Fear Production or Harm Reduction Education in the service of the war on drugs

1
Fear Production or Harm Reduction? ? ? ?
? ? ? Education in the service of the war
on drugs

• Craig A. Cunningham, Ph.D.

2
The Foundation of National Drug Control Policy

• . Drug dependence is a chronic, relapsing
  disorder that exacts an enormous cost on
  individuals, families, businesses, communities,
  and nations. Addicted individuals frequently
  engage in self-destructive and criminal
  behavior. Illegal drug trafficking inflicts
  violence and corruption on our communities.
  And drug trafficking threatens both the rule of
  law and human rights.
• 2001 ONDCP National Drug Control Strategy, p. 58.

3
Assumptions of Federal Policy on Illegal Drugs

• All illegal drug use is abuse.
• All illegal drug use is bad.
• All of the consequences of illegal drugs are bad.
• No matter the negative consequences of the war on
  drugs, we must not surrender to the scourge of
  illegal drugs.

4
What are some of the negative consequences of the
War on Drugs?

• Creation of black market and the resultant
  underground culture.
• Expenditure of billions of dollars on
  interdiction and law enforcement.
• Reduction in civil rights.
• Incarceration of millions of people.
• Creation of thousands of fatherless households.
• Denial of education in the name of zero tolerance

5
Some more negative consequences of the War on
Drugs

• Impure substances distributed to drug users
  Extra-legal dispute resolution (sometimes
  violent)
• Suppression of cognitive liberty
• Increase in the willingness of the general
  population to put up with the negative
  consequences of the War on Drugs
• Policy of systematic increase in the Fear of
  Drugs by the general population
• What is fear, operationalized? Perceived risk.

6
Federal drug education policy

• Requires all federally-funded drug education
  programs to include
• clear and unequivocal messages that illegal drug
  use is wrong and harmful for everyone and a
  clear message that any drug use involves risk.
  Consuming even small amounts of some drugs can
  pose hazards to ones health and well-being.
  There should be no mixed messages about the risks
  of drug use. It is not safe, for example, to try
  a drug just once (Learning to Live Drug Free,
  1994)

7
Why does federal policy seek to increase the
perceived risk of drugs?
To reduce the use of drugs?

• A SAMSHA graphic -?
• Federal interpretation increased perceived risk
  results in lower use

8
How does the government increase the perceived
risk of drug use?

• law enforcement
• partnerships for a drug free America
• drug education materials
• federal grants
• approved drug education programs
• Here are two excerpts of current ONDCP anti-drug
  posters

9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Propaganda

• The systematic dissemination of doctrine, rumor,
  or selected information to propagate or promote a
  particular doctrine, view, practice, etc.

13
Federal drug information

• Government description of the effects of LSD
• Symptoms of use Trance-like state, excitation,
  euphoria, increased pulse rate, insomnia,
  hallucinations.
• Potential consequences Impaired judgment and
  coordination can result in a greater risk of
  injury, self-inflicted injury, violent behavior,
  paranoia, depression or anxiety, unpredictable
  flashbacks (Keeping Youth Drug Free, 1996)

14
Alternative drug information

• The enormously variable effects have been
  described as an unspecific intensification of
  mental processes. Perceptually, LSD produces an
  especially brilliant and intense impact of
  sensory stimuli on consciousness. Normally
  unnoticed aspects of the environment capture the
  attention ordinary objects are seen as if for
  the first time and with a sense of fascination or
  entrancement, as though they had unimagined
  depths of significance. The drug taker becomes
  extraordinarily suggestible, reacting with
  heightened sensitivity to facts, gestures, and
  small changes in the environment. Feelings
  become magnified to a degree of intensity and
  purity almost never experienced in daily life
  love, gratitude, joy, sympathy, lust, anger,
  pain, terror, despair, or loneliness may become
  overwhelming. (Psychedelics Reconsidered,
  Grinspoon and Bakalar)

15
More from Psychedelics Reconsidered

• people who advocate the use of LSD always
  rightly emphasize appropriate set (mood,
  personality, expectation) and setting (physical,
  social, and cultural environment). But the
  drugor rather the character and emotional state
  of the drug user whose perceptions, feelings, and
  memories it intensifiesis so unpredictable that
  even the best environment and the highest
  conscious expectations are no guarantees against
  a painful experience.

16
Some effects of increasing the fear of drugs

• A fearful population is willing to suffer
  negative consequences in the name of eliminating
  drugs
• A fearful population is less likely to question
  governmental policies
• A fearful population is more easily controlled.
• A fearful population is willing to give up
  freedoms for safety from the evils of drugs.
• A fearful population is a divided population.

17
Some more effects of increasing the fear of drugs

• People who fear drugs believe that their fear
  helps them avoid drugs. They embrace their own
  fear, and claim that it has saved them from evil.
• People who use drugs are seen as fallen either
  victims or evil-doers who will in turn convert
  other innocents to a life of evil.
• This allows the law-abiding to justify their
  support of government policy that puts
  non-law-abiding citizens in cages for their own
  good and for the good of their communities.

18
How does the Federal government try to increase
the Fear of Drugs?

• Focus on possible consequences rather than most
  common consequences
• Refusal to acknowledge differences among illegal
  drugs
• Refusal to acknowledge the some people use
  illegal drugs without long-term harm
• Refusal to allow mixed messages about the
  effects of drug use

19
Federal policy requires all federally-funded drug
education programs to disseminate fear of drugs

• All programs must provide
• clear and unequivocal messages that illegal drug
  use is wrong and harmful for everyone and a
  clear message that any drug use involves risk.
  Consuming even small amounts of some drugs can
  pose hazards to ones health and well-being.
  There should be no mixed messages about the risks
  of drug use. It is not safe, for example, to try
  a drug just once (Learning to Live Drug Free,
  1994)

20
Federal educational policy discourages

• Material that uses recovering addicts or
  alcoholics as role models because it
  implicitly conveys the message to children that a
  drug user survived and perhaps even became famous
  or wealthy.
• Material that uses terms such as social use,
  responsible use, controlled use, use/abuse, or
  that describes mind-altering drugs as
  mood-altering drugs (implying only temporary
  harm)
• Federal policy also favors police officers and
  professional drug educators over classroom
  teachers, who may send too many mixed messages

21
Balanced information offers

• A mixed message about the effects of drugs
• Acknowledgement of the attractiveness of drugs to
  some people
• Dispassionate description of potential harms of
  different uses of drugs
• Suggestions that caution be exercised in any use
• Concrete suggestions for reducing harm of use
• Decrease in fear
• Increase in understanding

22
Is it possible to have drug education that is not
based on fear?

• The best approach is strong and healthy
  communities in which young people are valued,
  supported, and nurtured and encouraged to live
  lives without fear or prejudice
• Strong moral character encourages youth to make
  responsible choices that protect their own
  futures and the futures of their peers
• Give youth a reason not to abuse drugs, and
  experimental use will not lead to destroyed lives
  
• Give youth honest information about the
  consequences of different uses of drugs, and the
  vast majority will make reasonable choices

23
An analogy

• Drivers Education does not seek to increase the
  fear of automobiles
• Drivers Education tries to teach Safety First
• Drivers Education assumes that all citizens can
  make responsible choices about the use of
  automobiles
• Drivers Education encourages students to learn
  about the differences among different uses of
  automobiles
• Drivers Education teaches the difference between
  safe and unsafe uses of automobiles
• Drivers Education encourages responsible choices
  while using automobiles
• Even though automobiles can kill both their users
  and other people, Drivers Education encourages
  people to use automobiles
• The government encourages manufacturers of
  automobiles to improve the safety of their
  automobiles and to support Drivers Education
• The government spends 0 trying to prevent
  automobiles from being driven

24
Harm-reduction education

• Puts safety first
• Provides honest information
• Expects and supports responsible choices about
  drugs
• Distinguishes between use and abuse, and between
  relatively harmless and truly harmful drugs
• Encourages youth to consider legal consequences
• Admits that drug use is a ubiquitous aspect of
  human experience

25
Conclusion

• People who dont fear drugs dont support the
  war on drugs.
• To end the war on drugs, demand real drug
  education,aimed at harm reduction, not fear
  production.
• To learn more about Harm Reduction approaches to
  drug education, see
• safety1st.org