Q: I am a high school principal in Los Angeles, California. I recently received Rodney Skager's booklet, “Beyond Zero Tolerance: A Reality-Based Approach to Drug Education and Student Assistance,” and strongly agree with the approach. However, we have to use a program on the list approved by the California Department of Education to comply with “No Child Left Behind” legislation. None of the programs currently on that list fills the needs of an inner city school like ours, so I would like to implement the Beyond Zero Tolerance approach. Have you begun the process of getting on the list?

A: I am delighted that you recognize the potential of the Beyond Zero Tolerance (BZT) approach and are skeptical about zero-tolerance drug education curricula approved by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and, as a result, recommended by the California Department of Education.

If BZT were solely a student assistance program (SAP) it would be eligible for the "B" list of programs approved by CDE. The problem is that BZT also incorporates alternatives to zero-tolerance drug education, such as the upFront program in Oakland, California, and current approaches to discipline that damage students who break the rules. Moreover, in upFront, drug education and student assistance are closely linked, even merged. Nothing like this has been approved by CSAP, nor will it be as long as zero tolerance is the basis for youth drug policy.

The rules for admission to the list followed by current federal and state educational bureaucracies are the reason BZT was developed as an alternative. We learned early in the process (through our California Statewide Task Force for Effective Drug Education, which included CDE representatives) that alternatives to programs approved by CSAP were not acceptable for political and budgetary reasons.

Fortunately, there are reasons for hope that implementation of BZT can be accomplished. Oakland High School, which houses the upFront program, delivers the upFront program successfully. Chuck Ries, the founder of upFront is now trained in restorative practices, which result in significant reductions in suspensions and expulsions, thus preserving overall ADA-linked monetary support for the school. There is also reason to believe, based on the Oakland experience, that the first two BZT components (drug education and coordinated student assistance) also contribute to student retention, making the program all that more attractive.

We are now looking for other test sites for BZT in order to do a validation study of the process and result, beginning with the Monterey County Office of Education and the Monterey Pacific Unified School District on the Central Coast of California. We would also be interested in working with your district, so please contact me.

Eventually we will make that list!

Q: Can you explain the major differences between "harm reduction" and "alternatives to zero tolerance" as you see them? Is the term "harm reduction" avoided because of its controversial associations?

A: Characterizing a strategy or policy as a form of harm reduction (HR) elicits immediate condemnation from federal agencies and others who support zero tolerance in the drug war. The usual response is that the strategy or policy "gives the wrong message." Rational consideration of the actual worth of the alternative is thereby circumvented.

MacCoun and Reuter define micro HR as "the strategy of reducing average harm per incident of use."* Attempting to reduce the frequency of binge drinking among youth is an example. Their concept of macro HR adds in reduction in prevalence of use. Most proponents of HR support both goals.

MacCoun and Reuter's definitions of HR ignore other harms associated with zero tolerance. These include, in particular, long prison sentences for users who have committed no crime other than use and possession itself, as well as automatic suspension or expulsion of high school students who violate school drug policies. Drug war proponents justify these severe punishments on the untested assumption that they deter use by others. Yet, deterrent punishment policies have not reduced overall prevalence of drug use in the US over many years. Instead, these policies compound harms associated with drug use in the damage done to adults by long imprisonment plus its social aftermath and to young people by exclusion from educational opportunity. Proponents of harm reduction contend that treatment of drug dependent individuals, student assistance programs, and positive interventions such as restorative practices would reduce harmful effects of zero tolerance policies for both youth and adults.

*MacCoun, R.J., & Reuter, P. 2001. Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, & Places. New York: Cambridge.

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.

Q: I don’t want my children to use drugs. What’s wrong with telling them to ‘just say no’?

A: No parent I know wants their teens to use drugs. For the past twenty years, in school-based programs and TV and other media campaigns, teenagers have been told to ‘just say no.’ This simple slogan may work for younger adolescents, but government surveys tell us that by the time they graduate from high school, a majority (54%) have experimented with illegal drugs, and four out of five (80%) have tried alcohol.

The problem with ‘just say no’ is that it doesn’t often work for older teens. The majority of them view alcohol and marijuana as normal features of their social lives. Most report that alcohol and marijuana are easy to obtain. In this social context, parental admonitions may carry little weight.

The fact is that for most teens, ‘just say no’ has about as much impact on drug use as ‘have a nice day’ has on clinical depression.

Most parents do not approve of drug use among their teenagers. In reality, however, even “good kids” sometimes disobey their parents. Even if we ‘just say no,’ it should be no surprise that many say ‘sometimes’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘yes’ to alcohol and other drugs anyway.

That’s why we need a “fallback strategy”, one that follows abstinence messages with honest education and strategies for keeping our teens safe.

It is most important to maintain a dialogue with your teenagers, to be available to them if they want information or help from you. By halting the conversation after you’ve said “no,” you’ve effectively cut off future conversation.

It is appropriate to tell teens that we do not believe drug use is a good idea (as we enumerate the reasons), and we’d prefer that they abstain. But we also must let them know we are there for them if they find themselves in a compromising situation involving alcohol or other drugs.

Q: I am an elected school committee member. I serve on the policy sub-committee and we are discussing zero tolerance policies for substance abuse infractions by high school athletes. I would like to know about any research that demonstrates the effectiveness/ineffectiveness, or positive/negative outcomes of such policies.

A: By “zero tolerance” you probably refer to punitive actions such as baring an athlete from participation in school sports or perhaps more severe punishments including suspension and expulsion on the first offense. In addition, zero tolerance in practice tends to rule out giving help such as counseling or treatment of offenders, assuming that is needed. It is a punitive policy, period.

Two arguments support zero tolerance. The first is that severe punishment will deter most youth from engaging in forbidden activities. The second is that teens who may not have been convinced initially will be deterred once a peer has been kicked out of athletics or suspended. The questions are (a) whether these two arguments are valid and (b) whether the fall-out from such actions will have a negative effect on the atmosphere of the school, the relationships between young people and adults, and the connection students feel to their school.

One landmark research study does address these questions.1 It assessed a large number of secondary schools and found that only a sense of “connectedness” with parents/family and school predicted lower rates of health risk behaviors including alcohol or illicit drug use. There was no relationship between school disciplinary policies and rates of tobacco, alcohol or illicit drug use among students. Only positive relationships with family and school were associated with lower levels of use.

This study argues against zero tolerance, not only because school disciplinary policies fail to influence young people’s decision about smoking or using alcohol and other drugs, but because harsh punishment alienates students from their schools and the adults who work there.

Zero tolerance has been national policy for many years. Yet, alcohol and drug abuse among both youth and adults has not decreased during this period nor, according to national surveys, has availability of alcohol and other drugs to young people declined. Given this, I would suggest an alternative approach--Student Assistance Programming.2 Assisting and supporting young people who are in trouble because of alcohol and other drug use, along with reasonable and fair consequences (such as temporary loss of athletic privileges on first offense) are more likely to promote reform and personal growth than are drastic punishments. When other students see that the school cares about its students and wants to help them if needed, that sense of connection with the school is likely to be enhanced.

See also:

Keeping kids off drugs: Pragmatism vs. zero tolerance -- Let science be the guide

1. Resnick, et al. (1997). “Protecting adolescents from harm.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823-832.

2. Contact the National Association of Student Assistance Programs for information: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it or www.nasap.org.