Q: I'm wondering if there is a plug-and-play type drug education program consistent with reality-based or BZT that's strong on good science for 5th and 6th graders in public elementary schools. I've scoured your site and I can't find a ready-made program that's either cheap or free.

Our kids are in a very politically conservative area that loved D.A.R.E. in spite of the evidence against it - as far as we can deduce, because it catered to their fears, myths, and conservative political agenda. The only reason D.A.R.E. was dropped by our school district this past August was financial. As parents, a minority of us have been lobbying hard for reality-based programs but, to be frank, our failure to stop D.A.R.E. was a direct result of not having a viable plug-and-play program we could drop onto their laps and say, here, this works, we want it, use it. D.A.R.E. supporters could maintain their unreasonable arguments against our alternatives because we had no specific programs, just principles (that they didn't want to hear). It was only when funding became so tight from state budget cuts that D.A.R.E. was dropped.

Now we're still trying to find a program we can present to our teachers and district. We've been “informed” at back-to-school night last night that the school will choose a no-cost replacement program but we were given no names (one teacher mumbled something about “Lifestyles, Lifelines” but when asked to repeat it she paled and went mute). We're dealing with top-down hierarchal law and order types here who were in bed with the local Sheriff and adored D.A.R.E. We're very concerned they'll choose something much worse than D.A.R.E.

What do we do about this as parents? How do we effectively advocate for a reasonable program? How do we find a ready-made program? We've all tried the opt-out options with older siblings and the cultural pressure was cruel and brutal (one family moved away because of the harassment their daughter received for opting out of D.A.R.E. two years earlier). We need more options, fast.

A: We join you in deploring the local acceptance of D.A.R.E., a program that has never been proven to reduce substance use among adolescents. However, we do not know of a free “plug-in” programs for elementary school students, nor would we be likely to recommend them if such were available.

The failure of D.A.R.E. and the current “evidence-based” programs promoted by the federal government was the basis for our development of the Beyond Zero Tolerance (BZT) concept. Part of the latter is that drug prevention education for children is ineffective because initiation of substance use begins later in adolescence in a social context where experimentation is common and peers deliver information and/or personal examples that seem to contradict early drug education. Early “inoculation” against alcohol and other drugs has never been proven to reduce prevalence of later drug use.

We suggest that you consider going on the offensive. Point out that use of diverted pharmaceutical drugs (painkillers like OxyContin and Vicodin; prescription “uppers” like Adderall or Ritalin; and anti-anxiety drugs (benzodiazepines) like Xanax, Valium, or Ativan is now widespread among teens. What are some of the prime sources of these drugs? These include leftover prescriptions in family medicine cabinets, friends who share their ADHD meds (the uppers), and probably via the Internet. Remind them that kids have died from ingesting bottles of over-the-counter cough medicines, especially if they use alcohol at the same time. How about some parent education, in other words?

It’s not elementary drug prevention education that is needed, but honest and frank information and guidance for teens about dangers such as lethal alcohol poisoning, how to recognize it, and what to do to save a life, as well as other information and guidance about dangers for those students who decided to experiment no matter how strongly we urge them to abstain.

There is no silver bullet here. Most currently promoted drug prevention education is about the equivalent of a shot from a BB gun! I once heard a researcher on drug prevention education say that the approach was, “Ready! Fire! Aim!” rather than the sequence usually advised. Nothing has changed. 

Q: Has the Safety First strategy, or systems similar to it, been proven to work in schools? I would like any studies or links to studies backing the program up. Perhaps you could send me testimonials from parents or administration?

Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs was written for parents of teenagers, and we have had very positive response, with over 200,000 booklets distributed thus far. Parents from all over the country tell us they've used our resources to open conversations with their teens, and this has increased communication. We receive tens of thousands of requests for booklets each year, and Safety First has been translated into at least seven languages.

The California State PTA (largest in the country with 1,000,000 members) invited Safety First to be an Allied Agency and distributes our written materials to districts all over the state.

As for school programs, the UpFront program at Oakland high School (Oakland, CA) has used the principles contained in Safety First with great success. Chuck Ries, its director can tell you more about the evaluation he's conducted.

Our 2005 publication, Beyond Zero Tolerance, provides schools with an approach that combines drug education, student assistance, and restorative practices. The combination of these three components is a cutting-edge approach, with each (education, assistance, and restorative practices) shown to be successful in educating students, bringing them into the conversation as full participants, increasing their safety, and keeping them in school.

Q: I came to your website because I'm preparing information for our state legislators on saving money by releasing non-violent drug offenders. We want to see the money used instead for treatment and community-based supervision. One link led to another and I've spent a fair amount of time on your website. What you present makes sense to me. However, I also go around talking to parent groups, and my message to them is that “what makes sense to us adults” and “what works” are two different things. Much of your information is about drug education. It's fine, so far as it goes. However, what I know about the research (over decades) is that providing information does not, by itself, reduce use or postpone use. Do you know something I don't know? (I sure hope so!) And do you have any evaluation studies to back up the time and effort we'd spend if we were to follow your lead? Your primary approach seems to fall into the harm reduction category. Do you have studies that show that harm has been reduced?

I wonder if you have received a copy of Beyond Zero Tolerance: A Reality-Based Approach to Drug Education and Student Discipline. This booklet contains references to research supporting the three components of the Beyond Zero Tolerance approach, not simply drug education, but student assistance as well as alternatives to the deterrent punishment practices endemic in US high schools under the principle of zero tolerance.

To be more specific, you are correct that information alone (whether honest or dishonest attempts to indoctrinate) has little impact on drug experimentation and/or use among either young people or adults. Honest information about the downsides and risks of use will deter many, but not all teenagers. Our society needs to come to grips with this reality. Drug use among young people is here to stay, and the sooner we recognize that unpleasant fact, the sooner we as a society can act in a rational and humane way to reduce specific dangers such as high risk use (e.g., binge drinking, etc.) and problematic involvement with substances.

You also asked about studies showing the effectiveness of harm reduction strategies. While many schools have quietly and unofficially used this approach successfully, it is impossible to obtain federal support for research, since the practice itself is prohibited. Even the words “harm reduction” are forbidden speech in our country; invoking the response from drug warriors, “You are giving the wrong message!” and thus foreclosing open discussion of pros and cons. Still, there are some harm reduction programs relating to alcohol use among older youth that have been studied. I particularly recommend research coming from Professor Alan Marlatt's lab at the University of Washington. I see no reason why one cannot generalize from alcohol, our number one drug of abuse, to other drugs.

Q: What are the reasons studies hesitate to mention a cause and effect to explain drug use?

A: The research literature and books on the topic are replete with theories about cause and effect of drug use. In the case of adolescents, see for example Praitis, J., and Flay, B.R. 1995. “Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle.” Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), pp. 67-86. Effects of substance use are summarized in many sources. Perhaps the best is the latest edition of Weil, A., and Rosen, W. 2004. “From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know about Mind-Altering Drugs.” Boston: Houghton/Mifflin. You can read a review of the book and buy a copy in our Resources section.

The most important principle on the effects of drugs is that two factors other than the drug have a powerful influence. These are “set,” or the mental state of the user at the time, and “setting,” or the environment in which use takes place. For example, the effects of alcohol would be barely noticeable at a social event such as a museum fundraiser as contrasted with a college fraternity pledge night party.

Q: I do education for parents and teens on using alcohol and other drugs in Maryland. Lately, I have heard the “Gateway Drugs” theory debunked. Can you tell me what the current thought is on, for example, looking at cigarettes as a gateway drug for using marijuana, or for marijuana being a gateway drug for cocaine and heroin? Thanks!

A: We wonder why you omitted alcohol. The so-called “gateway” theory has gone into eclipse because it was based on correlation rather than causal linkages. The authors of the original study (Kandel and Yamaguchi) specifically denied that they had proved that experimenting with alcohol or tobacco “caused” people to use marijuana and later other drugs. However, that denial was ignored because there was political pressure to demonize the “youth” drug (marijuana) and the “gateway” theory was a good way to do that.

Later research has confirmed that there is no connection between use of tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana and use of “harder” drugs later. In recent years, tobacco use has declined among youth, while alcohol and marijuana use have remained fairly stable. Progression to the “harder” drugs is due to other factors, both environmental and personal. Although a smaller minority of teens will progress to drug dependency regardless of the drug of first use, most who experiment go on to use alcohol or other drugs moderately or choose abstinence from one or both later on.

Q: I am a counselor here at Woodrow Wilson Classical High School in Long Beach, California. We desperately need a program that will present to our students in an assembly-like setting about drug education and prevention. Can you help or know of an organization that can? I've been searching and it's not easy! Thank you for time and attention, and I hope to hear from you soon!

A: Unfortunately, there is no evidence that presentations to large groups of teenagers have positive effects on their attitudes toward, or use of, alcohol and other drugs. Lectures, testimonials, scary stories from recovering alcoholics or other addicts, reenactments, etc. seem to be useless and actively scorned or resented by many. In contrast, scientific research has conclusively demonstrated that highly interactive work with relatively small groups is the most productive way to go. Young people want to participate by asking questions and sharing their experiences and values. They respond positively when peers are involved in the process. Adults that work with youth in this kind of prevention education must know their subject and be skilled in guiding groups in productive ways. Lock step curricula get in the way of this kind of process.

Please see our publication Beyond Zero Tolerance: A Reality-Based Approach to Drug Education and School Discipline. This booklet presents a comprehensive picture of what drug education should be like and how it intersects with assistance to students who need help. It also emphasizes restorative policy for drug offenders as an alternative to suspension and expulsion.

Q: I'm an independent school educator looking for a good drug/alcohol program designed to educate students and their parents. Also, the program should ideally challenge students and their parents to make better decisions.

A: We are not aware of a drug education program designed for the general population of both students and their parents. Frankly, you and your teenage children can educate yourselves by reading From Chocolate to Morphine: Everything You Need to Know about Mind-Altering Drugs by Andrew Weil and Winifred Rosen, which you can read about and order on our website.

Making better decisions is a different story, however. A person can be deeply knowledgeable about these substances and still decide to experiment with one or more of them. This is the big problem faced by drug educators. It has been, and still is, addressed with obvious scare tactics and false, or one-sided, information. These tactics backfire when young people discover that they have been conned. Older teens inform us on surveys that peers experiment with drugs "to have fun" or because they "want to know what it’s like."

Yes, there are good reasons not to drink or use, especially for teens that are using a substance that is for them illegal even when they drink beer. But, none of these reasons are convincing for everyone, partly because so many teens and adults violate them without getting into trouble with the law or apparent ill effects. That’s why we recommend back-up information on safety for those who insist on breaking the rules and laws. That’s part of making "good decisions" for those who do.

Q: What drug awareness programs do you have available for high school students and what is the cost per student?

A: The Safety First project does not develop or market drug education programs. Instead, we focus what such programs should to be like as well as broader issues of youth policy in relation to drugs. Our new publication Beyond Zero Tolerance: A Reality-Based Approach to Drug Education and School Discipline summarizes these recommendations and the principles on which they are based.

All of the newer “science-based” drug prevention programs promoted by the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) provide information about drugs and their effects. Unfortunately, information alone is not enough to assure abstinence among many, if not most, older teenagers. Neither do the “drug-resistance” strategies also incorporated in those programs. S till, these newer offerings are an advance over earlier approaches including DARE, which still remains the most widely used program. The CSAP approved science-based programs are summarized in the latest edition of, “Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles,” available from the CSAP at www.samhsa.gov. Information on cost will have to be obtained from the provider.

Q: A lot of your information contradicts reports presented by NIDA and SAMHSA, what makes your research more accurate and valuable?

When you discount federally accepted programs as non-effective or “weak,” what are you implying? Are you saying that your research has shown different outcomes, or are you saying that you have analyzed their data and they are wrong?

A: NIDA, SAMHSA, and CSAP ignore published critiques of some of the most prominent “science-based” drug prevention programs. See for example: Gorman, D.M. 2003, Prevention programs and scientific nonsense. Policy Review, no. 117, pp. 1-9. There is also little or no evidence that small reported reductions in prevalence among younger students persist into the latter teen years. Further, critical assumptions about why young people initiate appear to be unsubstantiated, especially the widely accepted belief that active peer pressure to experiment is common or that so-called “normative education” (convincing students than few of their peers have actually tried alcohol and other drugs) is effected by the higher grades where drug use peaks. These criticisms appear in many scientific reports, both US and international, but have been ignored by federal authorities operating under “zero tolerance” principles.

True science in complex areas of inquiry involves critical review by skeptical colleagues. It is thus self-correcting. Unfortunately, “zero tolerance” is an ideological principle that stifles critiques of method and ignores alternative interpretations. Understandably, staff in governmental agencies is pressured by Congress to prove that their programs are effective. Thus, science is compromised by politics.

Q: I lost a 19-year-old son to an overdose of heroin and cocaine and have another son in recovery. Our town, Springville, Utah, has lost several young people to heroin in the last few years. Our school district will not let us talk about substance abuse to school children. There was only the DARE program in the early years. I am speaking to churches, treatment centers, parents, and even working with University of Utah on a documentary for our PBS station here. How can I get IN to the schools? This is a church-run state and it's hard to get past the major denial here. I do not have young children in school any longer. Any suggestions? Thank you.

A: We are saddened to hear of the loss of your son and the insensitivity of the larger community reflected in the resistance and denial you have encountered. We applaud the fact that, instead of withdrawing into personal grief, you have chosen activism and outreach in the hope of helping others, and we do applaud that choice. The barriers you face in the school and community are obviously formidable. You first need to find allies in this struggle. It's frustrating to be a lone advocate to people in denial, as you well know. There must be some other folks in the community willing to form a support group and perhaps join you at school board meetings and in confronting administrators. An article in the local paper might turn up some volunteers. Also, can you find a church leader sympathetic to your concerns that can see the need for compassion and assistance rather than denial and punishment?

The second point is being sure that you have concrete proposals to offer. For example, if your son's school had a student assistance program, intervention and assistance would have been available early on. You need to learn as much as you can about what programs and services are needed. Our booklet, Beyond Zero Tolerance: A Reality-Based Guide Drug Education and School Discipline presents a comprehensive approach to youth policy related to drugs, and lists resources.

Q: Can I get a step-by-step guide explaining how to teach substance use prevention?

A: Perhaps. Check www.samhsa.gov for the latest version of “Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles.” This manual lists programs approved by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. If you find one that seems appropriate for your work, ask for further information. However, the providers of those programs may not be willing to “give” the program away (fees are usually charged), but may give additional description of what they do.

Our perspective is quite different. We take the findings of research on drug education more seriously, especially for teenagers. We recommend a genuinely interactive process in which the “steps” are topics and the learning involves meaningful youth participation including sharing experience, asking questions, and raising issues. For example, an effective first topic is, “What do you think about drugs?” As long as the young people feel safe in speaking candidly, this will produce a vigorous discussion in which the adult facilitator will find many opportunities to provide relevant information. In other words, we do not recommend a lock-step approach to drug education for a population that has experience of its own and has the intelligence to apply it. To find out more about this approach contact Chuck Ries at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

For pre-teens, the situation is different. Here we see drug education as much more limited in scope. Trying at this age level to insure later abstinence does not work very well. But important topics include adult substance abuse, especially for children in families characterized by such abuse, as well as dangers associated with the medicine cabinet or home liquor supply. We recommend contacting the Healthwise organization in Liverpool: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Q: Do Student Assistance Programs (SAPs) drug test, aside from being a referral source?

A: Student Assistance Programs vary widely in the breath of problems addressed as well as the assistance provided. However, SAPs are much more than a “referral source.” Many provide counseling and support groups for students. Some include drug education. None of these services constitute “treatment” for substance abuse. Most troubled youth, whether because of alcohol or drug abuse or other problems, do not need drug or other “treatment,” but can benefit from less formal approaches to assistance that help them identify the negative factors underlying their behavior and learn deal with those factors on their own.

Drug testing is a technical, laboratory-based service. It is not part of student assistance programming. Some drug treatment agencies do testing, especially if their clients are outpatients. Schools that use drug testing contract with outside businesses for the chemical analyses, but school personnel usually collect samples (urine, skin, hair, etc.) The National Student Assistance Association cautions that drug testing should only be done when assistance is available and never for the purpose of punishment. Our view at Safety First is that random drug testing of all or even specific groups of students (such as those involved in extra-curricular activities) is inappropriate for a variety of reasons. However, we do not object to testing when there is probable cause, but see this as a decision to be made by parents rather than school administrators.

Q: What are your thoughts on zero tolerance policies in our public schools for alcohol and other drug use?

Good kids who get caught experimenting (like most teenagers do) are being expelled from school for long periods of time. I am fighting with our local school board to stop this nonsense, look for alternatives to expulsion and suspension, and keep kids in school.

In my research, I have found that an alarming number of kids are being expelled from public schools every day. I have a 16-year-old son and he could be next. I want to fight for every child to keep their right to an education in place even if they are caught in possession or use of pot or alcohol. There just has to be a better way.

A: We certainly agree with you, not only in the case of the “good” kids who use alcohol or other drugs occasionally and get into trouble once, but also for the kids whose drink or use other drugs problematically and need help rather than being turned out onto the street! The latter especially are victims of cruel “push-out” policies that are in part a response to “accountability” legislation that penalize schools and school districts for failing to reach arbitrary performance standards associated with the national “No Child Left Behind” law. Getting rid of the “bad” kids may improve scores on achievement tests, but as a policy for schooling, it is neither rational nor compassionate.

For students who violate rules on substance use we advocate assistance and support instead of punishment. In the case of illegal behavior such as possession of illicit substances or drug dealing on campus, schools should leave punitive consequences up to law enforcement. All schools should have student assistance programs (SAPs). Staff in SAPs coordinate with teachers, administrators, and families to identify students who need assistance, not only due to substance abuse, but also for other negative influences that interfere with their learning and personal development. Some SAPs integrate alcohol and other drug education with identification of students who need help. All SAPs provide assessment and intervention counseling and often support groups for students who are concerned about their own substance use or that of family members. Staff identify students who need treatment or other assistance and refer them to community or other treatment providers whenever possible. See the website for the National Student Assistance Association www.nsaa.us.