drug awareness campaign essay

Essay on Drug Awareness

Students are often asked to write an essay on Drug Awareness in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Drug Awareness

Understanding drugs.

Drugs are substances that can change how your body and mind work. They can be legal, like medicine prescribed by a doctor, or illegal.

Effects of Drugs

Drugs can make you feel different. Some might make you feel happy for a short time, but they can also harm your body and brain.

The Risk of Addiction

Some people may start using drugs out of curiosity or to feel good, but it can lead to addiction. Addiction is when you can’t stop taking the drug, even if it’s causing harm.

Staying Safe

It’s important to say no to illegal drugs and only take medicines as directed by a doctor.

250 Words Essay on Drug Awareness

Introduction.

Drugs are substances that alter the body’s physiological processes. While some drugs are beneficial and used for medicinal purposes, others can be harmful, leading to addiction, health issues, and societal problems. Drug awareness is a crucial topic, especially for college students, as it is the foundation for understanding and preventing drug misuse.

The Importance of Drug Awareness

Drug awareness is essential to equip individuals with knowledge about the potential risks and consequences of drug use. It helps in understanding the difference between use and misuse, the signs of addiction, and the effects of drugs on physical and mental health. This knowledge can be a powerful tool in preventing drug misuse and addiction.

The Role of Education

Education plays a significant role in drug awareness. It is not only about imparting knowledge but also about fostering a healthy attitude towards drug use. Educational institutions, particularly colleges, hold a responsibility to provide students with accurate information, enabling them to make informed decisions.

In conclusion, drug awareness is a vital aspect of health education. It empowers individuals, especially college students, to make informed decisions about drug use, thus preventing potential misuse and addiction. The role of education in promoting drug awareness cannot be overstated, as it equips students with necessary knowledge and fosters a responsible attitude towards drug use.

500 Words Essay on Drug Awareness

The issue of drug abuse and addiction has become a global concern, with implications that transcend cultural, economic, and social boundaries. Drug awareness is a critical aspect in curbing this menace, as it equips individuals with the knowledge and skills to resist drug use, and encourages a healthier, safer society.

The Prevalence of Drug Abuse

The prevalence of drug abuse is alarming, with the World Health Organization estimating that nearly 5.5% of the world’s population aged 15-64 years have used drugs at least once in their lifetime. This statistic underscores the urgency for effective drug awareness programs. It is essential to understand the factors contributing to drug abuse, which include peer pressure, curiosity, stress, and the desire for escapism. These factors, coupled with the easy accessibility of drugs, create a potent recipe for addiction.

Drug awareness plays a crucial role in preventing drug abuse and addiction. Through education, individuals gain a better understanding of the dangers and implications of drug use. They learn about the harmful effects of drugs on physical health, mental health, and social relationships. Moreover, drug awareness programs can debunk myths surrounding drug use, such as the misconception that drug use is a victimless crime or that all drug users are morally weak.

Components of Effective Drug Awareness Programs

Effective drug awareness programs should be comprehensive, targeting various aspects of the drug abuse issue. Firstly, they should provide factual information about drugs, their effects, and the risks associated with their use. Secondly, they must equip individuals with the skills to resist peer pressure and make informed decisions. Lastly, these programs should provide support and resources for those struggling with addiction, emphasizing that recovery is possible and that help is available.

The Role of Society in Drug Awareness

Society plays a significant role in promoting drug awareness. Schools, workplaces, and communities can host awareness campaigns, workshops, and seminars. The media can also play an influential role in disseminating accurate information about drugs and addiction. Moreover, government policies can support drug awareness initiatives, providing funding and resources for these programs.

In conclusion, drug awareness is a crucial tool in the fight against drug abuse and addiction. By educating individuals about the realities of drug use and equipping them with the skills to resist it, we can foster a society that is healthier, safer, and more informed. It is a collective responsibility that requires the participation of all sectors of society, from the individual to the government. Through a concerted effort, we can make significant strides in addressing this global issue.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Drugs
• Essay on Drug Addiction
• Essay on No Poverty

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Drug Awareness Essay

COAL REGION– Coal Cracker reporter Oceana O’Boyle wrote this essay on drug awareness for a contest sponsored by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks . This year’s theme was “Just Say No,” and was open to students in grades 6, 7 and 8. Oceana won third place for 6th grade in the local competition. The top essays went on to district competition. Her essay follows:

People who abuse drugs can die or get addicted to them without realizing it. Temptation is hard to deny, and you may think you’re cool. The truth is you are not. You can harm yourself. So, the best solution is to stay away from people on drugs and parties held by those people.

Drugs can kill you if you overdose. They can also make you hallucinate and do things you wouldn’t otherwise do. Also, you could say things you wouldn’t normally say. Sometimes it will not be a problem but it depends on who you are with. If you get someone angry who is on drugs they might start a fight. The police might have to come into the picture as well.

You may be taking drugs for other reasons than to be cool, for example, for an injury or depression. When you are depressed, just talk about it instead of doing drugs. Even though you forget what happened temporarily, it is just temporary. If it is for an injury, make sure you take the right amount and no more than that.

If you know someone on drugs, try to help them. You can be their friend and let them talk to you about why they are on drugs. Do not pressure them into talking about it if they don’t want to. Do not tease them because it will cause them to get more depressed and use drugs again. Try and help them by telling them they can stop with help from their parents or a teacher.

Overall, drugs are bad unless it is medicine. It can be bad by taking too much. You can get in physical fights on drugs because you do things you would not normally do. If you are depressed talk to people you truly trust to help you. Also, if you’re doing it to be cool, it is not cool or good.

How to Reach Us

Mahanoy City, PA 17948 (570) 647-6407 info@coalcrackerkids.org

About Coal Cracker

Coal Cracker is a quarterly print & online youth-led media outlet based in Mahanoy City, PA for children ages 13-18. It is a project of Coal Cracker Kids, a 501(c)(3) public charity, with start-up funding from the non-profit local news support organization, the Community Reporting Alliance. Coal Cracker journalists meet at the former Mahanoy City Lumber Company.

Pick Up a Copy

Our Fall issue is here! It is available at many locations in and around Mahanoy City, Shenandoah & Barnesville, PA. Or, subscriptions are $10 for 4 issues. Email us for details.

• Letters to the Editor
• Science Fiction

© 2014 - 2018 Coal Cracker . All rights reserved. A project of Coal Cracker Kids.

Coal Cracker

Drugs, Brains, and Behavior: The Science of Addiction Preventing Drug Misuse and Addiction: The Best Strategy

Why is adolescence a critical time for preventing drug addiction.

As noted previously, early use of drugs increases a person's chances of becoming addicted. Remember, drugs change the brain—and this can lead to addiction and other serious problems. So, preventing early use of drugs or alcohol may go a long way in reducing these risks.

Risk of drug use increases greatly during times of transition. For an adult, a divorce or loss of a job may increase the risk of drug use. For a teenager, risky times include moving, family divorce, or changing schools. 35  When children advance from elementary through middle school, they face new and challenging social, family, and academic situations. Often during this period, children are exposed to substances such as cigarettes and alcohol for the first time. When they enter high school, teens may encounter greater availability of drugs, drug use by older teens, and social activities where drugs are used. When individuals leave high school and live more independently, either in college or as an employed adult, they may find themselves exposed to drug use while separated from the protective structure provided by family and school.

A certain amount of risk-taking is a normal part of adolescent development. The desire to try new things and become more independent is healthy, but it may also increase teens’ tendencies to experiment with drugs. The parts of the brain that control judgment and decision-making do not fully develop until people are in their early or mid-20s. This limits a teen’s ability to accurately assess the risks of drug experimentation and makes young people more vulnerable to peer pressure. 36

Because the brain is still developing, using drugs at this age has more potential to disrupt brain function in areas critical to motivation, memory, learning, judgment, and behavior control. 12  

Can research-based programs prevent drug addiction in youth?

Yes.  The term research-based or evidence-based means that these programs have been designed based on current scientific evidence, thoroughly tested, and shown to produce positive results. Scientists have developed a broad range of programs that positively alter the balance between risk and protective factors for drug use in families, schools, and communities. Studies have shown that research-based programs, such as described in NIDA’s  Principles of Substance Abuse Prevention for Early Childhood: A Research-Based Guide   and  Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide for Parents, Educators, and Community Leaders , can significantly reduce early use of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. 37  Also, while many social and cultural factors affect drug use trends, when young people perceive drug use as harmful, they often reduce their level of use. 38

How do research-based prevention programs work?

These prevention programs work to boost protective factors and eliminate or reduce risk factors for drug use. The programs are designed for various ages and can be used in individual or group settings, such as the school and home. There are three types of programs:

• Universal programs address risk and protective factors common to all children in a given setting, such as a school or community.
• Selective programs are for groups of children and teens who have specific factors that put them at increased risk of drug use.
• Indicated programs are designed for youth who have already started using drugs.

Young Brains Under Study

Using cutting-edge imaging technology, scientists from the NIDA’s Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study will look at how childhood experiences, including use of any drugs, interact with each other and with a child’s changing biology to affect brain development and social, behavioral, academic, health, and other outcomes. As the only study of its kind, the ABCD study will yield critical insights into the foundational aspects of adolescence that shape a person’s future.

Economics of Prevention

Evidence-based interventions for substance use can save society money in medical costs and help individuals remain productive members of society. Such programs can return anywhere from very little to $65 per every dollar invested in prevention. 39

Now Is the Time to Stop Drug Overdose Deaths

Everyone can take action to help end the overdose epidemic in the United States. Use and share the information and materials for CDC’s drug overdose prevention campaigns  to increase awareness of how we can work together to save lives from overdose and support people who use drugs to find a path toward treatment and recovery.

• Executive Summary: Stop Overdose Campaigns [PDF – 28 pages]
• Recovery Is Possible | Rx Awareness | CDC Injury Center
• What You Need to Know About Treatment and Recovery [PDF]
• MAT Medications, Counseling, and Related Conditions | SAMHSA
• COVID-19 Information, Support, and Resources | Drug Overdose | CDC Injury Center
• Save a Life from Prescription Opioid Overdose | Rx Awareness | CDC Injury Center
• Rx Awareness | CDC Injury Center
• A Day to Remember: International Overdose Awareness Day
• Recovery is Possible: Treatment for Opioid Addiction | Drug Overdose | CDC Injury Center
• Safely and Effectively Managing Pain Without Opioids
• Talk to Your Doctor About Managing Your Pain
• Real Stories from Real People: Overcoming Addiction
• Opioid Overdose Prevention Saves Lives
• Save Lives Now

To receive email updates about this topic, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
• Virtual Activities
• 2024 Theme Contest
• Red Ribbon Store

Red Ribbon inspires our kids to Be Happy, Be Brave, Be Drug Free

Red ribbon week takes place each year from october 23 through 31st., join us in our mission to help keep kids drug-free..

INTRODUCING THE 2024 NATIONAL RED RIBBON WEEK THEME:

"life is a movie, film drug free.™".

This creative theme was submitted by Cheryl Holsapfel, Digital Art Teacher, and Devansh Aggarwal from Solon Middle School. It serves as a powerful reminder that ordinary Americans nationwide contribute significantly to their communities every day by embracing a drug-free lifestyle.

Support healthy, drug free kids

The red ribbon campaign relies on your generosity.

For every dollar invested in prevention, $7 are saved in drug-addiction treatment. Join the movement, donate today.

Red Ribbon Blog

National family partnership unveils 2024 red ribbon week theme, jan 31, 2024 by elizabeth golshteyn, 13 min read, the red ribbon photo contest brings others to join forces with their community (big or small), dec 4, 2023 by nfp, cornyn, whitehouse resolution recognizing red ribbon week passes senate, nov 8, 2023 by audrey cook, red ribbon movie mondays:.

Lights, camera, action! Join us in celebrating a Drug-Free Life with our latest feature: "Life is a Movie. Film Drug Free!"

Every Monday, we roll out the red carpet to spotlight one of YOU living your best life, without drugs. Show us your star power by sharing a video showcasing what it means to you to live drug-free. Take center stage and let your story shine by completing our survey. The spotlight's on you, and we can't wait to see your blockbuster performance!

Share Your Story.

Use the form below to send us your Red Ribbon Monday Story. You may be featured on our website!

Grassroot Beginnings

Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was a Drug Enforcement Administration Agent who was tortured and killed in Mexico in 1985.  In honor of  Kiki's memory and his battle against illegal drugs, friends and neighbors began to wear red badges of satin.  Parents then began to form coalitions using Camarena as their model while embracing his belief that one person can make a difference. These coalitions adopted the symbol of Camarena's memory, the Red Ribbon. Today, the Red Ribbon serves as a catalyst to mobilize communities to educate youth and encourage participation in drug prevention activities.

Get Involved

Check out our Red Ribbon Week 2023 Planning Guide.

Red Ribbon Merchandise

When you purchase Red Ribbon themed merchandise, you're helping support drug-use prevention efforts nationwide.

Take the Pledge

Take the National Red Ribbon Campaign Pledge now and be a part of the creation of a drug free America.

One person can make the difference

The Red Ribbon Campaign serves as a catalyst to mobilize communities, educate youth and encourage participation in drug prevention activities.

Sign up to the Red Ribbon newsletter.

Get email updates and learn how to get involved.

• Business Leaders
• Faith Based Leaders
• Government Representatives
• Law Enforcement
• Media Leaders
• Medical Community
• Helpful Links

Partner Sites

• National Family Partnership
• Informed Families
• Lock Your Meds

Florida Headquarters

2490 Coral Way

Copyright © 2024 National Family Partnership

Drug Education and Prevention Essay

The issue of drug abuse has been a threat to many economies of the world. This has propelled governments and other community organizations worldwide to formulate ways of curbing this menace from all corners. Among the methods that are used are frank, positive futures and the national drug strategy.

While each of these has its own salient features, they all serve the common goal of educating the public about the risks involved in drug abuse and also the ways of avoiding becoming victims of drug abuse. Some governments and organizations have gone a step ahead and created rehabilitation centers that help those persons recovering from the abuse of drugs.

The extent to which each of the methods used is efficient varies. This is due to the limitation of the policy in rearing some areas of life. In this paper, the modalities that are followed by frank and those that are followed by the positive futures are measured against one another with an aim of comparing their effectiveness and coming up with appropriate recommendations for each.

For the purpose of the study, the information that is contained in the course material chilling out: the cultural politics of substance consumption, youth and drug policy by Blackman S. is heavily relied upon (Spring1 2010, 30).

The biggest questions that the book-chilling out poses are; the connection between politics of drug war and the prevention of drug abuse, popular culture and also the consumption of drugs. The book is critical of many methods that are used in curbing the crime of drug abuse.

The various policies that are in place concerning drug abuse are critically looked into and the loopholes that are present are brought out in clear. The book brings out the relevance of the main economy to the policies that are made concerning the issue of drug abuse. The book also criticizes the assumptions that the policy makers have made as some of them are unrealistic (Blackman 2003, 45).

The author furthermore tackles the moral obligation of the various stakeholders in the policy making and implementation of the education and prevention of drug abuse. The books main target of the book is the prevention of drug abuse.

Its main take is that if enough prevention measures are put in place, then the cases of drug abuse will be relatively lowered and thus the costs that are incurred in the rehabilitation of the drug addicts are effectively lowered (Spring1 2010, 23).

The effect of art in the course of tackling drug prevention and education is also brought out in the light. The author applauds the efforts that are being put in place by the musicians, media, and the cultural studies in helping the society to learn the dangers of drug abuse.

The policies that are being made in enhancing the artists in their endeavors are also tackled in this book. The book is recommendable to any study into the cases of drug abuse education and prevention (MacLean 2005, 10).

The frank method works in a friendly manner. Then name Frank in itself sounds like a name of some individual. On the contrary it is not. The name was coined out of the method that the campaign is carried out and so frank is a friend mainly of the youth he understands what they are going through and talks to the youth with a tone of understanding.

He talks of the issues that affect the livelihood of the youth and relates that to the drug abuse and comes up with a way of solving these problems. The drugs that are mainly targeted are Tobacco, Cannabis, Opiates, alcohol, Ecstasy, Cocaine and derivates, Amphetamines, Methamphetamines and Inhalants/ solvents.

The main target of the program is the youth between the age of 11 and 18 years. The program considers that the persons at this age will be better advised in making their decisions when they attain the age of majority -18 years. Te target facilitators of the program are the parents and professionals whose routine work involves dealing directly with the youth who fall in this age group.

The major theme in the program which is a government initiative is to create awareness among the youth about how much drug abuse can deteriorate the life of the drug user. The program has also been used as a platform through which the government and other persons who would wish to communicate with the young generation have been using. It has been used successfully in learning institutions at the community level and also at the national level at passing down the various government policies that affect the youth.

The method that is used in positive futures is quite different. While Frank shows the youth and other drug users the effects of drug abuse, positive futures focuses on the benefits of living a drug free life. Though both may sound to be similar they are not the same.

The main focus in positive future is to make the youth know how much it shall be profitable to their lives if they shall be able to detach themselves from rugs. This makes it hard for any persons who would wish to glorify drugs as he or she does not get a premise on which to table the motions.

The method that is a national activity involving the youth at the age of between 10 and 19 years has recorded a high reception both on the local and the national levels. It is worthy noting here that it is at this age that most persons are initiated to drug abuse. While those youth who live in less advantaged environments are recorded to get involved in drugs at the ages of 10 to 14 while the others in the society usually get involved when they are between 15 and 19 (Spring2 2010, 33).

In comparison, both methods are seen to targets the youth. This is the first assumption that has been evidenced in both the methods that it is the youth who are adversely affected by the abuse of drugs. On the contrary it has been proved that even persons at advanced ages have fell victim of drug abuse.

The craving for more caffeine, alcohol, nicotine and other abused drugs increases with the increased usage as opposed to the thinking that it reduces. Thus even though both the projects help in reducing the occurrence of drug abuse and addiction at the young age and thus on the future old age, the current drug abusers who are beyond the age bracket are left out of the programs.

The usage of modern technology is so evident in both the Frank method and positive future method. While old persons may be content with the old technology, the young persons are always innovative and usually ready to try out new developments in the market.

The fact the two programs run websites which are regularly updated and are in line with current technology; it is a major booster to the programs. This makes it even easier for the policy makers to receive information and feedback from the youth.

The networking of the program has also been made better by use of the new technology. The youth would rather identify themselves with the technology based sources and channel of communication that print media (Spring1 2010, 15).

In contrast, the programs tackle the same topic on different dimensions. The main aims of Frank program is to educate the youth on the dangers of getting involved in drug abuse while the main target of the positive future is to educate the youth on the advantages of living a drug free life.

Thus the activities that are undertaken in positive future are based more on the life skills that are vital in alienating the mind of a young person form having the mentality of drug abuse. The activities involve sports, investments, discussions and also interactions among others.

On the other hand the activities that are included in the Frank method bring out the issue of drug abuse as a vice. This has posed as a threat to the system at last where the victims are turned into heroes and heroines by the spectators.

The other major contrast of the two programs is the persons who are involved in the facilitation of the projects. Frank as stated earlier acts as a friend who is out to help his fellow friend. It is more of a passive voice that knows much about drugs. Thus the program mostly relies on their websites and youth to youth facilitation.

This is in line with the aim of maintaining the confidentiality of the person that is seeking the services of the system. On the other hand, positive future depends on the assistance of parents and other stakeholders in the running of its projects. Unlike Frank whose facilitators are the fellow youth, the facilitators in positive futures are parents and other professionals who are involved in the daily life of the youth (Spring2 2010, 25).

The attainment of a drug free future is the other common goal of the two programs. The target of the youth at their early stages is a clear evidence of this goal. The generation that crops out of these persons are thus prepared to take life positively as well as being educated on the dangers of living in drug abuse. Thus both the Frank projects and positive future projects give birth to a drug free society.

The response that has been received from the Frank method has accusations of false presentation of truth. Due the fact that the method is usually purposed to be friendly to the youth works on the negative as the policy makers are usually too lenient on the youth so that they may not loose the prey.

This leads them to presenting half truths and the result is that the youth end up having only half baked information. Thus the judgment that the person relying on this information makes is not fully informed. The ability of the system to be uplifted to a pint where truth can be told in black and white is rare since the system has to remain youth friendly.

From among the youth the feedback has been on the affirmative. In its first year only, the program recorded a very high number of visits at its official website and many calls. This number has been rising steadily as the days go by. The fact that the youth can be able to comment or even ask questions at a platform that they feel is secure for them has encouraged persons who have issues of drug abuse to come open and share their experiences.

The confidentiality is further enhanced in that the persons running the websites need not know the real person is the one who is been attended to. Some of the youth fearing to be disclosed use fictitious contacts like the email. Their main aim is to benefit from the program (Spring 2 2010, 14).

The magnitude of the youth who participate in the program has made even more trust it even though they were earlier conservative about the program. The youth have been passing the information about the program to one another. Also the use of parents, guidance and teachers as the facilitators of the program has been received in good faith and has made the number of beneficiates of the program to rise. Then parents have been sending the information about the programs through their own social networks that is different form the official websites that the program uses (Spring1 2010, 33).

The response that is received from the positive futures has been good with a record 59000 youth at the age of 10 to 16 attending positive future projects in 2009. This was a 65% rise from the number that attended the projects in the previous year from the same age bracket. While this was not evident at the early stages of the program the trend is changing and many more youth are expected to take part in future projects.

Apart from taking part in the projects, the participants have received both awards and experience in the activities that they have been engaged in the positive future projects. Some have even made up their minds to take up some of these activities as their career choice. This has been so common in the sporting activities where the participants have been reported to take professional sportsmanship after getting involved in positive future projects.

Blackman has been critical of the areas that are covered by the Frank initiative. According to Blackman, the measures to counter the issue of drug abuse should be a continuous process that involves education at early stages of life. Thus there should be introductory classes for persons below the age of 11 that the program covers. This is to create preparedness on the youth even before they are involved with other more involving projects at the age of 11.

This is also the case for the positive futures. The introductory lessons are missing in the project at early stages. This at some point affects some learners considering that the ability to absorb information varies. The persons with slow learning capability may thus feel disadvantaged as opposed to when introductions are done at early stages. More over there are activities that can involve the persons at lower age groups.

The contribution that chilling out makes in the fight against drug abuse is however priceless. The book tackles the issue of art as a way of dealing with the cases of drug abuse. As we have seen, the above two and many other programs are targeted towards the youth since they are the most affected.

Similarly, the youth have a better taste for art than any other group. This qualifies the use of music, and other literal means in reaching out to the persons whom the information about drug abuse education and prevention is intended. This is part of the activities that positive future uses in its education projects. Like sports, the field of art has recorded a good number of persons who after passing through the projects decide to take as a career (Smart, 2005, 32).

For any of the programs to be sufficiently effective, it should have legality. This is an issue that Blackman does not leave out. He calls upon the government to make legislation that encourages the education and prevention programs. Both Frank and positive future programs have had legislation that help them in achieving both their short term and also long term goals. The availability of these laws assist and also guide the policy makers in coming up with projects that are legal and keeps them in the safe side of the law (Blackman 2003, 70).

In conclusion, the two programs can be termed effective each on its own way. The concurrent implementation of both projects has been praised by many persons as being counter productive in that the persons who fail the target of Frank method are easily captured in the positive future programs.

Recommendations are however made for the projects to cover even the victims of drug abuse who fall above the age groups that are represented by the two programs. Even though the government has other programs that cater for the persons in those age groups, the productivity of Frank and positive future programs has been rated so high in consideration.

This recommendation is made considering that the cut-off of the target group is at the age when most youth start to be engaged in income generating activities. This makes them vulnerable to many pleasures with drug abuse being one of them.

Blackman, S. 2003. Chilling Out: The Cultural Politics of Substance Consumption, Youth and Drug Policy . London. Amazon.

MacLean, S. 2006. Book review: Chilling Out: The Cultural Politics of Substance Consumption, Youth and Drug Policy . London. Amazon.

Smart, R. 2005. Book Review. Chilling Out: The Cultural Politics of Substance Consumption, Youth and Drug Policy . London: Amazon.

Spring. 2010. Models and Methods of Drug Education 1: Drug Prevention through Social Marketing . Manchester.

Spring. 2010. Models and Methods of Drug Education 2: Youth Development and ‘Diversionary Activities’ . Manchester.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 26). Drug Education and Prevention. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-education-and-prevention/

"Drug Education and Prevention." IvyPanda , 26 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/drug-education-and-prevention/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Drug Education and Prevention'. 26 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Drug Education and Prevention." March 26, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-education-and-prevention/.

1. IvyPanda . "Drug Education and Prevention." March 26, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-education-and-prevention/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Drug Education and Prevention." March 26, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-education-and-prevention/.

• Root Cause Analysis: Lewis Blackman Case
• The Importance of a Family Facilitator During Resuscitation
• Inclusive Education: Barriers and Facilitators
• Importance of Facilitator in Human Services Course
• The History of Leo Frank's Case
• Barriers and Facilitators of Workplace Learning
• Causes, Facilitators, and Solutions to Racism
• Barriers and Facilitators to Clinical Education Practices
• An Instructional Technology Facilitator's Reflection
• Ethics and Law in Health Profession: Case of Mr. Frank
• Body Fitness and Health
• Impact of Culture on Communication in a Health Setting
• Workplace Stress Problem
• Health Outcome of Tobacco Use: Lung Cancer
• The Different Lifestyle Issues that Affect People’s Health

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.98(12); Dec 2008

Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on Youths

R. Hornik had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; he contributed to the study's concept, design, and supervision; the drafting of the article; and statistical expertise. L. Jacobsohn contributed to the drafting of the article. R. Orwin provided statistical expertise and contributed to the study's concept, design, and supervision. A. Piesse provided statistical expertise. G. Kalton provided statistical expertise and contributed to the study's concept and design. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and the critical revision of the article for important intellectual content.

Objectives. We examined the cognitive and behavioral effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on youths aged 12.5 to 18 years and report core evaluation results.

Methods. From September 1999 to June 2004, 3 nationally representative cohorts of US youths aged 9 to 18 years were surveyed at home 4 times. Sample size ranged from 8117 in the first to 5126 in the fourth round (65% first-round response rate, with 86%–93% of still eligible youths interviewed subsequently). Main outcomes were self-reported lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day marijuana use and related cognitions.

Results. Most analyses showed no effects from the campaign. At one round, however, more ad exposure predicted less intention to avoid marijuana use (γ = −0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.13, −0.01) and weaker antidrug social norms (γ = −0.05; 95% CI = −0.08, −0.02) at the subsequent round. Exposure at round 3 predicted marijuana initiation at round 4 (γ = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.00, 0.22).

Conclusions. Through June 2004, the campaign is unlikely to have had favorable effects on youths and may have had delayed unfavorable effects. The evaluation challenges the usefulness of the campaign.

Between 1998 and 2004, the US Congress appropriated nearly $ 1 billion for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The campaign had 3 goals: educating and enabling America's youths to reject illegal drugs; preventing youths from initiating use of drugs, especially marijuana and inhalants; and convincing occasional drug users to stop. 1 The campaign, which evolved from advertising efforts by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2 did not expect to affect heavy drug users.

The campaign was designed to be comprehensive social marketing effort that aimed antidrug messages at youths aged 9 to 18 years, their parents, and other influential adults. Messages were disseminated through a wide range of media channels: television (local, cable, and network), radio, Web sites, magazines, movie theaters, and several others. Additionally, the campaign established partnerships with civic, professional, and community groups and outreach programs with the media, entertainment, and sports industries. Across its multiple media outlets, the campaign reported buying advertising from September 1999 through June 2004; it was expected that, on average, a youth would see 2.5 targeted ads per week. Sixty-four percent of the gross rating points (GRPs) purchased for the ads were on television and radio. (Within the advertising industry, GRPs are the customary units for measuring exposure to ads. If 1% of the target population sees an ad 1 time, that ad earns 1 GRP).

The youth-focused ads, including ads targeted at African American youths and Hispanic youths (in Spanish), fell into 3 broad categories: (1) resistance skills and self-efficacy, to increase youths' skill and confidence in their ability to reject drug use; (2) normative education and positive alternatives, addressing the benefits of not using drugs; and (3) negative consequences of drug use, including effects on academic and athletic performance. The emphasis on each theme varied across the 5 years of the campaign studied here. To unify its advertising, beginning in 2001, the campaign incorporated a youth brand phrase: “———: My Anti-Drug” (with “Soccer,” for example, filling in the blank). Most campaign ads up to late 2002 did not concentrate on a specific drug, although some ads named marijuana. In late 2002, the campaign introduced the Marijuana Initiative, which altered the ads' mix of messages to a focus on specific potential negative consequences of marijuana use. In the final 6 months evaluated here, about half of the ads were focused on an “early intervention” initiative, that encouraged adolescents to intervene with their drug-using friends.

The campaign involved many institutions. It was supervised by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, with overall campaign management by advertising agency Ogilvy and Mather and public relations and outreach efforts by Fleishman Hillard. Most ads were developed on a pro bono basis by individual advertising agencies working with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The evaluation, mandated by Congress, was supervised by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and undertaken by Westat and the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

We examine the campaign's effects on youths between September 1999 and June 2004, from its full national launch to 9 months after a major refocusing, partly in response to earlier evaluation results. 3 Effects on parents are reported separately. 4

Sample and Procedure

The primary evaluation tool was the National Survey of Parents and Youth (NSPY), an in-home survey of youths and their parents living in households in the United States. The first round of data collection consisted of 3 waves, approximately 6 months apart, between November 1999 and June 2001. Eligible youths (aged 9–18 years) were reinterviewed for the second round (July 2001–June 2002), third round (July 2002–June 2003), and fourth round (July 2003–June 2004). Across rounds 1 through 4, a total of 8117, 6516, 5854, and 5126 youths were interviewed, respectively. The sample was selected to provide an efficient and nearly unbiased cross-section of US youths and their parents. Respondents were selected through a stratified 4-stage probability sample design: 90 primary sampling units—typically county size—were selected at the first stage, geographical segments were selected within the sampled primary sampling units at the second stage, households were selected within the sampled segments at the third stage, and then, at the final stage, 1 or 2 youths were selected within each sampled household, as well as 1 parent in that household.

The sample for the initial round of the study comprised 3 cohorts that were interviewed in different waves of data collection. The first cohort (from wave 1) was interviewed again at waves 4, 6, and 8. The second and third cohorts (from waves 2 and 3, respectively) were combined and reinterviewed at waves 5, 7, and 9. Waves 1 through 3 were considered round 1, with pairs of subsequent waves combined for rounds 2, 3, and 4. The overall response rate among youth for the first round was 65%, with 86% to 93% of still eligible youths interviewed in subsequent rounds. (A table giving an overview of the study sample cohorts and a data collection timeline is available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org .)

NSPY questionnaires were administered on laptop computers brought into the respondents' homes. The interviewer recorded answers for the opening sections, but for most of the interview, to protect privacy, respondents heard prerecorded questions and answer categories through headphones and responded via touch-screen selection on the computer. Interviews could be conducted in English or Spanish.

The analyses reported here were based on 3 types of measures: recalled exposure to antidrug messages aired by the campaign and other sources; cognitions and behavior related to marijuana, as outcomes; and individual and household characteristics, including a wide range of variables known to be related to drug cognitions and use and to exposure to antidrug messages.

Exposure measures.

A measure of general exposure to antidrug advertising was derived from responses to questions about advertising recall for each medium or media grouping: television and radio, print, movie theaters or videos, and outdoor advertising. An example question, based on wording from the Monitoring the Future Survey, 5 read, “The next questions ask about antidrug commercials or ads that are intended to discourage drug use. In recent months, about how often have you seen such antidrug ads on TV, or heard them on the radio?”

In addition, the NSPY measured prompted recall of specific campaign television and radio ads. In general, up to 4 television and 2 radio ads scheduled to air in the 2 months preceding the interview were randomly selected and presented in full via the computer. Respondents were asked, “Have you ever seen or heard this ad?” and “In recent months, how many times have you seen or heard this ad?” Respondents answered through precoded response categories. If more than 4 television or 2 radio youth-targeted ads had been on the air in the previous 2 months, recall data were imputed for all those not presented. There is substantial evidence for the validity of this specific measure when recall of a campaign ad is compared with that of ads never broadcast and to total GRPs purchased for that ad. 6

Outcome measures.

For 3 reasons, all drug-related measures reported here relate to marijuana use. First, marijuana is by far the illicit drug most heavily used by youths. 5 Second, for other drugs, the low levels of use meant that the NSPY sample sizes were not large enough to detect meaningful changes in use with adequate power. Third, to the extent that the campaign did target a specific drug, it was almost always marijuana.

The behavior measures reported here include lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day use of marijuana. To measure lifetime use, the respondent was told, “The next questions are about marijuana and hashish. Marijuana is sometimes called pot, grass, or weed. Marijuana is usually smoked, either in cigarettes, called joints, or in a pipe. Hashish is a form of marijuana that is also called hash. From now on, when marijuana is mentioned, it means marijuana or hashish. Have you ever, even once, used marijuana?” This was followed up by the question, “How long has it been since you last used marijuana?” Possible responses were (1) “During the last 30 days,” (2) “More than 30 days ago but within the last 12 months,” and (3) “More than 12 months ago.”

The cognitive measures were developed on the basis of 2 health behavior theories, the theory of reasoned action 7 and social cognitive theory. 8 Four measures or indices represented the following constructs: (1) marijuana intentions, (2) marijuana beliefs and attitudes, (3) social norms, and (4) self-efficacy to resist use.

The intention measure was based on one question that asked, “How likely is it that you will use marijuana, even once or twice, over the next 12 months? When we say marijuana, we mean marijuana or hashish.” The answer categories provided the following alternatives: “I definitely will not,” “I probably will not,” “I probably will,” and “I definitely will.” For analytic purposes, the responses were dichotomized into “I definitely will not” vs other responses. Consistent with the theory of reasoned action, this intention measure proved to be a powerful predictor of future behavior: among those aged 12.5 to 18 years who said they had never used marijuana, 9% of those who answered “definitely will not” at a given round reported use when they were reinterviewed 12 to 18 months later at the next round. By contrast, 39% of prior nonusers who gave any other answer said at the next interview that they had initiated use.

The antimarijuana attitudes and beliefs index included responses to 8 specific expected-outcome questions (e.g., “How likely is it that the following would happen to you if you used marijuana, even once or twice , over the next 12 months? I would: Get in trouble with the law,” with responses on a 5-point scale from “very unlikely” to “very likely”). Initially, respondents who had never used marijuana were randomly selected to be asked about the consequences of marijuana use on a trial basis (“even once or twice”) or regularly (“nearly every month”), whereas all of those who had previously used marijuana were asked regular-use questions.

For trial use, respondents were asked how they rated (“very unlikely” to “very likely”) the following possible consequences of marijuana use: “Upset my (parents/caregivers),” “Get in trouble with the law,” “Lose control of myself,” “Start using stronger drugs,” “Be more relaxed,” “Have a good time with my friends,” “Feel better,” and “Be like the coolest kids.” For regular use, possible consequences were as follows: “Damage my brain,” “Mess up my life,” “Do worse in school,” “Be acting against my moral beliefs,” “Lose my ambition,” “Lose my friends' respect,” “Have a good time with my friends,” and “Be more creative and imaginative.”

The index also included responses to 2 attitude scales in a semantic differential format: “Your using marijuana nearly every month for the next 12 months would be ———,” with 2 sets of responses, both on a scale of 7: “extremely bad” to “extremely good” and “extremely unenjoyable” to “extremely enjoyable.” For these items, respondents were again assigned trial-use or regular-use questions, depending on whether they had previously used marijuana.

To create the overall index, we used data from waves 1 and 2, regressing all of the belief and attitude items on the intention question and assigning weights to each item for the overall scale that reflected those coefficients. The summed index was then scaled so that the mean (and standard deviation) for the entire population of nonusers aged 12 to 18 years at wave 1 was set to 100. Among all youths (users and nonusers) aged 12.5 to 18 years, those who scored above the median on the index had a relative odds of 21.7 of responding “definitely will not” to the intention measure compared with those who scored below the median.

The anti-marijuana social norms index was created with a statistical approach parallel to that of the attitudes and beliefs index. There were 5 parallel questions that assessed social normative pressure regarding marijuana use. They asked about perceptions of friends' marijuana use, other peers' marijuana use, parents' disapproval of “your” marijuana use, friends' disapproval of “your” marijuana use, and disapproval of “your” marijuana use by most people important to you, in the context either of use “even once or twice” or of use “nearly every month” over the next year. Through use of a regression model, the questions were then weighted according to their ability to predict the intention to use marijuana once or twice in the next year. The summed index was scaled so that the mean (and standard deviation) for the entire population of nonusers aged 12 to 18 years at wave 1 was set to 100. Among all youths (users and nonusers) aged 12.5 to 18 years, those who scored above the median on the index had a relative odds of 17.4 of responding “definitely will not” to the intentions measure compared with those who scored below the median.

Finally, for the antimarijuana self-efficacy index, all respondents were asked the same 5 questions about their confidence that they could turn down use of marijuana under various circumstances: “How sure are you that you can say no to marijuana, if you really wanted to , if: You are at a party where most people are using it? A very close friend suggests you use it? You are home alone and feeling sad or bored? You are on school property and someone offers it? You are hanging out at a friend's house whose parents aren't home?” Through use of a regression model, these 5 questions were then weighted according to their ability to predict the intention to use marijuana once or twice in the next year. Once again, the summed index was scaled so that the mean (and standard deviation) for the entire population of nonusers aged 12 to 18 years at wave 1 was set to 100. Among all youths (users and nonusers) aged 12.5 to 18 years, those who scored above the median on the index had a relative odds of 4.0 of responding “definitely will not” to the intentions measure compared with those who scored below the median, making this the least predictive of the 3 indices.

Potential confounder measures.

The analyses employed propensity scoring for confounder control by weighting adjustments, 9 – 14 incorporating a wide range of standard demographic variables and variables known to be related to youths' drug use or thought likely to be related to exposure to antidrug messages. Propensity scores were developed for the general and specific exposure measures. More than 150 variables were considered possible confounders. (For a detailed description of the propensity scoring process and the confounders included in the final models, see Orwin et al. 4 ) They include age; gender; race/ethnicity; wave of survey response; urban–rural residency; neighborhood characteristics from the 2000 US Census 15 ; school-related variables, including self-reported academic performance, family functioning, extracurricular activities, perceived parental supervision, association with antisocial peers, and media consumption. A wide range of parents' questionnaire items were also considered potential confounders, including household income; responding parent's demographics; media use; use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs; and involvement with their children. In addition to the variables listed here, an overall estimate of the level of risk of marijuana use was developed and used as a potential confounder in the propensity scoring models.

Regarding individual risk of marijuana use, an empirically derived risk score was created as the regression-defined weighted sum of a set of youth and parent risk factors that were predictive of marijuana use. Those that had independent predictive weight included youth's age, sensation seeking, 16 urbanicity, cigarette and alcohol use more than 12 months prior to the date of questionnaire completion, and religious involvement, along with shared parenting and marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use by the parent. Risk was an important predictor of marijuana initiation. Among the 12.5- to 18-year-olds, 1 in 4 of those with a higher risk score ( > 0.08 on a 0–1 scale), but 1 in 12 of those with a lower risk score (≤ 0.08), reported initiation at the next interview.

Statistical Analyses

Given the campaign's national coverage, our evaluation was forced to rely on naturally occurring variation in campaign exposure among individuals to estimate the campaign; effects, after adjustment for variation in potential confounders, including the amount and type of media consumption. Whereas comparisons between geographic areas were considered an alternative approach for providing exposure variation, the advertising agency's projected buying plans did not forecast such variation. Three types of analysis were conducted, with claims of effect strongest if the results of all 3 were consistent.

First, the evaluation examined changes over time in each outcome, on the assumption that a successful campaign would produce trends in desired antidrug directions. However, upward or downward trends can be the result of many influences, without the campaign necessarily being the cause.

Second, the evaluation examined the associations of individuals' exposures to antidrug advertising with concurrent drug-related outcomes, with statistical control for potential confounders through the use of propensity scoring. These associations were computed from data pooled across all survey rounds. The relationship between exposure and each outcome was estimated by Goodman and Kruskal's gamma statistic (see, for example, Agresti 17 ). The gamma statistic, which estimates both the direction and strength of an association between 2 ordinal variables, can vary between −1 and 1, with 0 indicating no association. These cross-sectional gamma statistics provide evidence as to whether variations in individual exposure and outcomes are associated, once likely confounders are controlled, but they do not establish whether exposure influenced the outcome or whether the supposed outcome influenced recall of exposure.

The third mode of analysis addressed the issue of causal direction by examining whether exposure at one round of data collection was associated with outcomes at the next round, once confounders, including prior round outcomes, were controlled. The analyses (referred to as lagged analyses) were also pooled across rounds, with exposure measures taken from the first 3 rounds and the outcome measures taken from the second through fourth rounds.

Each of the analyses was performed for all youths, as well as for important subgroups defined by gender, age, race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic), and risk of marijuana use (lower and higher). Analyses were restricted to youths who were nonusers of marijuana at the current round (for cross-sectional analyses) or at the previous round (for lagged analyses). The focus on nonusers and their transition to first use is consistent with one of the campaign's goals: preventing any drug use. The campaign also aimed to encourage those who were using occasionally to reduce their use. However, that objective is not examined here because the sample sizes of occasional users did not provide sufficient power to detect effects on that subpopulation.

Weights were used in all analyses to compensate for differential probabilities of selection, nonresponse, and undercoverage. We adjusted the cross-sectional weights for nonresponse by using demographic, household, and neighborhood characteristics. In addition to these variables, prior-round measures of general exposure and marijuana-related outcomes were used to adjust the longitudinal weights. Sampling errors were computed with a jackknife replication methodology that accounted for the NSPY's complex sample design. 4

To maintain consistency for all analyses, and because by the fourth round the sample contained few youths younger than 12.5 years, only those youths aged between 12.5 and 18 years at the time of outcome measurement are included. However, all conclusions presented here were supported by prior analyses with the broader age range of youths. 18

Youths reported substantial exposure to antidrug advertising. Overall, 94% of youths reported general exposure to 1 or more antidrug messages per month, with a median frequency of about 2 to 3 ads per week, consistent with the campaign's GRP purchases. Fifty-four percent of youths recalled at least weekly exposure to specific campaign television ads that had aired in recent months. At the same time, there was considerable variability among youths in their exposure levels. Across the campaign, 15%, 31%, 38%, and 16% recalled seeing less than 1, 1 to less than 4, 4 to less than 12, and 12 or more campaign television ads per month, respectively.

There was no change in the prevalence of marijuana use among those aged 12.5 to 18 years between 2000 and 2004. A small but significant increase in antimarijuana beliefs and attitudes was not accompanied by significant parallel gains in intentions not to use, social norms, or self efficacy ( Table 1 ). There were some significant year-to-year changes (including an antimarijuana shift in intentions from 2002 to 2004) and a few significant changes for subgroups of the population. 4

Changes Among Youths Aged 12.5 to 18 Years in Marijuana Use Cognitions and Behavior: National Survey of Parents and Youth, United States, 2000–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.

In general, lower- and higher-risk youths, and younger and older youths, differed markedly in their absolute levels of marijuana use and in antimarijuana cognitions, whereas there were minimal differences in these outcomes by gender or race/ethnicity. In most cases, the changes from 2000 to 2004 for subgroups were broadly similar to those displayed in Table 1 for all youths. 4

There is little evidence for a contemporaneous association between exposure to antidrug advertising and any of the outcomes, after adjustment for confounders. Nonusers who reported more exposure (general or specific) to antidrug messages were no more likely to express antidrug cognitions than were youths who were less exposed ( Table 2 ). The same analyses were undertaken for subgroups defined by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and risk score. Only 3 of the 80 gammas in these analyses were significant; they may easily be chance findings.

Cross-Sectional Association of Exposure to Antidrug Advertising and Marijuana-Related Outcomes Among Nonusers of Marijuana Aged 12.5 to 18 Years: National Survey of Parents and Youth, United States, 1999–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Estimates were adjusted for confounders (see “Methods” section for details). General and specific exposures refer to exposure to campaign ads as a whole and exposure to specific ads, respectively.

The final set of analyses examined whether exposure during an earlier round of measurement was associated with outcomes among 12.5- to 18-year-olds at the next round of measurement, after we controlled for confounders measured at the earlier round. These analyses were conducted separately for each pair of consecutive rounds, as well as with data pooled across all 3 round pairs (i.e., pairs of consecutive rounds). Outcomes included cognitive measures and initiation of marijuana use since the prior round. The results from the pooled data show no evidence of antimarijuana lagged effects. Rather, they indicate the possible presence of pro-marijuana effects: 2 of 10 associations were statistically significant, both in a pro-marijuana direction, and results for 6 of the remaining 8 lagged analyses were in an unfavorable direction ( Table 3 ). Examination of the 80 subgroup analyses reveals 20 significant effects, with 19 of those in a pro-marijuana direction. Thus, there is an overriding pattern of unfavorable lagged exposure effects.

Lagged Association of Exposure to Antidrug Advertising at Earlier Round and Marijuana-Related Outcomes at Next Round Among Nonusers of Marijuana Aged 12.5 to 18 Years at Earlier Round: National Survey of Parents and Youth, 1999–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Data were pooled across round pairs (i.e., pairs of consecutive rounds). General and specific exposures refer to exposure to campaign ads as a whole and exposure to specific ads, respectively. Estimates were adjusted for confounders (see “Methods” section for details).

To investigate whether the effects of the campaign differed over its duration, the lagged analyses were carried out separately for each of the paired rounds. The results in Table 4 show no significant antimarijuana lagged associations, and at least 1 significant pro-marijuana lagged association, for each of the paired rounds. In the analysis of round 3 to round 4, the effect of exposure to general antidrug messages also includes a barely significant association in the direction of increased initiation of marijuana use.

Lagged Association of Exposure to Antidrug Advertising at Earlier Round and Marijuana-Related Outcomes at Next Round Among 12.5- to 18-Year-Olds Who Were Nonusers of Marijuana at Earlier Round, by Round Pair: National Survey of Parents and Youth, 1999–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. General and specific exposures refer to exposure to campaign ads as a whole and exposure to specific ads, respectively. Estimates were adjusted for confounders (see “Methods” section for details).

Overall, the campaign was successful in achieving a high level of exposure to its messages; however, there is no evidence to support the claim that this exposure affected youths' marijuana use as desired. Analyses of the NSPY data for the full sample yielded no significant associations of exposure with cognitive outcomes when both were measured simultaneously. There is some evidence that exposure to the campaign messages was related to pro-marijuana cognitions on a delayed basis throughout the campaign. In light of these findings, we examined the apparent implication that the campaign was not effective and discuss possible mechanisms by which it could have had unfavorable effects. The findings of unfavorable effects are particularly worrisome because they were unexpected and were found not only for cognitions but also for actual initiation of marijuana use.

Comparison of These Results With Other Relevant Evidence

There are a number of other sources that provide trend data concerning marijuana use. 19 – 21 Some sources have shown a downturn in use among some youths from 1999 to 2004, whereas the NSPY did not show a parallel change over the same period. However, results from the NSPY are similar to those from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (to the extent that they are comparable), and the other surveys are quite different in that they are conducted in schools and not households. 4 Furthermore, even if they were entirely consistent and universally present, trend results alone would not provide solid grounds for a claim of success or failure of the campaign, because they may have been influenced by secular forces other than the campaign's ads and public relations efforts. The presence of such other forces is suggested by the fact that there are even larger declines in both tobacco and alcohol use than in marijuana use in 2 other surveys, 19 , 20 suggesting that all substance use was on a downward trend regardless of the campaign. No other studies have provided information that is comparable to the lagged associations between exposure and subsequent outcomes shown in Tables 3 and ​ and4, 4 , and such additional evidence is crucial for making causal inferences about the campaign's effects.

Possible Reasons for Lack of Evidence of Success

Two alternative explanations for the sparse evidence of the campaign's success are that (1) the evaluation was insensitive to its success or (2) the campaign was indeed not successful. Each alternative is worth some discussion.

Is it possible that the program was successful but the evaluation failed to find supporting evidence? There are some possible circumstances under which the evaluation might not have detected true effects. The evaluation focused on comparing youths who reported different levels of ad exposure. There was substantial variation in self-reported exposure. However, if youths who were personally exposed shared their new learning with those who were not personally exposed, the campaign's effects would be diffused across social networks so that analyses focused on individual differences in exposure would underestimate the effects. However, except in the implausible case that the effects diffused across the entire population of the United States, there should still be some associations between individual exposure and outcomes.

Another concern might be that the first round of NSPY data collection was undertaken simultaneously with the launch of the full campaign, and after substantial prior efforts in its developmental stages. Thus, the evaluation might have missed startup effects. However, the other national surveys of drug use found no significant decreases between 1998 and 2000 in the outcomes they measured related to marijuana use, making it unlikely that the effects were already present by 2000. Also, if exposure to the campaign after 1999 was not positively associated with the outcomes, as both the trend and association data show, then the conclusion that the campaign after 1999 was unsuccessful remains correct, regardless of what happened before.

Alternatively, if the campaign actually has been unsuccessful, how can that be explained? A number of previous mass-media, anti–substance abuse campaigns have affected the substance use of young people, including their use of tobacco 22 – 28 and marijuana 29 – 31 and possibly of alcohol consumption before driving. 32 , 33 Although not all such campaigns are effective, there are now a reasonable number of examples of successful campaigns. 34 , 35 Why, then, does this campaign appear to have been unsuccessful thus far?

One explanation is that the campaign did not add appreciably to the large quantity of antidrug messages youths were already receiving. In 2000, recent background exposure to antidrug messages was reported by more than 50% of youths—through, for example, in-school drug education (66%), conversations with friends about negative consequences of drug use (52%), 2 or more conversations with parents about drugs (54%), and weekly exposure to nonadvertising mass-media content about drugs and youths (54%). Relative to this level of background exposure, across the NSPY's 4 rounds, youths recalled a median frequency of exposure to campaign ads of once to twice per week, mostly through television. Because an ad is typically 15 to 30 seconds in length, 2 such ads would produce up to about one minute per week of antidrug message exposure. Given all the antidrug messages to which youths were already subject prior to the campaign, the fact that the implicit messages of the campaign were not novel and that the incremental exposure was small, a lack of campaign effects is perhaps unsurprising.

What is harder to explain is the possibility suggested by the lagged results of an unfavorable influence of exposure to the campaign. This is sometimes called a boomerang effect. 36 Of several possible explanations, we offer here 2 speculative ideas, which admittedly are somewhat at odds with the reasons just given for the lack of favorable results.

One idea, which comes from psychological reactance theory, 37 , 38 argues, in part, that youths react against threats to their freedom of choice by experiencing and succumbing to pressure to reestablish that freedom, including some pressure to engage in the proscribed behavior. By this explanation, youths who were exposed to these antidrug messages reacted against them by expressing pro-drug sentiments; the greater the exposure, the stronger this reaction. In analyses reported elsewhere, however, we did not find support for this explanation. 39 , 40

The second idea is that antidrug advertising conveys an implicit meta-message that drug use is commonplace. As a result, youths who saw the campaign ads took from them the message that their peers were using marijuana. In turn, those who came to believe that their peers were using marijuana were more likely to initiate use themselves. There was evidence consistent with this speculation: more ad exposure was associated with the belief that other youths were marijuana users, and this belief was predictive of subsequent initiation of marijuana use (data not shown). 4 , 40

Conclusions

The evidence does not support a claim that the campaign produced antimarijuana effects. Palmgreen et al. have reported such effects, but only in 2 medium-sized cities for one 6-month period of the campaign. 41 In contrast, the current evaluation provides some evidence that the campaign had pro-marijuana effects. The boomerang pattern, however, was irregular: it was not evident among cross-sectional associations, was significant for only some outcomes and time periods in the lagged analyses, and showed an increase in initiation of marijuana use only between rounds 3 and 4. At the start of this project, the evaluation team stipulated that it would confidently claim an antimarijuana effect for the campaign only if it were to affect trends, cross-sectional associations, and lagged associations. Against these criteria, the claim that the campaign produced pro-marijuana effects has tentative but not definitive support.

Despite extensive funding, governmental agency support, the employment of professional advertising and public relations firms, and consultation with subject-matter experts, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign had no favorable effects on youths' behavior and that it may even have had an unintended and undesirable effect on drug cognitions and use. This evaluation challenges the usefulness of the campaign as implemented between 2000 and 2004.

Acknowledgments

Research for and preparation of this article were supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (grants 3-N01-DA085063-002 and 1-R03-DA-020893-01). The evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was funded by Congress as part of the original appropriation for the campaign. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy directly supervised the campaign. The National Institute on Drug Abuse supervised the evaluation; Westat, with the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania as a subcontractor, received the contract. All authors were funded for this evaluation and other projects by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The following individuals contributed to this research and to prior technical reports. From Westat, David Maklan, PhD, was coprincipal investigator; Diane Cadell, BS, was project director and supervised data collection; Robert Baskin, PhD, Adam Chu, PhD, David Judkins, MA, Carol Morin, MBA, Sanjeev Sidharan, PhD, Diane Steele, MA, and Paul Zador, PhD, worked on research design, instrument development, statistical analysis, and report preparation. From the University of Pennsylvania, Joseph Cappella, PhD, and Martin Fishbein, PhD, worked on instrument development; Paul Rosenbaum, PhD, and Elaine Zanutto, PhD, provided statistical expertise; Carlin Barmada, MA, Vani Henderson, PhD, Megan Kasimatis, JD, Jeff Niederdeppe, PhD, Anca Romantan, PhD, Brian Southwell, PhD, and Itzhak Yanovitzky, PhD, worked on statistical analysis and report preparation.

Note. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the study's sponsors.

Human Participant Protection

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Westat. Parental permission was obtained to conduct interviews with youthful participants, who gave their consent and were ensured of the confidentiality of all their responses.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

CDP: Main Navigation

• Drugs & Paraphernalia
• Publications
• Upcoming Events
• The Student Center

Student Perspective: Promoting a Drug-free Campus

Take a look at your campus:

• Peer educators can be trained to present on a range of substance use topics and help to dispel myths about drug and alcohol use.   
• Students can come from all lifestyles and it is not unlikely to have students on campus who are dealing with addiction and/or are in recovery. 
• Social norm campaigns can be a great tool to get students engaged in talking about students’ misperceptions of substance use on campus. 

For many students, college marks a time in life where they have a new sense of freedom. They transition into a stage of interdependence where they are largely responsible for daily decisions that will affect their lives now and in the future. This time allows for new experiences, new friends, and new opportunities.

Most college students will likely be exposed to drugs, alcohol, and a party culture that will be new to them. The opportunity to drink heavily or try drugs will probably be presented to them during their student experience. I know, because that was something I experienced as a student. It feels like all the other students are drinking and doing drugs. This is a common misperception, which is displayed through the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) data, which show consistent perceived use of substances that are typically higher than actual use.

Being a student, it usually is not difficult to find drugs or alcohol, even if you are underage. Students will ask their older friends to buy alcohol for them or they will attend parties where there is a common source of alcohol (i.e., kegs, bottles). Drugs can be found within the residence halls, at parties, and even at the library. The point is, if a student wants to try drugs or alcohol, they probably have access to obtain it. I wish more students would educate themselves on the effects of using drugs, but peer pressure or academic pressure does not allow for proper education. Students often engage in drug or alcohol use because perceivably “everyone” else is doing it and they do not want to lose their friends. A common reason for drug use is academics; they want to do well in their classes so they think maybe Adderall or Ritalin will help them study or marijuana will help calm them down to study. Believe it or not, prescription stimulants are not difficult to obtain if you do not have a prescription.

The student experience while at a college or university can be one of the most transformational and important times in a person’s life. The atmosphere of institutions of higher education allow students to contemplate and learn about who they are and how that relates to what they want to do in their lives. Alcohol and other drugs can complicate this time of life with side effects we have all heard before. Faculty members and administrators reach out to help students often, but the accountability of action is ultimately on the student. I believe peer educators are a powerful tool on campuses. Having a student-to-student interaction about the effects of alcohol and drugs can sometimes be more effective than a faculty/staff member interaction with the student.

As a student, I experienced friends who were struggling with alcohol and drug problems. Often times these issues were coupled with family issues, mental health issues, or academic issues. Being a support for them and helping them engage in the services offered by the campus community was the best thing I could do for them. Sometimes all it takes is for students to acknowledge the struggles they see right in front of them and turn to each other to ask for help. Using available resources can be lifesaving to some students and all it may take is another student to help them get connected to those resources.

Help students create a culture of care among one another; urge them to look out for each other. If they see a friend struggling, they can help them find resources, or at least tell someone who can help.

Search the United Nations

• UN Observances

By  resolution 42/112  of 7 December 1987, the General Assembly decided to observe 26 June as the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking as an expression of its determination to strengthen action and cooperation to achieve the goal of an international society free of drug abuse.

Supported each year by individuals, communities, and various organizations all over the world, this global observance aims to raise awareness of the major problem that illicit drugs represent to society.

People first: stop stigma and discrimination, strengthen prevention

The world drug problem is a complex issue that affects millions of people worldwide. Many people who use drugs face stigma and discrimination, which can further harm their physical and mental health and prevent them from accessing the help they need. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) recognizes the importance of taking a people-centered approach to drug policies, with a focus on human rights, compassion, and evidence-based practices.

The International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, or World Drug Day, is marked on 26 June every year to strengthen action and cooperation in achieving a world free of drug abuse. The aim of this year’s campaign is to raise awareness about the importance of treating people who use drugs with respect and empathy; providing evidence-based, voluntary services for all; offering alternatives to punishment; prioritizing prevention; and leading with compassion. The campaign also aims to combat stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs by promoting language and attitudes that are respectful and non-judgmental.

... António Guterres

World Drug Report

Every year, UNODC issues the  World Drug Report , full of key statistics and factual data obtained through official sources, a science-based approach and research. UNODC continues to provide facts and practical solutions to address the current world drug problem and remains committed to attaining health for all. Health and justice sectors are under pressure and access to services and support is obstructed when we can least afford it.

Why Is Cocaine Trafficking Surging?

For two decades, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has been helping make the world safer from drugs, organized crime, corruption and terrorism. We are committed to achieving health, security and justice for all by tackling these threats and promoting peace and sustainable well-being as deterrents to them.

The World Drug Report provides a global overview of the supply and demand of opiates, cocaine, cannabis, amphetamine-type stimulants and new psychoactive substances (NPS), as well as their impact on health. It highlights, through improved research and more precise data, that the adverse health consequences of drug use are more widespread than previously thought.

Why do we mark International Days?

International days and weeks are occasions to educate the public on issues of concern, to mobilize political will and resources to address global problems, and to celebrate and reinforce achievements of humanity. The existence of international days predates the establishment of the United Nations, but the UN has embraced them as a powerful advocacy tool. We also mark other UN observances .

Drug Prevention Activities

Reaching youth before drugs do.

When surveyed, many educators report they lack effective drug education resources that communicate to a young audience. As to what those would be, they say they need accurate, up-to-date and well-presented materials that capture and keep students’ attention.

That is where our Truth About Drugs materials can help. They are current, complete and easily understood by students. Our materials, which are based on authoritative studies and surveys, are presented in a way that is interesting and compelling for young people. And by studying them, youth report that they not only realise it is best to avoid drug use altogether, but they know why they should do so.

No one, especially a teenager, likes to be lectured to about what he or she can or cannot do. Thus, we provide the facts that allow a person to make an informed decision of their own to remain drug-free. The key to the success of this educational program is student participation. To that end, youth are invited to join activities that promote drug-free living—activities that have proven to be popular and which can involve students and community members of all ages.

Drug Free Youth Clubs

As part of the Foundation’s drug education and awareness campaign, schools and community centres around the world sponsor and host Drug-Free World Youth Clubs. Their message is simple: Find out the truth about drugs.

Young people become drug-free activists through participation in the clubs and their many community activities. Showings of the sixteen public service announcements and the 90-minute documentary, The Truth About Drugs: Real People—Real Stories, are regularly done to give an in-depth look at an individual drug.

Among the activities is getting others to sign the Drug Free Pledge  to lead drug-free lives. In so doing, they reverse peer pressure and create drug-free zones in their schools, neighbourhoods and communities.

Essay and Poster Contests

The Drug-Free World program is premised on the fact that if you educate a child with the truth about drugs, they are more likely to make the correct decision about drugs—and come to that decision on their own.

One of the most effective ways to accomplish this is by eliciting student participation through Drug-Free World essay and poster contests.

To date, thousands of schools and community groups have sponsored such contests. Providing students with an essay topic or drug-free theme to illustrate, organisers are able to not only get students involved but, as students must call upon what they’ve learned in order to create, the activity reinforces their drug education.

Distributing The Truth About Drugs

An important action in getting out the truth about drugs is the distribution of program materials—drug education booklets and pamphlets. Each week in cities around the world, schools and youth groups help get The Truth About Drugs series of thirteen booklets out into their communities.

The first booklet gives the full overview of drugs, how they work and what they do to the body and mind. Then there’s one covering every drug of choice. With no preaching, each booklet just provides the straight facts. Concerned businesses and governments help sponsor massive distribution to every part of the globe.

Drug education booklets have been distributed in 20 languages, replacing drug myths with the truth. It’s done right at street level, one-on-one and hand-to-hand. To date, more than 26 million booklets have been distributed from New York to Taiwan and from Australia to Italy.

• Ramadan 2024 and Islam in Mangaluru
• Instead of political party manifestos, Why not people’s manifesto?
• General Elections – A Festival of Discord
• Fear and Silence of the Lambs: Protesting against injustice and assault is your fundamental right
• Cocaine Trafficking into India Scaling Alarming Proportions
• Houthi terrorists reddening the Red Sea
• The American Flag Kilt | A Patriotic Fashion Statement
• Face to face meeting with a revolutionary insurgent
• Consumer Movement: Ways to involve students
• Unveiling the Path to a Clutter-Free Lifestyle in Commerce City
• Soaring cybercrime graph
• Elevate Your Style With a Trendy Red Leather Jacket Mens
• Look Down Please
• Kashmir Bhavan in Bengaluru: A must visit place
• "MAI and I" Book of Angelic Emotions
• Draupadi Murmu - The New ’President of India’
• Anthony Ashram in the city grows a classic museum
• First College of Fisheries in India - A Golden Jubilarian
• Flushing Meadows - A Vintage Mansion
• The Colonel�s Bequest
• A Mangalorean PM and his RBI Governor Brother: The Extraordinary story of the Benegal Brothers
• There is no higher religion than Truth: Theosophical Society
• L�affaire - Ashu & Yiju of Mangalore
• Mangalore in Kowloon
• 1568 to 2018 AD: 450 years of Christianity in Mangaluru
• Vice President elect Naidu moves on from nadir to zenith, the phenomenal journey
• Embracing the Outdoors: How Heated Jackets Are Revolutionizing Cold Weather Activities
• The Hybrid Kilt Revolution | Where Tradition Gets Trendy
• Affordable Elegance | Embrace Style on a Budget with Cheap Kilts
• Unleashing Style and Functionality | Exploring Tactical Kilts
• Mangalore’s Heroic Lady marks 105th Birthday
• Santa the Christmas spirit
• Geriatric care: Mangalore strikes a fine balance
• The Don Who Made Two Empires to Clash
• CHITRAPUR SARASWATS - A Great Kanara Community
• Our new President Ram Nath Kovind’s significant journey to Rashtrapathi Bhavan
• Marriages made in heaven, big fat weddings made in India
• Eid insight - The giver of glad tidings
• �Makara Sankranti� festivities galore

• Local Search
• Classifieds

• Public Utility
• Police Department
• Deputy Commissioner
• MP / MLA / Ministers
• Railways Timings
• Travel Agents
• Travel Distance
• Tourist Info Centre
• Tourist Spots
• Hotel & Resorts
• Restaurants
• Useful Links
• Blood Banks
• Doctors & Specialists
• Laboratories
• Old Age Homes / Orphanages
• Banks & Money Exchange
• Real Estate
• News Papers / Media
• Help-line / NGO’s
• Chamber Of Commerce

• Contact Us |
• Privacy Policy |
• Terms of Service |

© 2024 All rights reserved. MangaloreToday