Tag Archives: Drugs

Spotlight Blog Post #2

--Original published at Melissa's Blog

The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program was established in 1983 to teach children about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. After researching, I think the original DARE program was not successful, however, the program is changing its curriculum and message, and, thus, is improving. Initially, DARE was an anti-drug program whose main focus was abstinence. The program enforced this believe with the slogan “Just Say No” (Dual Diagnosis, 2018). In the early 1990s, researchers were skeptical of the DARE program because they found such little evidence supporting its benefits. They found DARE students and Non-DARE students to have very similar substance use rates. Therefore, the DARE program was not as effective as it was intended to be.

Throughout the middle and late 1990s, supplemental data supported the same claim against the DARE program. Christopher Ingraham, an author who discussed the history of DARE and its future plans, said it was inevitable for some students this age to “try drugs out of spite” (Ingraham, 2017). He argues young preteens and teens are known to rebel and do the opposite of what they are told, especially when authoritative police officers teach these classes. Dual Diagnosis, an informative network for substance abuse, supported Ingraham’s belief. The website argues police officers are not qualified to spread drug and alcohol awareness because they have insufficient training; a basic 80-hour training course. Dual Diagnosis says students would listen and respond better to a counselor or addiction expert/specialist rather than a police officer. One statistic states, “40 percent of student respondents claimed they weren’t influenced by the program at all, and almost 70 percent cited having neutral to negative feelings about the program leaders” (Dual Diagnosis, 2018). Additional studies conducted in the early 2000s showed mirroring results to the 1990s data; the DARE program was ineffective.

As a result, in the late 2000s, the DARE organization was forced to change its curriculum and message. The new curriculum, Keepin’ it REAL, was evidence-based and did not preach for abstinence. Instead, the goal of the new program was to teach young students to be “honest and safe and responsible” (Ingraham, 2017). DARE was no longer an anti-drug campaign; Keepin’ it REAL was realistic and representative of what students were experiencing. The new DARE organization wanted children to know how to face real-life events, while still being aware of how dangerous drugs are. Keepin’ it REAL did not spread the message “everyone is doing it,” as the old program did, because many young adolescents were not (Dual Diagnosis, 2018). Additionally, Keepin’ it REAL was taught to a much wider range of students. Dual Diagnosis predicts the updated DARE program to be successful because students are learning useful information, like how to deal with real struggles, make good choices, and be responsible. Also, Dual Diagnosis reporters think older students should be educated about mental health because it is so prevalent and often linked with drug use. To summarize, the sources suggest the original DARE program was unsuccessful and did not prevent children from using drugs and may have even sparked an interest. Contrary, the improved DARE program, Keepin’ it REAL, appears promising and more successful.

A similar argument is made about sexual education programs in schools. Comprehensive sexual education programs have been proven much more effective and accurate compared to abstinence-only programs. Comprehensive programs promote abstinence but also teach students about contraception, safety, consent, sexuality, and sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STI/Ds). According to Advocates for Youth, comprehensive sex education delays the start of sexual activity, decreases the number of sexual partners, thus decreasing STI/Ds, and increases contraception use, thus decreasing pregnancies. Many research studies have found abstinence-only programs to be inaccurate and unsuccessful. Some courses make up false data and statistics and lie to the students (Advocates for Youth, 2009). Studies show students in abstinence-only programs are equally likely to participate in sexual activities; “among youth participating in ‘virginity pledge’ programs 88 percent broke the pledge and had sex before marriage” (Advocates for Youth, 2009). Comprehensive sexual education programs are realistic and effective. They teach adolescents what they actually want to learn; how to safely face real-life events.

The take away message is the initial DARE program and all abstinence-only programs are unrealistic, inaccurate, and negatively effecting adolescents. It is impossible to stop curious teens from experimenting with drugs and sex. This realization needs to be accepted so all children can get the knowledge they need to protect themselves. Abstinence should be enforced, but teenage students should also be educated on how to make safe and responsible choices when they are experimenting and facing these inevitable events. Adolescence are curious, it is a fact of life, what we can do is teach them how to explore with caution. Teaching teens about drugs and sex, what they want to learn, and answering their questions, will decrease their willingness to experiment.

References

Advocates for Youth. (2009). Comprehensive sex education: Research and results. Publications. Retrieved from http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/component/content/article/450-effective-sex-education

Dual Diagnosis. (2018). Does the DARE program work? Drug Addition. Retrieved from      https://www.dualdiagnosis.org/drug-addiction/dare-program-work/

Ingraham, C. (2017, July 12). A brief history of DARE, the anti-drug program Jeff Sessions wants to revive. The Washington Post. Retrieved from  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/12/a-brief-history-of-d-a-r-e-the-anti-drug-program-jeff-sessions-wants-to-revive/?utm_term=.c5490bdf6a41

Spotlight Blog #2

--Original published at marybraun99

I am choosing to do the controversy behind the DARE program, because this was something most others my age were exposed to this program, whereas the officer who was teaching the program at my school resigned at the end of the grade before mine, meaning I never got the program. Strictly from my experience, my grade, and the grades following mine have had higher drug usage rates than those grades who had the DARE program. My grade growing up was the highest grade that used drugs, whether it was just marijuana or things bigger such as heroin and cocaine.

Among other schools, however, they are reinventing the DARE program across the nation to make it a more positive perspective. According to the DARE website, they even state that many scientists have shown that it did not work. Even though it was the most popular substance abuse program, it did not stop anyone from refusing the drugs.

Most argue against DARE because they learned so much about the drugs, and were taught so much by the police officers that as they got older it ultimately made them more curious as to what that drug would be like, since they heard so much about it from actual cops. Any website that you visit, will most likely tell you that DARE was completely ineffective, because they were exposing children (especially at a very early age) about a ton of different drugs and the effects that they had, and while they might have been scared when they were learning, as they got older, they tended to be more curious.

DARE, while it was in place, taught over 75% of schools in the US, including all 50 states, and 48 countries. It was a huge program taught all over, and studies show that of those people, they had a 5% higher rate of drug use, compared to those who were never exposed to this program. Students involved in this program said that many times a problem with it was that they tried to overstate their message. They drilled it into your head, and made you repeat it so many times throughout school that it basically lost all significance in many peoples minds. The DARE program was also reported to take $1 billion annually to keep in tact.

Although there are many downfalls of the program, there are some things that can be looked at as positive. One website, for example states that the program enhanced the relationship between children and police officers, and helps them realize they are not “the bad guys.” This website also states that those exposed to the program had a 6% higher decision making status compared to those never exposed to the program, but the question remains, is 6% significant enough?

Personally, I believe especially after researching this information that the DARE program was completely useless. Since I never personally had it, I can’t say how effective it was, however, I am aware that since my grade, and below mine did not have DARE they definitely knew about drugs still, but just didn’t care. This program tended to just inform those who were young enough to have an impact on that there was so many types of drugs, making them more curious in the future.

I believe that there should be some type of sexual education class once you get into middle school (7th or 8th grade) since that it when most children are starting to learn about sex. You wouldn’t want to do it at an age that it too young, and not in a manner that was like DARE that would just make children MORE curious about sex. I think it would be more practical just to stress the importance of safe sex, and the consequences that it can have, rather than teaching them not to have sex at all. Many children, especially in this generation are sexualized from the time they are very young, and learn about things that they shouldn’t know about, so by teaching them the importance of safe sex I believe it would be more effective.

This would be the same with any other type of abstinence based program, if you are going to keep it, be sure not to oversell it, and teach them real life scenarios, and the importance of being safe, since most teenagers are going to experiment either way, at least they will know how to be safe while doing it, and know the consequences that can come about from doing anything.

Websites used:

https://dare.org/the-new-dare-program-this-one-works/

http://textcontex.web.unc.edu/2015/11/20/the-d-a-r-e-program-helping-or-hurting-our-students/

https://www.livescience.com/33795-effective.html

Spotlight Blog #2

--Original published at Sidney's college blogs

The D.A.R.E. program stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. This program is taught to thousands of schools throughout America, including a numerous amount of other countries. It includes education in the topics of bullying, internet safety, over-the-counter prescription drugs, and opiates. The D.A.R.E. program has curriculum for those in elementary, middle, and high school, and is a “highly acclaimed program that gives kids the skills they need to avoid involvement in drugs, gangs, and violence.” Because the program is taught by local police officers, it is thought to develop that relationship between the student community and the police officers. All law enforcement agencies are committed to the D.A.R.E. program and wish to reduce the supply of drugs in the community. This program has connections and oversight from professions in various fields, such as education, scientific, and law enforcement. Because many other preventative curriculums like the D.A.R.E. program are often directed to one specific group, they decided to design this program to cover a large ground of topics instead of just focusing on one. This ensure that the program will reach in more ways than just one. Instead of focusing on never using drugs, the program focuses on social-emotional principles. This encourages the decision-making process to choose not to do drugs. If they are already doing drugs, it may encourage them to stop or decrease their usage. These are the claims that the D.A.R.E. website makes, but are they correct?

The phrase “Just Say No” was used by the D.A.R.E. program for a substantial amount of time that the program was around. The reality of the children actually using those words were unlikely and did not seem realistic. Because of this, a lot of school districts began to pull the program from those schools. If it was not going to be effective, there was no sense in paying for the program. This resulted in a great financial deficit for the D.A.R.E. program, so they changed their focus from drugs, to building character. One focus of the program up until the 4th grade is personal safety. A few others are anger management and coping techniques that do not involve the use of drugs or medications. There is no evidence yet to show the increase within this new strategy of program. An abundance of studies have been in place to test the effectiveness of the program. The results are that more than 30 of the studies have noted that the D.A.R.E. program did not deter students from using drugs. Although the studies did not find a decrease in drug use, they did find a decrease in the likelihood of the students using the program in the future and over time. In one study, 7 percent of 8th graders, 18 percent of 10th graders, and 22.7 percent of seniors reported that they smoke marijuana. However, 5 years pervious to these percentages, only 5.8 percent of 8th graders, 13.8 percent of 10th graders, and 19.4 percent of seniors reported smoking marijuana. Another study was when a survey was filled out by participants when they were 10 years old. They filled out the same survey when they turned 20 years old. Those who were in the D.A.R.E. program and completed it were not less likely to smoke marijuana or tobacco, drink alcohol, use illicit drugs, or fall into peer pressure than those who did not complete the D.A.R.E. program.

In attempts to revise the program again, a new model of the D.A.R.E. program that was introduced was Keepin’ it REAL in 2009. Instead of police officers giving the education, they jut used trained classroom instructors and this model was aimed for 12 to 14-year-old students. It then evolved to 5th and 6th grade by 2013. The education within the new model was brought by prevention experts. This helped the program out, leaving an actual decrease in those who used drugs. The new program is educating them on real life experiences and the effects of drug use rather than pushing “Just say No” to the students.

From the many studies conducted, it is clear that the D.A.R.E. program struggled a lot for a long period of time. I can remember the various activities and assemblies I attended throughout school involving this program. It was just seen as an opportunity to not attend class and do something fun. It never stuck with me throughout my life, and I know that my small school district was one of the many to pull the program. I think that programs educating students on the effects of drugs, or as used in the prompt, sexual education, is important. Even here at Elizabethtown there are signs and flyers everywhere giving the facts about sexual relationships and the diseases you can contract. There are also many flyers and signs giving the facts about drinking safely and what to do if something should happen. There is importance in knowing the facts and risks that you face in making decisions. However, I do know that in middle school and high school, these programs were annoying and repetitive. When you hear the same thing over and over again, it becomes less effective. I do not think that actual programs are beneficial to have within school districts, but I do think that setting a couple days aside throughout the year to educate the students on the risks of their decisions, could be more beneficial.

Resources:

https://dare.org/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw5LbWBRDCARIsALAbcOc69-Tqa7OjZMF9IaFRfU0pQu4UJAdcCHJ0y93voj-2r6XL1JgrZCcaApZxEALw_wcB

https://www.dualdiagnosis.org/drug-addiction/dare-program-work/

 

Spotlight Blog 2 Prompts

Regardless of which option you choose, make sure to use the tag “Spotlight” on your post. Also include the tag listed for the option you choose below. The spotlight post is due by the beginning of class on Monday, 4/16.

Option 1 – Use the tag “Memory”

Now that we’ve discussed how memory works and you’ve had a chance to think about your own study skills, I want you to critically evaluate websites that give students advice about how to study. If you select this option, I want you to find three different websites that provide advice for studying: one targeted toward college students, one targeted toward middle or high school students, and one targeted toward parents. Evaluate the advice provided on each and compare it to what you know about how memory works (include sources), making sure to correct anything you think is bad advice. Be sure to include links to the websites you are evaluating.

Option 2 – Use the tag “Stress”

We’ve discussed a number of different stress management approaches in class, and now I want you to evaluate online resources for stress management. Specifically, I want you to identify three websites that provide stress management tips and discuss how likely you think the strategies they provide are to be successful. Make sure to explain your rationale using what we’ve learned in class and your textbook. Each of the three websites need to be targeted at a different audience but you may select the audiences you want to use (e.g., college students, athletes, parents, artists). Make sure to include links to the websites as part of your post.

Option 3 – Use the tag “Drugs”

One of the largest campaigns to prevent drug use among children was the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. This federal program sought to provide kids with information about the dangers of using drugs, using things like the slogan “Just say no!” While people had high hopes for the program, it ended up being very controversial largely because of how it ended up impacting the rates of drug abuse among children exposed to the program. Research what the data say about the DARE program and argue whether or not it was a successful program. Then take what we learned from DARE and argue whether or not you think similar abstinence-based programs (e.g., sexual education programs) should be used in schools. Make sure to cite your sources.

I look forward to seeing what you write!

Header image: CC by Flickr user Thomas Hawk

First Impressions – Psychoactive Drugs

--Original published at Hope's PSY105 Blog

“Recently, several states have legalized recreational use of marijuana and even more are considering it. This has lead to both celebration and condemnation depending on who you ask. Medicinal use of marijuana is still controversial as well. In your blog post, take a position on both medical and recreational use of marijuana. Should they be legal or not? Make sure to point out pros and cons to both arguments.”

Marijuana used for medicinal use has proven to be helpful.  What people do not understand is that the product being used for medical use is not necessarily in a form to be able to smoke it.  There is an article I read that brought us into the home a little girl who was constantly have seizures.  She was having 300 grand mal seizures a week.  Her parents tried cannabis oil, which helped her immensely.  People believe her parents are getting her high, when in reality they would be giving her this oil to calm her down and take her out of her seizures.  With the medical marijuana she was only having seizures two to three times a week.  Medical marijuana helps and should be legal.  Yes, there will be people who try to fake an illness so they could get the cannabis oil or try to get marijuana they can smoke, but with a carefully monitored distribution of marijuana like they already have with other medicines, they will be less problems.

Marijuana for recreational use is much more difficult to monitor.  It would have to be monitored the same was the alcohol is.  You would have to be a certain age, have to show ID at the time of purchase.  You would have to trust that, like with alcohol, anyone who is using it is of age and that there are people responsible enough not to give it to those who are not of age.

I believe that marijuana should be legal for medical use, but not for recreational use.  Recreational monitoring is much too difficult and it would just as big a problem as alcohol is when it comes to driving.

 

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html

Roots of Addiction

--Original published at The Core Techs

“At the root of all addiction is pain.” -Anon.

Many people in today’s world struggle with addiction, and as the years go by, drugs seem easier to access. In fact, cases of drug usage and overdosing has actually increased in the past few years. As this effect is increasing, events such as the opioid crisis continue to happen and take more lives every single day. When treating addiction, typically two methods are present: the cold turkey, or slow reduction. These methods are more commonly known as abstinence and the harm reduction model. Abstinence teaches people that they should stop usage immediately and not go back to it at all. It is supposed to completely erase any possibilities. Although this is true, many of us know how hard it is to just drop something and quit. Instead, methods that can make it easier for a person to stop causing harm to themselves is to slowly wane them off it. For example, it is much harder for smokers to quit smoking right away and be completely done with it rather than using nicotine patches or other substances to help them gradually decrease their usage. So, most of us would think “If one method is easier and more effective than the other, why aren’t we using it?” And that is exactly the question to be asked.

In schools, almost everyone has to take some form of sex education. Most schools teach abstinence, meaning that a person should completely avoid sex at all costs. In other rare cases, sex education programs will teach their students the risks of having intercourse, but along with the risks come prevention plans. In this matter, students are aware that they have the option to have sex, but it does come with risks of pregnancy, sexual diseases, physical, social, and mental harm as well. Although this is true, these students are equipped with information that students who practice abstinence are not. Students who choose to perform in sex typically go in without a shield if they were taught abstinence, but students who were taught about protection were often more safe than the other students. The students who were taught protection often go into sex with some form of defense against pregnancy and sexual diseases. Some forms of protection are condoms and different types of birth control. Studies ultimately show that schools who practice abstinence have higher pregnancy rates than those who practice protection and education.

So how do we relate this back to drug abuse? Well, if a person who is told to go “cold turkey,” they may end up having serious withdrawal effects. They will have a much harder time fighting back, and they are more likely to give in to the urges in the end. Despite this, people who choose to slowly wane off drugs by using substitutes are usually better off. They struggle too, but the end results are more conclusive. If someone I loved was struggling with drug abuse, I would tell them to try using the harm reduction model. Therapy and other forms of assistance which recognize a weakness and need for the drugs help many drug abusers. Realizing the problem is the start to the solution. We cannot tell opioid abusers to simply go out and “quit.” It is unimaginably hard. Instead, suggestions such as talk, drug, and other forms of therapy may be of higher quality because it lets the addict know it is okay to struggle and it is okay to be weak. It is also okay to cave in. One cannot give up, but there are easier methods to help someone cope.

Overall, I believe that the harm reduction method is much more effective than the abstinence model. The harm reduction model allows drug users to have a weakness. It allows them to be more human. Abstinence practice often come across as impossible. In fact, statistics show that the abstinence model is much less effective than the harm reduction model. So instead of trying to hide the truth and make life harder, let’s start giving the facts and educating people. Once people can admit they have a problem and they know all about it, it can make quitting that much easier.

Which plan do you think is better, Core Techs?

-B

DSC_0589

First Impression Post: Week 7

--Original published at *Psych 105*

Addiction is a rampant problem that impacts countless individuals and their families. Thankfully, as time has progressed, the understanding of how addiction works has increased and treatments have become more developed. Yet, there is no simple answer in regards to how to fix it; there is no perfect answer. At this point in time, there are two main models as to how addiction is treated: the abstinence model and the harm reduction model. While the abstinence model focuses mainly on cutting the addiction cold turkey in a group setting, like a 12 step program, the harm reduction model focuses on taking away some of the risky behavior associated with addiction. It seems to me that ultimately the abstinence model would be the most ideal, as the drug is completely removed from the individual’s life. However, we do not live in a perfect world and the physiological need for the drug can be stronger than will-power. The harm reduction model provides a means for the addicted person to begin the process of making healthier life decisions. While it is not completely eradicating the drug, it allows the addict to live in a safer environment. Through needle exchange programs and testing for laced drugs, the greater risk to society is reduced. It is more realistic to emphasize a program like this because it takes into account that no matter what, there will always be individuals that are going to be under the influence of the drug. The use of the harm reduction model could also be a means to progress into an abstinence treatment. Rather than choosing one or the other, utilizing both models could be the most beneficial.

If I were in the situation where one of my loved ones was grappling with addiction, I would want him or her to try and utilize the services in the harm reduction model. Addiction has biological effects as well, so services in the harm reduction model have the potential to help the individual work down from their addiction. It allows them to take steps his or herself; as well as take the steps necessary to continue treatment while remaining in a relatively safer environment. A concept that I learned in my social work class is that the services that are provided by this model, such as the needle exchange, are meant to be practiced without stigma. Essentially, the individuals that run these programs do so to provide a space where those who do have a problem can come without being judged or ostracized. This can make a world of difference for an individual who has been battling with drug addiction for an extended period of time. I would not recommend to the loved one that this path is the end all be all, but rather have it serve as a means to get the footing needed in order to make positive lifestyle and health changes that promote sobriety.

Week 7 First response to option 1

--Original published at Noah's Psy 105A blog

One controversial issue in America today is whether or not marijuana should be legalized.

The legalization of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational use is a positive thing. People who oppose the legalization of marijuana claim that it is dangerous and has a negative effect on health. These claims have no scientific research to support them and are therefore inconsequential. It is because of these unfounded bans that there isn’t any research being done. The laws as they are currently written prevent scientist from researching the health effects of marijuana. One proven positive effect that the legalization of recreational marijuana has is it becomes a very profitable source tax revenue. Since legalizing weed the Colorado State government has made a tremendous amount of money off of taxing the sale of marijuana at the licensed weed dispensaries. Legalizing marijuana will effectively reduce, if not completely eliminate, violence and criminal activity related to the illegality smuggling of marijuana. If weed became readily available it would no longer be profitable to smuggle and sell it illegally, the risk would no longer be worth it. The only real negative to the legalization of marijuana is the possibility that marijuana could have currently undiscovered adverse effects on health, but as previously stated under the current laws it is illegal to perform the research that would answer this and other important questions. Because there is no quantifiable evidence to justify the criminalization of marijuana and legalization has plenty of positive effects it only stands to reason that marijuana should be legalized.

First Impression Post 7

--Original published at JD's Blog

Overall, I feel that the use of marijuana should be legal, but highly regulated. Medical marijuana has been clinically shown to help people get through tough diseases and ease the pain of certain treatments. If the drug is grown in a highly regulated facility following specific guidelines presented and checked by the government, then it would be safe. There should be specific guidelines exhibited by the patient prior to the drug being administered in mass quantities. Concerning recreational use of this drug, it should also be legal, but highly regulated. Under the same conditions, if Pot is generated under federal standards it would be a lot safer than if it was produced elsewhere. If they had a limit to the amount one could purchase at a regulated marijuana store as well as a limit to the amount one could have on their person at a specific time. Similar to smoking there should be places that one cannot partake in these types of activities.  It would reduce crime involving the illegal growth and distribution of the drug. It could also backfire if people use the drug too much causing a drop in motivation drastically affecting the economy of that state or area. Another policy that could help the government as well as deter the amount of Marijuana one purchases would be to tax it very highly. This would help generate money that the government could use to regulate the usage and proper enforcement for this drug. At first when it becomes legal, there would be a major spike in its usage because people would finally be able to use it freely. However, eventually the drug usuage would most likely die down. It would also stop the transfer of mass legally purchased drugs being shipped to illegal areas to be sold to those who do not have the same privileges.

First Impression Post #5 (Week 7)

--Original published at Jessie's PSY105 Blog

For this week’s first impression post I chose to focus on Option 1. In my opinion, there is a massive difference between the use of marijuana for medicinal vs. recreational use. Medicinally, there are health benefits for using marijuana. They have been tested and proven to help certain ailments and doctors prescribe them to help their patients. While the recreational use of marijuana is desired, I do not believe that it does anything to benefit ones health. It can, in fact, be detrimental to one’s health by affecting the brain in different ways (one of which, I believe, is that it causes a loss of brain cells).

In terms of using marijuana for medicinal purposes, there are pros and cons. It can be very beneficial in terms of anxiety or stress (I believe). Doctors often prescribe this and there have been numerous studies and trials to ensure that it can be beneficial to ones health. However, there are some concerns that once it has been prescribed to you, and you begin to use it as directed, an addiction to the drug may form. While this is a concern, I personally believe that if prescribed and used correctly, the benefits outweigh the potential problems.

In terms of using marijuana for recreational purposes, there are also both pros and cons. On the pro’s side, it is a pleasurable experience for those who engage in it. Making it legal would make it easier for people who enjoy marijuana to use it. However, making it would legal would most likely increase the amount that it is used. There are numerous negative health effects that can arise from using marijuana, especially if done too frequently. Once used, even if someone just wants to ‘give it a try’ since its legal, an addiction can form that brings about health problems. In my opinion, the cons for legalizing marijuana greatly outweigh the pros.