels of alcohol, cigarette, marijuana and the use of illegal substances before the D.A.R.E. program (when the students were in sixth grade) with the post D.A.R.E. levels (when they were 20 years old). Although there were some measured effects shortly after the program on the attitudes of the students towards drug use, these effects did not seem to carry on long term.[24]
[edit]2001 - Surgeon General categorizes D.A.R.E. "Does Not Work"
In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, David Satcher M.D. Ph.D., placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Does Not Work."[6] The U.S. General Accountability Office concluded in 2003 that the program was sometimes counterproductive in some populations, with those who graduate from D.A.R.E. later having higher rates of drug use (a boomerang effect).[25]
[edit]2007 - Perspectives on Psychological Science Article
In March 2007, the D.A.R.E. program was placed on a list of treatments that have the potential to cause harm in clients in the APS journal, Perspectives on Psychological Science.[26]
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20110311-matt-watson-say-yes-to-better-anti-drug-programs.ece
ReplyDeleteright there with you.