anti drug advocacy essay

Supporting Addicted Populations Through Advocacy

How to recognize and address the barriers that people with addiction face..

Posted June 2, 2021 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

• What Is Addiction?
• Find a therapist to overcome addiction
• Advocacy involves removing barriers to wellness among marginalized groups, including addicted populations.
• Individuals with addiction face barriers such as stigma, cultural norms counter to recovery, limited access to quality treatment, and more.
• Everyday acts of advocacy include correcting misinformation, supporting recovery efforts, and promoting informed legislation.

When people hear the word “advocacy” they often think of lobbying on Capitol Hill or writing to senators. These actions certainly play a part in advocacy efforts, but the construct entails much more, and it is something we can all do.

For example, we can all advocate for individuals with addiction by making simple changes (like not asking people why they aren’t drinking at a social event) or engaging in larger efforts (like supporting the development of a local recovery high school). Advocacy is defined as, “breaking down barriers to wellness, acting to dismantle systems of privilege and oppression, and working for and with marginalized populations to effect change and promote development” (O’Hara et al., 2016, p. 2). Therefore, to advocate is to recognize and actively work to remove obstacles faced by a person or a group of people (particularly marginalized groups), and this includes those with addiction.

Barriers and Obstacles Faced by Those with Addiction

Individuals with addiction are often marginalized in society by stigma , stereotypes, discrimination , and aspects of culture that are counter to living in long-term recovery (e.g., attending a college surrounded by bars). These individuals face a myriad of barriers to their wellness such as:

• The pervasiveness of stigma : Stigma refers to undesirable labels placed on individuals as a result of particular traits or behaviors (Link & Phelan, 2001). The stigma faced by those with addiction stems from the moral model of addiction (the perspective that addiction is a choice resulting from a character flaw or moral failing) rather than the biopsychosocial model of addiction (the perspective that addiction results from biological, psychological, and social factors). Despite being defined as a disease by the American Medical Association in 1956, a person with addiction is often still perceived as selfish, lazy, immoral, untrustworthy, or criminal by many members of society. Stigma, stereotypes, and discrimination often are fueled by misinformation about the etiology, progression, and treatment of addiction. In essence, stigma suggests that those with addiction are bad rather than sick, resulting in many barriers faced by these individuals.
• Cultural norms that are counter to sobriety : If you are a person who consumes alcohol, consider abstaining for two weeks and, while doing so, pay attention to the number of alcohol cues and reminders that you encounter. From advertisements, commercials, billboards, song lyrics, and aisles of wine and beer at the grocery store; to societal expectations of drinking at certain events like weddings, tailgates, or on holidays, alcohol and drug use permeates American society. Cultural norms do not assist individuals in abstaining from alcohol (and some other drugs); on the contrary, they often actively promote it and shame those who try to abstain.
• Limited treatment access: According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (SAMHSA, 2017), 8.1% of U.S. adults in 2016 needed treatment for a substance use disorder, but only 1.5% received any form of treatment in the previous year. Thus, a large portion of those who need treatment are not getting it. Some barriers to treatment include the affordability, availability, and quality of treatment programs specific to substance use disorders. Treatment programs vary in length, location, and effectiveness, which may preclude some individuals from accessing quality care. Additionally, many people with addiction may not be able to afford treatment, may be forced to wait long periods of time before treatment in their area becomes available, or may face difficulties finding childcare while pursuing treatment.
• The popularity of acute care models : Rather than treating addiction like other chronic illnesses that require long-term care and follow-up appointments, substance use disorders often are addressed using a very short-term (i.e., acute care) model (White, 2014). For example, a 28-day stint in rehab may be all the services an individual with addiction receives, despite the knowledge that addiction is a chronic disease and often accompanied by relapse . The lack of aftercare, step-down treatment planning, and follow-up programming is a significant barrier to those with addiction.

Acts of Advocacy

In light of all these barriers, there is ample opportunity for advocacy efforts to promote the wellness and success of individuals with addiction—and many people have been doing just that. For decades, grass-roots organizations, medical and mental health professionals, and communities have been advocating for those with addiction and making great gains.

For example, advocacy efforts include supporting and pushing through legislation such as the Wellstone and Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equality Act (MHPAEA), which requires that insurance benefits for mental health and addiction treatment be comparable to those for medical treatment. Additionally, the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act is robust legislation that addresses the opioid epidemic by providing support for treatment and medication access, prevention programs, and grants.

Another form of advocacy that has been steadily growing is the development of recovery high schools and collegiate recovery programs. These schools and college organizations recognize the need for long-term care and support among individuals with addiction (beginning in adolescence ). Recovery schools and collegiate recovery programs work to create spaces that are conducive to recovery so students with addiction can reach their educational and career goals . As of today, there are 43 recovery high schools (ARS, 2021) and 133 collegiate recovery programs (ARHE, 2019) across the nation.

What Everyone Can Do

So, what now? Given the obstacles faced by those with addiction, how can you join in the advocacy efforts to support this population? Here are a few concrete ideas:

• Don’t ask people why they aren’t drinking. According to SAMHSA (2020), 21.2 million people in the U.S. are in recovery from alcohol or other drug addiction. Thus, the odds are good that there will be people in recovery at most events abstaining from alcohol (and who likely are tired of being singled out for not drinking). No one should have to explain why they aren’t consuming alcohol—whether or not they are in recovery. Drinking doesn’t have to be a societal expectation, and if we stop asking people why they aren’t consuming alcohol, we can begin to change these norms.
• Correct misinformation about addiction when you hear it. Not everyone has been exposed to the neuroscience and current research related to addiction, and, as such, may believe some erroneous things. We all can stay informed about addiction-related research and share this information with others (e.g., when you hear someone talk about the selfishness of someone with addiction, you could respond with, “Actually, did you know that addiction impacts the brain in such a way that people think they need substances to survive? It’s as if their brains have been tricked by the drugs and it is really hard to “just stop” without professional help…”).
• When you plan events, be intentional about making them enjoyable and inclusive of all people, including those in recovery. If alcohol will be served, be sure to provide non- alcoholic options and make them just as prominent. Keep alcoholic beverages in one designated area rather than scattered throughout the event space. Avoid making drinking the focal point of the event.
• Use your platforms and spheres of influence to give voice to those in recovery. Allow people in recovery to tell their stories, demonstrate that long-term recovery is possible, and raise awareness about the realities of addiction.
• Support recovery efforts financially or by volunteering (e.g., get involved in recovery organizations and programs, celebrate recovery month each September, give to your local nonprofit organizations that serve those with addiction). When individuals without addiction partner with those with addiction, great changes can be made.
• Support legislation that seeks to improve addiction treatment, cultivate research related to addiction, develop prevention efforts, and increase treatment quality and access. Make issues related to addiction part of your deliberations when you cast your vote and take political action.

What Mental Health Practitioners Can Do

Along with the advocacy ideas mentioned above, there are a few additional ways practitioners can combat barriers faced by those with addiction:

• Assess all clients for addiction, regardless of your setting (addiction is pervasive and you sometimes cannot tell if a client has addiction merely by their appearance). Asking all clients about addictive behaviors destigmatizes the disorder. Ensure there are items on your intake form related to addiction and that you feel comfortable broaching the topic in session (if you don’t, ask yourself why).
• Stay current on your knowledge regarding addiction and evidence-based practices for substance use disorders. Seek out continuing education related to addiction to ensure you can recognize and respond to addictive behaviors in your clinical work.
• Support long-term care rather than acute-care models for addiction. Whether you are making a referral or providing services yourself, make sure clients with addiction have a long-term treatment plan (e.g., residential treatment, then intensive outpatient treatment, then standard outpatient treatment, then 12-step support and bi-monthly outpatient check-ins).
• Provide psychoeducation to clients and their families about the neuroscience of addiction, the biopsychosocial model of addiction, and correct misinformation leading to stigma and shame.
• Partner with researchers or engage in your own scholarship to continue advancing the field of addiction counseling. As clinicians become more informed about addiction, more effective treatment and prevention efforts can be developed.

In sum, we all have a part to play in advocating for individuals with addiction.

So, what will you do?

Association of Recovery in Higher Education (2019). Standards and recommendations. https://collegiaterecovery.org/standards-recommendations/

Association of Recovery Schools (2021). What is a recovery high school. https://recoveryschools.org/what-is-a-recovery-high-school/

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.

O’Hara, C., Clark, M., Hays, D. G., McDonald, C. P., Chang, C. Y., Crockett, S., Filmore, J. Portman, T., Spurgeon, S., & Wester, K. L. (2016). AARC Standards for Multicultural Research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 7, 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150137816657389 .

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2017). Receipt of services for ubstance use and mental health issues among adults: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DR-FFR2-2016/NSDU… .

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication NO. PEP20-07-01-001, NSDUH Series H-55). Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

White, W. L. (2014). Slaying the dragon: The history of addiction treatment and recovery in America (2nd ed). Chestnut Health Systems.

Amanda Giordano, Ph.D., LPC, is an associate professor at the University of Georgia and the author of A Clinical Guide to Treating Behavioral Addictions.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A Look At The Effectiveness Of Anti-Drug Ad Campaigns

NPR's Ari Shapiro discusses anti-drug campaigns with Keith Humphreys a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University and a former drug policy adviser to presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Drug and Substance Abuse Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Physiology and psychology of addiction, prescription drug abuse, depressants, hallucinogens.

Drug and substance abuse is an issue that affects entirely all societies in the world. It has both social and economic consequences, which affect directly and indirectly our everyday live. Drug addiction is “a complex disorder characterized by compulsive drug use” (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2010).

It sets in as one form a habit of taking a certain drug. Full-blown drug abuse comes with social problems such as violence, child abuse, homelessness and destruction of families (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2010). To understand to the impact of drug abuse, one needs to explore the reasons why many get addicted and seem unable pull themselves out of this nightmare.

Many experts consider addiction as a disease as it affects a specific part of the brain; the limbic system commonly referred to as the pleasure center. This area, which experts argue to be primitive, is affected by various drug substances, which it gives a higher priority to other things. Peele (1998) argues that alcoholism is a disease that can only be cured from such a perspective (p. 60). Genetics are also seen as a factor in drug addiction even though it has never been exclusively proven.

Other experts view addiction as a state of mind rather than a physiological problem. The environment plays a major role in early stages of addiction. It introduces the agent, in this case the drug, to the abuser who knowingly or otherwise develops dependence to the substance. Environmental factors range from violence, stress to peer pressure.

Moreover, as an individual becomes completely dependent on a substance, any slight withdrawal is bound to be accompanied by symptoms such as pain, which is purely psychological. This is because the victim is under self-deception that survival without the substance in question is almost if not impossible. From his psychological vantage point, Isralowitz (2004) argues that freedom from addiction is achievable provided there is the “right type of guidance and counseling” (p.22).

A doctor as regulated by law usually administers prescription drugs. It may not be certain why many people abuse prescription drugs but the trend is ever increasing. Many people use prescription drugs as directed by a physician but others use purely for leisure. This kind of abuse eventually leads to addiction.

This problem is compounded by the ease of which one can access the drugs from pharmacies and even online. Many people with conditions requiring painkillers, especially the elderly, have a higher risk of getting addicted as their bodies become tolerant to the drugs. Adolescents usually use some prescription drugs and especially painkillers since they induce anxiety among other feelings as will be discussed below.

Stimulants are generally psychoactive drugs used medically to improve alertness, increase physical activity, and elevate blood pressure among other functions. This class of drugs acts by temporarily increasing mental activity resulting to increased awareness, changes in mood and apparently cause the user to have a relaxed feeling. Although their use is closely monitored, they still find their way on the streets and are usually abused.

Getting deeper into the biochemistry of different stimulants, each has a different metabolism in the body affecting different body organs in a specific way. One common thing about stimulants is that they affect the central nervous system in their mechanism. Examples of commonly used stimulants include; cocaine, caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines and cannabis. Cocaine, which has a tremendously high addictive potential, was in the past used as anesthetic and in treatment of depression before its profound effects were later discovered.

On the streets, cocaine is either injected intravenously or smoked. Within a few minutes of use, it stimulates the brain making the user feel euphoric, energetic and increases alertness. It has long-term effects such as seizures, heart attacks and stroke. Cocaine’s withdrawal symptoms range from anxiety, irritability to a strong craving for more cocaine.

Cannabis, also known as marijuana , is the most often abused drug familiar in almost every corner of the world, from the streets of New York to the most remote village in Africa. Although its addiction potential is lower as compared to that of cocaine, prolonged use of cannabis results to an immense craving for more.

It produces hallucinogenic effects, lack of body coordination, and causes a feeling of ecstasy. Long-term use is closely associated with schizophrenia, and other psychological conditions. From a medical perspective, cannabis is used as an analgesic, to stimulate hunger in patients, nausea ameliorator, and intraocular eye pressure reducer. Insomnia, lack of appetite, migraines, restlessness and irritability characterize withdrawal symptoms of cannabis.

Unlike stimulants, depressants reduce anxiety and the central nervous system activity. The most common depressants include barbiturates, benzodiazepines and ethyl alcohol. They are of great therapeutically value especially as tranquilizers or sedatives in reducing anxiety.

Depressants can be highly addictive since they seem to ease tension and bring relaxation. After using depressants for a long time, the body develops tolerance to the drugs. Moreover, body tolerance after continual use requires one use a higher dose to get the same effect. Clumsiness, confusion and a strong craving for the drug accompany gradual withdrawal. Sudden withdrawal causes respiratory complications and can even be fatal.

Narcotics have been used for ages for various ailments and as a pain reliever pain. They are also characterized by their ability to induce sleep and euphoria. Opium, for instance was used in ancient China as a pain reliever and treatment of dysentery and insomnia. Some narcotics such as morphine and codeine are derived from natural sources.

Others are structural analogs to morphine and these include heroin, oxymorphone among others. Narcotics are highly addictive resulting to their strict regulation by a majority of governments. Narcotics act as painkillers once they enter the body.

They are used legally in combination with other drugs as analgesics and antitussives but are abused due to their ability to induce a feeling of well being. Their addiction potential is exceptionally high due to the body’s tolerance after consistent use, forcing the user to use and crave for more to get satisfaction. Increase in respiration rate, diarrhea, anxiety, nausea and lack of appetite are symptoms common to narcotic withdrawal. Others include; running nose, stomach cramps, muscle pains and a strong craving for the drugs.

Hallucinogens affect a person’s thinking capacity causing illusions and behavioral changes especially in moods. They apparently cause someone to hear sounds and see images that do not exist. Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), which commonly abused hallucinogen, has a low addiction potential because it does not have withdrawal effects. They also affect a person’s sexual behavior and other body functions such as body temperature. There are no outright withdrawal symptoms for hallucinogens.

Isralowitz, R. (2004). Drug use: a reference handbook . Santa Barbara, Clif.: ABC-CLIO. Print.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2010). NIDA INfoFacts: Understanding Drug Abuse and Addiction . Web.

Peele, S. (1998). The meaning of Addiction : Compulsive Experience and its Interpretation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Sedatives or Depressants in Individuals With a Mental Health Problem
• Using Depressants During Sleep Time
• The Role of CBT in Managing Severe Depressant Patients
• Post Incarceration Syndrome
• Psychoactive Drugs
• Adolescent’s Drug Abuse and Therapy Success
• Analysis of the Video “Effects of Alcoholism on Children: An Oral History Video”
• Child Sexual Abuse: Impact and Consequences
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 19). Drug and Substance Abuse. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-and-substance-abuse/

"Drug and Substance Abuse." IvyPanda , 19 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/drug-and-substance-abuse/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Drug and Substance Abuse'. 19 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Drug and Substance Abuse." July 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-and-substance-abuse/.

1. IvyPanda . "Drug and Substance Abuse." July 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-and-substance-abuse/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Drug and Substance Abuse." July 19, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drug-and-substance-abuse/.

Society for Public Health Education

Society for public health education utility menu shop resources donate login join donate linkedin twitter facebook instagram youtube search membership maximize your membership get involved communities of practice volunteer board of trustees nominations volunteer committees emerging volunteers gift-a-grad membership types & fees students collegiate champions brigham young university collegiate champions lifetime membership affiliate organization membership sophe chapters establishing a new sophe chapter chapter appreciation month region i chapters sophe region ii chapters sophe region iii chapters faces of health education bree bode antonio j. gardner brandon horton angela kroeze-visser karl larson alyssa lederer karen mancera-cuevas nandi marshall jonah neville nicole parkison laverne d. partlow tiffany thigpen carla valdez professional development professional preparation teacher preparation resources advocacy in action course ches exam prep hes practice analysis ii 2020 uplifts leadership course career hub professional ethics center for online resources & education core tutorials what is a health education specialist areas of responsibilities, competencies of health education specialists conferences & events sophe’s 26th annual advocacy summit call for abstracts registration travel & hotel 2024 annual conference plenary speakers registration schedule at a glance pre-conference workshops exhibitor, sponsor & advertising prospectus national case study competition in health education hotel, travel & attractions faqs call for abstracts national health education week nhew 2023 planning a nhew activity about nhew past conferences 2023 annual conference continuing education publications journals health education & behavior current issue editorial board health promotion practice current issue editorial board pedagogy in health promotion current issue editorial board books focus areas mental health awareness month climate & health health equity health equity & anti-racism recommendations health equity toolkit public health workforce: step-up pipelines step-up pipelines program alumni resources school health walk & bike to school child & adolescent health racial & ethnic approaches to community health reach urban communities reach rural areas reach sustainability vaccinations coronavirus|covid-19 what you can do resources monkeypox chronic conditions arthritis heart conditions stroke partnering 4 health success stories nutrition, obesity & physical activity nutrition tips on shopping at farmers markets: get more fresh produce in your diet farmer’s markets september is fruits & veggies more matters physical activity routes to destinations parks & recreation injuries emerging issues in injury prevention success stories in health education & injury prevention behavioral science violence/intentional injury program planning community based participatory research resource centers women’s health men’s health tobacco opioids: an epidemic health education resources for opioid prevention & treatment advocacy alerts, briefs & news policy briefs resolutions, testimony and comments comments resolutions testimony legislative tracker action alert sign up coalitions advocacy initiative fund about mission, vision & values strategic plan 2021-2025 sophe bylaws annual report board of trustees staff history sophe snapshot: legacy in 70 black history month global health competencies awards, fellowships, internships & scholarships internship program past sophe awardees home > resources > toolkit > the anti-drug campaign the anti-drug campaign.

This campaign was created by the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to equip parents and other adult caregivers with the tools they need to raise drug-free kids.

Browse Resources

• abstract [1]
• abstracts [1]
• advertising [1]
• Advocacy [10]
• Advocacy Summit [4]
• affiliated organizations [1]
• affordable care act [1]
• assessment [3]
• bibliography [2]
• call for abstracts [1]
• call for papers [3]
• call for papers HPP photovoice [1]
• Case Study [1]
• certification [3]
• children [1]
• climate change [1]
• Communications [2]
• community health [80]
• conference [14]
• continuing education [1]
• cross-agency collaboration [82]
• curriculum [1]
• disparities [1]
• emergency [2]
• fact sheet [7]
• framework [1]
• guidelines [2]
• handbook [1]
• HE&B [3]
• health [93]
• health disparities [45]
• health education [77]
• Health Education & Behavior [1]
• health equity [3]
• history [2]
• Infographic [7]
• instructions [3]
• internship [1]
• inyrtviews [1]
• journal [10]
• journal self-study [2]
• journals [2]
• mental health [2]
• News & Views [2]
• newsletter [4]
• partners [1]
• perspectives [1]
• policy brief [3]
• position [3]
• presentation [3]
• prospectus [3]
• publications [1]
• publishing [1]
• reading list [5]
• resolution [3]
• resolutions [41]
• resource [1]
• Sample Posts [1]
• schedule agenda [1]
• school health [97]
• Social Media [1]
• SOPHE 2020 [1]
• SOPHE 2022 [1]
• SOPHE2024 [1]
• standards [3]
• strategic [1]
• suicide prevention [1]
• summary [1]
• teacher [1]
• teaching [1]
• toolkit [97]
• training [13]
• vaccines [1]
• virtual [1]
• volunteer [1]
• webinar [1]
• white paper [1]
• 2019 Case Study Competition [1]
• 2020 Abstract Review Instructions [1]
• ableism [1]
• activity [35]
• advocacy [56]
• alcohol [8]
• anti racism [1]
• Appalachian [1]
• assessment [1]
• bacteria [1]
• behavior [17]
• Call for Abstracts [1]
• call for papers [1]
• Carribbean [1]
• chapters [2]
• childhood education [19]
• children [47]
• chronic [4]
• cigarettes [7]
• climate change [4]
• coalition [2]
• collaboration [38]
• collegiate champions [2]
• communication [30]
• community [111]
• community clinical linkages [1]
• community health [1]
• conference [11]
• congress [1]
• COVID-19 [4]
• diabetes [4]
• digital [2]
• disability [1]
• disease [27]
• disparity [30]
• diversity [1]
• drug abuse [5]
• drug use [6]
• ecigarettes [8]
• economic [1]
• education [174]
• emergency preparedness [1]
• emissions [1]
• environment [18]
• equality [1]
• evaluation [1]
• evalutaion [1]
• family [23]
• fiearms [1]
• gun violence [1]
• health [248]
• health education [4]
• health education specialist [3]
• health educator [1]
• healthcare [28]
• healthy aging [1]
• Hepatitis [1]
• Hispanic [1]
• inequity [14]
• Infographic [4]
• injury [20]
• instructions [1]
• job description [1]
• journal [1]
• journals [1]
• land use [1]
• Latin America [1]
• law enforcement [1]
• leadership [1]
• literacy [9]
• managed care [1]
• Medicaid [1]
• members [1]
• mental health [24]
• mindfulness [1]
• mortaility [3]
• nicotine [3]
• nutrition [36]
• objectives [1]
• operations [1]
• opioid misuse [1]
• opioids [6]
• oral health [1]
• pathogens [1]
• physical activity [2]
• planning [2]
• poverty [5]
• practitioners [4]
• preparedness [1]
• presidents [1]
• prevention [105]
• professional preparation [1]
• program [1]
• programs [1]
• projects [1]
• promotion [27]
• public health [125]
• reproduction [1]
• research [66]
• schedule [1]
• school [95]
• school-health [86]
• seniors [3]
• sex education [1]
• sexuality [11]
• silicone [1]
• smoking [9]
• social determinants of health [1]
• social media [1]
• SOPHE 2019 [1]
• SOPHE 2022 [3]
• SOPHE#2023 [1]
• statistics [56]
• student [32]
• student authors [1]
• students [1]
• substance abuse [5]
• technology [1]
• tobacco [15]
• transgender [1]
• transportattion [1]
• vaccinations [1]
• vaccines [2]
• violence [37]
• virtual events [1]
• walking [1]
• women's health [2]

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Just Say No

By: History.com Editors

Updated: August 21, 2018 | Original: May 31, 2017

The “Just Say No” movement was one part of the U.S. government’s effort to revisit and expand the War on Drugs. As with most anti-drug initiatives, Just Say No—which became an American catch phrase in the 1980s—evoked both support and criticism from the public.

The 80s Crack Epidemic

In the early 80s, a cheap, highly addictive form of cocaine known as “crack” was first developed.

The popularity of crack led to an increase in the number of Americans who became addicted to cocaine. In 1985, the number of people who said they used cocaine on a routine basis increased from 4.2 million to 5.8 million. By 1987, crack was reportedly available in all but four states.

Emergency room visits for cocaine-related incidents increased four-fold between 1984 and 1987.

The crack epidemic particularly devastated African American communities—crime and incarceration rates among this population soared during the 1980s.

Reagan and the War on Drugs

When President Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, he vowed to crack down on substance abuse and reprioritize the War on Drugs , which was originally initiated by President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s.

In 1986, Reagan signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act. This law allotted $1.7 billion to continue fighting the War on Drugs, and established mandatory minimum prison sentences for specific drug offenses.

During the Reagan years, prison penalties for drug crimes skyrocketed, and this trend continued for many years. In fact, the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses increased from 50,000 in 1980 to more than 400,000 by 1997.

Say No to Drugs

President Reagan’s wife, Nancy Reagan , launched the “Just Say No” campaign, which encouraged children to reject experimenting with or using drugs by simply saying the word “no.”

The movement started in the early 1980s and continued for more than a decade.

Nancy Reagan traveled the country to endorse the campaign, appearing on television news programs, talk shows and public service announcements. The first lady also visited drug rehabilitation centers to promote Just Say No.

Surveys suggest the campaign may have led to a spike in public concern over the country’s drug problem. In 1985, the proportion of Americans who saw drug abuse as the nation’s “number one problem,” was between 2 percent and 6 percent. In 1989, that number jumped to 64 percent.

D.A.R.E. Program

In 1983, the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Daryl Gates, and the Los Angeles Unified School District started the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program.

The program, which still exists today, pairs students with local police officers in an effort to reduce drug use, gang membership and violence. Students learn about the dangers of substance abuse and are required to take a pledge to stay away from drugs and gangs.

D.A.R.E. has been implemented in about 75 percent of U.S. school districts.

Despite the program’s popularity, several studies have shown participating in D.A.R.E has little impact on future drug use.

A study funded by the Department of Justice, which was released in 1994, revealed that partaking in D.A.R.E led to only short-term reductions in the use of tobacco but had no impact on alcohol or marijuana use.

In 2001, the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. David Satcher, put D.A.R.E in the category of “ineffective primary prevention programs.”

Proponents of D.A.R.E have called some of the studies flawed and say surveys and personal accounts reveal that the program does in fact have a positive effect on future drug use.

In recent years, D.A.R.E has adopted a new “hands-on” curriculum, which advocates believe is showing better results than more outdated approaches to curbing drug abuse.

Support and Criticism for the Anti-Drug War

Determining whether the War on Drugs movement was a success or failure depends on whom you ask.

Supporters of the strict drug initiatives say the measures reduced crime, increased public awareness and lowered rates of substance abuse.

Some research does, in fact, suggest that some aspects of the tough policies may have worked. A study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services revealed that in 1999, 14.8 million Americans used illicit drugs. In 1979, there were 25 million users.

However, critics say the 1980s version of the War on Drugs put too much emphasis on deterrence tactics and not enough focus on drug treatment and substance abuse programs.

Another common criticism is that the laws led to mass incarceration for nonviolent crimes. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, more than 2.3 million people are currently being held in the American criminal justice system. Nearly half a million people are locked up because of a drug offense.

Many people also felt the Reagan-era policies unfairly targeted minorities. Part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act included a heftier penalty, known as the “100-to-1 sentencing ratio,” for the same amount of crack cocaine (typically used by blacks) as powdered cocaine (typically used by whites). For example, a minimum penalty of five years was given for 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powdered cocaine.

Minority communities were more heavily policed and targeted, leading to a disproportionate rate of criminalization. But the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which was passed by Congress in 2010, reduced the discrepancy between crack and powder cocaine offenses from 100:1 to 18:1.

There is perhaps one thing both supporters and critics of the 1980s drug war can agree on: The policies and laws put into place during the Just Say No era created a drug-focused political agenda that still impacts many Americans today.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

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.

• Back to About

The Alcohol and Drug Foundation (ADF) advocates for strong and healthy communities. Supported by the latest evidence, we advocate for change in policy and practice within government, business and society. This includes government reform on policy, funding or regulation changes involving alcohol and other drugs.

Outlined here is the ADF’s position on some of today’s top issues around alcohol and other drugs.

Alcohol taxation

Taxation of alcohol is a key way for government to impact the price of alcohol. And, the cost of alcohol is one of the most effective ways to reduce alcohol-related harms.

Find out about Australia’s two disparate alcohol taxation systems and the arguments for reform, which have the potential to remove the inconsistency in alcohol taxation that produces certain low-cost, high alcohol content products.

Position statement: Alcohol Tax Reform - ADF Position Paper

The rapid uptake of vaping (e-cigarettes) and the time required to research its effects means that the market for vaping products is moving faster than the research can keep up.

Currently researchers, public health organisations, manufacturers and supporters of e-cigarettes all note that not vaping is the safest option. Vaping any substance carries some risk.

Learn more about vaping, different vaping devices, issues and risks and the need for further research to determine the full impact of its uses.

Updated position: April 2023

Position statement: Update_April23_Vaping_Position

Position statement: Vaping_Adf Position Paper

Products mimicking alcohol

Product(s) mimicking alcohol are ultra-low alcohol and no alcohol content products that feature the branding of established alcohol companies, and/or are designed to imitate the flavour, packaging, or overall appearance of alcohol products.

There is currently limited evidence available on the impact of these products. While, for some adults, the impact may be neutral or even positive, there are concerns around potential negative impacts on people under 18 that make taking preventative action now important to avoid these potential harms occurring.

Read about the potential risks and steps to avoid them in this Position Paper.

Position statement: Products mimicking alcohol_ADF Position Paper

MDMA-assisted psychotherapy

MDMA for clinical use is produced to a pharmaceutical standard. A regulated dose is administered for specific conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in a controlled and supportive setting by trained mental health professionals with specialised MDMA-assisted psychotherapy training. Find out about the latest research and considerations for use in Australia.

Position statement: MDMA-assisted psychotherapy - ADF position paper

Medicinal cannabis products

Medicinal cannabis products are made, derived, or synthesised from the cannabis plant and used under medical supervision to treat a range of health

conditions. While there is understandable public interest in emerging cannabis medicines, some challenges remain in prescribing and accessing medicinal cannabis products in Australia.

Find out more about different medicinal cannabis products, how they work, the challenges and current Australian regulations and guidelines.

Position statement: Medicinal Cannabis_ADF Position Paper

Medically assisted therapy for opioid dependence

Medically assisted therapy for opioid dependence saves lives.

The Alcohol and Drug Foundation supports the use of opioid replacement therapy as an effective, evidence-based treatment for people with an opioid use disorder.

Determining whether opioid replacement therapy is the best treatment option is critical as there is no one-size-fits-all approach to effective treatment.

Find out more about this treatment option, how it works, its benefits and barriers.

Position statement: Medically assisted therapy for opioid dependence_ADF Position Paper

Supervised injecting facilities

Supervised injecting facilities are dedicated spaces where illicit drugs can be used under the supervision of health care professionals. These services are a harm reduction response to individual and community concerns regarding public injecting, and the severe and chronic harms of drug use.

Find out more about the aims of safe injecting facilities, the different models of operation and their components.

Position statement: Supervised injecting facilities_ADF Position Paper

Prenatal Alcohol Exposure and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is an overarching phrase used for a range of diagnoses related to alcohol consumption during pregnancy. The range and severity of FASD differs from case to case with the signs and symptoms developing  in various degrees from birth to adulthood.

This paper explores the evidence linking FASD with alcohol consumption during pregnancy and prevention strategies, as well as challenges including diagnosis and stigma.

Position statement: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder_ADF Position Paper

Alcohol advertising and sponsorship

The public health sector has significant concerns about alcohol marketing, especially its impact on youth. It contributes to young people’s attitudes towards drinking, starting drinking and drinking at harmful levels.

Australians are exposed to an extensive amount of alcohol advertising through a variety of avenues including sponsorships, and social and digital platforms.

The issues of alcohol advertising and alcohol sponsorships are heavily intertwined. They expose children and adults to imagery and product-associated placement that can make it hard for the consumer to recognise the difference between sponsorship and advertising.

Restrictions on alcohol marketing and promotion have been identified as an important intervention to reduce alcohol related harms.

The issues are explored in detail in this comprehensive 2-in-1 position paper.

Position statement: Alcohol advertising & sponsorship_ADF position paper

Lived experience

People who have had direct experience with alcohol or other drugs are sometimes referred to as ‘people with lived experience’.

This paper explores the role of people with lived experience in the alcohol and other drug (AOD) sector, including in AOD treatment and schools.

Document: Lived experience_ADF position paper

Parents, carers and guardians can help children to avoid drug and alcohol use. They play an important role in developing a child’s positive social, emotional, cognitive and physical well-being for later life.

As children are growing up, find out what actions can be taken to promote the parent-child relationship as a protective factor for alcohol and other drugs.

Document: Parenting_ADF position paper

Community-led and community-based prevention

Communities can play an important role in addressing and contributing to effective responses to local alcohol and other drug issues.

Learn about the differences between community-led and community-based prevention models, factors for success, the pros and cons and evidence from both Australian and international case studies.

Position statement: Community-led and community-based prevention_ADF position paper

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) are databases that track prescribing and dispensing of prescription drugs of potential extra-medical use and/or drugs with a high risk of dependence or overdose, such as opioid-based pain relief.

A number of PMDPs have been introduced internationally, including a real-time prescription monitoring program, known as SafeScript. This is also available in Victoria.

Learn more about the issue and various models for delivery in place around the world.

Position statement: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs_ADF position paper

Drug Education in Schools

Contemporary and effective school-based drug education explores students’ values, attitudes, knowledge and skills with the aim of improving their capacity to make healthier decisions about using alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Find out more about why it is important and what programs are effective, or ineffective, in Australia.

Document: Drug education in schools_ADF Position paper

Minimum Unit Price

A minimum unit price (MUP), also known as a ‘floor price’, establishes a price per standard drink below which alcohol cannot be sold. The effectiveness of increasing alcohol prices in the community has been tested in some short-term policy initiatives in the Northern Territory and is a subject of current debate.

Position statement: Alcohol unit price_ADF Position paper

Drug Law reform / Decriminalisation

Decriminalisation is a policy under which drug supply remains illegal but the criminal penalties for drug possession and personal use are removed and/or replaced with civil penalties such as fines or diversion programs (referral to education or treatment programs).

Find out more abou

Position statement: Drug Law Reform_ADF Position paper

Pill testing

Pill testing (otherwise known as drug checking, drug testing or drug safety testing) is a harm reduction intervention that aims to engage people who possess, and intend to use drugs. It offers chemical analysis of the drug, together with information and education and, in some instances, peer counselling and individualised medical advice.

Find out more about what it is, how it works, the evidence base and the current situation in Australia.

Position statement: Pill Testing_ADF Position paper

Last updated: 09 May 2024

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: The Importance of Student Voice and Advocacy in Prevention

As a recent college graduate, I can attest to how grateful I feel to have gotten an early start to my career in prevention. I have gained new skills that I will take with me through graduate school and my career, met new friends and colleagues, and had the opportunity to travel and learn in new places. I found the work that I was doing to be personally fulfilling and to be beneficial to our communities, especially the work I was doing on my campus as a peer educator and student leader. Fortunately, I never felt I had to be silent because I was a student rather than a staff member. In fact, the faculty and staff I worked with throughout my college career always encouraged me to speak up when it came to my thoughts, ideas, and experiences as a student. This led to many productive meetings, thoughtful discussions, new ideas, and collaborations.

Including the student perspective can be especially important when it comes to alcohol and drug abuse prevention on campuses. When making decisions that will affect the majority of students, it is essential to bring in the student voice. Students can give you honest answers on how a decision, such as serving alcohol on your campus or making your campus smoke free, can affect their lives and learning experiences. They can encourage others to make thoughtful decisions to avoid negative health outcomes as well as promote healthy lifestyle choices. Students are your allies in prevention. They want to see their fellow classmates succeed and live healthy lives just as much as you do.   Here are three ways staff can engage students in campus-based drug abuse prevention:  

• Include students in committees and task forces : If your campus has an alcohol and other drugs task force or planning committees for various prevention initiatives your campus is sponsoring, invite students to the table to discuss the issues, brainstorm solutions, and reflect afterward. The new insights, perspectives, and energy the students provide can help make your programs and initiatives more successful and impactful.
• Follow through with feasible student ideas : A simple tweak or change on campus might change the success of a program and influence healthier choices among students. If possible, include and carry out the ideas your students suggest. Their ideas can be new and relatable, which will lead to more student engagement and participation. At the same time, you can make sure you are addressing the needs of students and disseminating important information to them. Students trust their peers, so if students hear that an event or change was led by other students, it can lead to greater student buy in.
• Encourage open dialogue and action : Student voices can be crucial to bring attention to issues surrounding prevention and foster harm reduction practices among fellow students. The students you work with also can be your biggest advocates among the senior-level administrators on your campus, since students do not have to follow “office politics” and can speak more freely about their concerns and experiences. Foster the voices of the students you work with and ensure your students are being taken seriously by other faculty and staff members. Their voice is important, so don’t make decisions for students without asking them first. Let students join the conversation.

Language selection

• Français

Notice to readers:

There have been recent reports of fraudulent phone calls that appear to be from the Department of Justice. Learn more .

National Anti-Drug Strategy Evaluation

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 national anti-drug strategy.

The National Anti-Drug Strategy is a horizontal initiative of 12 federal departments and agencies, led by the Department of Justice, with new and reoriented funding Footnote 4 , covering activities over a five-year period from 2007/08 to 2011/12. The goal of the Strategy is to contribute to safer and healthier communities through coordinated efforts to prevent use, treat dependency, and reduce production and distribution of illicit drugs. Illicit drugs are defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) to include opiates, cocaine and cannabis-related substances (including marihuana) as well as synthetic drugs such as ecstasy and methamphetamine. The Strategy encompasses three action plans: Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement:

• The objectives of the Prevention Action Plan are to prevent youth from using illicit drugs by enhancing their awareness and understanding of the harmful social and health effects of illicit drug use; and to develop and implement community-based interventions and initiatives to prevent illicit drug use.
• The objective of the Treatment Action Plan is to support effective treatment and rehabilitation systems and services by developing and implementing innovative and collaborative approaches.
• The objective of the Enforcement Action Plan is to contribute to the disruption of illicit drug operations in a safe manner, particularly targeting criminal organizations.

The Strategy’s action plans are expected to contribute to a reduction in the supply of, and demand for, illicit drugs, which ultimately contributes to safer and healthier communities.

1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Strategy, in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) requirements set out in the 2009 TBS Directive for the Evaluation Function. The evaluation addresses the relevance and performance (effectiveness, and efficiency and economy) of the Strategy and its three action plans. The scope of the evaluation covers the period from 2007/08 through to 2010/11.

1.3 Structure of the Report

This document contains five chapters, including this introduction (Chapter 1), as follows:

• Chapter 2 provides an overview of the design and implementation of the Strategy;
• Chapter 3 summarizes the methodology employed in the evaluation, including methodological limitations and challenges as well as the strategies used to address those challenges;
• Chapter 4 describes the major findings of the evaluation with respect to the relevance and performance of each of the Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement Action Plans; and
• Chapter 5 presents the major conclusions, recommendations and management response arising from the evaluation.

The Strategy Logic Model, evaluation questions and evaluation instruments are presented in appendices.

2. Design and Implementation of the Strategy

This chapter provides an overview of the Strategy in terms of its action plans and components, governance structure and expenditures.

2.1 Action Plans and Components

The budget for the Strategy totals approximately $513.4 million including new funding, reoriented funding, and the former Canada’s Drug Strategy (CDS) funding. The budget for the Enforcement Action Plan totals $205.9 million (40% of the overall budget), while the budgets for the treatment and prevention action plans total $190.5 million (37%) and $117 million (23%) respectively. Close to $3.4 million is also allocated for leadership, communication and evaluation of the Strategy. An additional $67.7 million was set aside in a frozen allotment for the four components under the Mandatory Minimum Penalties Footnote 5 .

The activities of the Strategy focus on illicit drugs, as defined in the CDSA , including opiates, cocaine and cannabis-related substances (including marihuana), and synthetic drugs such as ecstasy, methamphetamine and the illicit use of pharmaceuticals.

The three action plans encompass 20 components. Table 1 contains the profile of each component identifying the responsible department, five-year budget, major activities and outputs, and key beneficiaries. Of the 12 federal departments and agencies participating in the Strategy, four are involved in more than one component: Health Canada (HC) delivers two components under each of the three action plans and leads the prevention and treatment action plans; the RCMP delivers one component under each of the three action plans; Justice Canada delivers two components under the Treatment Action Plan in addition to being the Strategy lead; and Public Safety Canada (PS) is responsible for one component under the Prevention Action Plan and Enforcement Action Plan, in addition to leading the Enforcement Action Plan. The five largest individual components, in terms of the five-year budget, account for 69% of the total budget. These components include the DTFP ($124.5 million), Marihuana and Clandestine Lab Teams/Proceeds of Crime ($91.4 million), Drug Strategy Community Initiatives Fund (DSCIF) ($55.2 million), Drug Analysis Service ($49.2 million), and NNADAP ($35.5 million).

The primary beneficiaries of the Strategy include young people and their parents, targeted at-risk or vulnerable populations, and the Canadian public. Treatment delivery agencies, educators, health professionals, police and other social service providers, researchers and practitioners are among the Strategy’s secondary beneficiaries, given that the activities conducted under the Strategy facilitate and improve their work. The Strategy also involves a wide range of provincial, national and international stakeholders including governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions, communities, private sector corporations and associations, and regulated parties. The stakeholders play various roles in the Strategy including providing services, initiating new programs, conducting research and development, and providing advisory support.

Table 1 : Characteristics of the Components of the National Anti-Drug Strategy Footnote 6

2.2 Governance

The governance structure of the Strategy consists of the Assistant Deputy Minister Steering Committee (ADMSC) and four working groups on prevention and treatment, enforcement, policy and performance, and communications. Meeting about once a year, the ADMSC oversees implementation of the Strategy, making decisions necessary to advance the initiative, where required, and ensuring appropriate and timely outcomes for the initiative as well as accountability in the expenditure of initiative resources. The ADMSC also prepares questions for the consideration of Deputy Ministers, where appropriate. The Committee is chaired by Justice Canada and also includes Assistant Deputy Ministers (as appropriate) from HC , PS , RCMP , Correctional Service of Canada (CSC), Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), CBSA , Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT) and Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) as well as the Privy Council Office of Canada (PCO) and the TBS .

Four Director General-level working groups oversee the development and implementation of various aspects of the Strategy and report to the ADMSC . As noted above and in Table 2, not all Strategy partners are involved in the ADMSC or the Policy and Performance Working Group. It is also noted that other departments who are not funded through the Strategy are members of these groups.

Table 2: Working Group Structure of the Strategy - National Anti-Drug Strategy Working Group Structure and Areas of Responsibility

In addition to the Directors General working groups, several sub-groups were developed to support Strategy coordination efforts. The SER , which has representatives from all partners, is responsible for the implementation and management of the reporting and evaluation activities for the Strategy. The Prevention and Treatment Sub-committee on Federal Continuum of Responses was established in 2008/09 as a horizontal working group that identifies and maps a common continuum of programs and services across federal departments to support the prevention and treatment objectives of the Strategy. The Sub-committee was developed, in part, as a result of recommendations made during the Implementation Evaluation of the Strategy Footnote 10 . The Enforcement Action Plan Working Group was also supplemented by meetings of several sub-groups, including quarterly meetings of the RCMP -led Synthetic Drug Initiative (SDI) and the creation of a sub-group in 2010 to discuss possible changes to the regime governing storage and disposition of offence-related property. A sub-group Footnote 11 of the Communications Working Group, with advisors from the Departments of Justice, Health, PS , RCMP , CBSA and CSC met six to eight times per year. The sub-group of Communication Officers played a supporting role to ensure regular collaboration on and coordination of Strategy communication activities and ensured that all communications were consistent, complementary and positioned in support of the Strategy.

The governance structure of the Strategy is supported by the Youth Justice and Strategic Initiatives Section, Department of Justice, which leads the Strategy, and is therefore responsible for collecting all information from the other departments on Strategy implementation. Strategy partners report annually through the Justice Canada Departmental Performance Report.

2.3 Expenditures

Table 3 compares the budgeted and the actual spending under each of the components for the first four years since the Strategy was initiated ( i.e. from 2007/08 to 2010/11) Footnote 12 .

As indicated, some funding was re-profiled or lapsed under various components of the Strategy, particularly the DTFP which took longer than expected to negotiate agreements with the provincial and territorial governments. Figure 1 compares the annual planned and actual spending of the Strategy during the first four years of implementation. The budget increased during each of the first four years, as components moved towards full implementation. However, slower than expected implementation of certain new components (particularly the DTFP ) meant that the percentage of the planned budget which was actually expended decreased from 86% in the first year to 56% in the second year, before increasing to 73% in 2009/10 and 91% in 2010/11. Over the four-year period, actual spending was equal to 77% of planned spending.

Figure 1 : Strategy Planned and Actual Spending from 2007/08 to 2010/11 ($ Millions) Footnote 17

[ Description ]

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, please contact us .

Call for help

Emergencies: 9-1-1, crisis: 24/7 888-407-8018, cecil addiction treatment coordination hotline: 24/7 443-245-3257, the easiest way to beat addiction is never to start..

There are things you can do—as a parent, caring partner or friend—to stop someone before the temptation to take drugs takes hold and they spiral out of control. Cecil County can help you with information, education, early intervention and treatment referral options.

Find local prevention, treatment, recovery and support services in Cecil County.

Drug Free Cecil is a collaboration between several local coalitions working to reduce substance use among youth in Cecil County. Topics include vaping, opioids, underage drinking and more. Find out more.

Prevention public service billboards created by Cecil County High School youth representatives

Prevention public service announcements created by cecil county high school youth representatives.

Dialogue: the antidrug

If you’re a concerned parent, have regular, nonjudgmental conversations with your child or teen about drug and alcohol use. Warn your kids about prescription drugs that are not prescribed for them—a medicine prescribed for a friend or relative is not safe.

• Tell them the dangers of using drugs and alcohol, using age-appropriate explanations.
• Explain why you don’t want them to use drugs. For example, explain how drug and alcohol use interferes with young people’s concentration, memory and motor skills, and that it leads to poorer school performance. Tell them you wouldn’t want these outcomes for them.
• Make it easy for your child to talk honestly with you. Also, make yourself available when your child wants to talk—no matter the time of day or the other tasks you face.
• Believe in your own power to help your child avoid using alcohol and drugs.

Don’t:

• Don’t react in anger—even if your child makes statements that shock you.
• Don’t expect every conversation to be perfect. They won’t be.
• Don’t simply demand that your children not do drugs. Instead, educate them about the risks so that they will be equipped to make decisions about drug use based on their own knowledge.
• Don’t talk without listening. Aim for a 50-50 conversation—you talk half the time and listen the other half.
• Don’t make stuff up. If your child asks a question you can’t answer or wants information about something you’re unsure of, promise to find the correct answer so that you can learn together. Then follow up on that promise.

How to protect your children from drug use:

• Engage in quality family time.
• Communicate openly.
• Provide other positive role models.
• Set clear rules and consequences.
• Offer engagement in positive activities.
• Be involved in their school and community.

Causes of opioid misuse

Adolescents who are raised in unstable homes or witness addiction in other family members are likely to later develop their own addiction. If a person has a close relative, parent or sibling with a genetic addictive disorder, it could contribute to their becoming an addict as well.

Psychologically—because of the euphoria created by opioids—users may believe that they function better in social or professional situations. Psychological dependence results from prolonged use, causing an emotional need or compulsion to continue using opioids. Often, addiction is accompanied by a co-occurring mental disorder such as anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression or schizophrenia.

Some people also choose prescription medications over “street drugs,” because they believe that they’re safer, have fewer side effects, are cheaper and are easier to obtain or take from others.

Signs of an opioid misuse problem *

• Poor concentration or attention
• Memory problems
• Small pupils
• Nausea, vomiting
• Chronic constipation
• Rashes, itching, flushed skin
• Slurred speech
• Trouble breathing

How to talk with someone who has a problem

• First, learn about opioid abuse. For more information, you can go to the prevention resources list below.
• Find good times to talk when you won’t be interrupted. You’ll be most effective if you cover this subject a little at a time.
• Explain that children, teens and adults could start using opioids. Give reasons why they might start (depression, peer pressure, stress, etc.).
• Assure them that if they’re tempted, or if they do drugs, they can come to you immediately for help. Be prepared to help, without criticism, if they feel safe coming to you.
• Go over the effects of opioids and the damage they can cause. These include physical, mental and financial harm, along with the ways opioid use can destroy relationships and trust. Invite them to ask questions. Be realistic and don’t exaggerate the harm.
• Describe how peer pressure to use drugs can be very subtle. Sometimes it’s nothing more than the desire to join in the fun everyone else seems to be having.
• Let them know that drug residues are stored in the body. The lingering damage of drug abuse can stay with them for many years. This damage can include effects like slow and cloudy thinking, emotional shut-off, depression, difficulty learning or solving problems and even lasting personality changes like paranoia or anxiety.
• Explain that abuse of any drug can damage or destroy a person’s ability to achieve their goals. It can happen even in one night due to an accident or overdose.
• Be willing to listen. Above all, do your best to make it safe for them to talk to you about their friends using drugs, or about their own substance abuse or concerns.

Opioid addiction isn’t always a deliberate decision. It can begin when a patient takes a prescribed medication in higher-than-recommended doses or combines it with other medications or alcohol. So never change your dosing regimen without discussing it first with a healthcare professional. Never take someone else’s prescription medication. Properly dispose of any expired or unused prescriptions. Most important, keep prescription medications out of the reach of others, securely locked away.

RX Drug Drop Box Locations

Drop off expired or unused prescription medications safely at these Cecil County locations. No questions asked.

Elkton Police Department

Cecil county sheriff’s office, rising sun town hall, north east police department, maryland state police, north east barrack “f”, maryland state police, jfk highway barrack, perryville police department.

• Transparency Seal
• Major Programs & Projects

Preventive Education and Advocacy Programs

Barkada kontra droga launching seminar.

(Peer Group Against Drugs)

DESCRIPTION:

This is a flagship program of the Board designed to promote youth empowerment through the organization of a worthy group called “Barkada” which will lead towards the adoption of a healthy lifestyle that is drug-free and productive. This program is in collaboration with the Department of Education.

National Youth Forum on Drug Abuse Prevention

This is a Forum that maximizes the participation of the youth leaders in the fight against the   drug problem. It is participated in by the youth leaders representing various youth organizations nationwide. The National Youth Commission is the lead agency on the implementation of the Forum in collaboration with the Dangerous Drugs Board and various Local Government Units.

Kids Against Drugs Program

To bring the anti-drug advocacy to the children, the Dangerous Drugs Board participates in the annual celebration of the Children’s Month through the conduct of the Kids Against Drugs program, a primary prevention activity that aims to inculcate the skills of “SAYING NO” to children as a firm foundation for preventive education.

Kids Against Drugs Seminar (Campus Tour for Kids Against Drugs)

This is a primary prevention activity for kids ages 7-10 designed to create awareness on the hazards of drug abuse through the use of puppetry, fun games, and simulation exercises. Campus Tour for Kids is one of the activities created to instill among the elementary students the importance of staying drug-free and the art of “SAYING NO”. One of the highlights of this program is a dance presentation of the Dangerous Drugs Board’s Mascot – Kid Listo (KID is Kalaban ng Illegal na Droga).

Self-Discovery for Kids Seminar

This is a two-day program which aims to create self-awareness among kids and also elicit their leadership qualities so as to take responsibility for creating positive attitudes in their lives. This is an activity-based program where students will learn by doing the activities.

Barkada Kontra Droga Youth Camp

DESCRIPTION: The Barkada Kontra Droga Youth Camp is an activity designed to develop a new generation of young leaders with a strong sense of civic responsibility and commitment. It aims to enhance and introduce strategies in becoming an effective leader among the youth. This activity is in collaboration with the DepEd and the LGUs.

Drug Abuse Prevention Program for Out-of-School Youth

This program aims to provide knowledge and skills among OSY on the prevention of drugs and substance use to make them resilient and law-abiding citizens of the country. It will also provide a responsive livelihood project dedicated for Out-of-School Youth in cooperation with the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the Technical Education, Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

Drug Abuse Prevention Program for Scout Masters and Scout Leaders

This is a three-day training program for Scoutmasters and Leaders which aims to integrate drug abuse prevention in the scouting program. It intends to encourage Scoutmasters/Leaders to be part of the DDB pool of anti-drug advocates.

Inter-School Stage Play Competition

This is a one-day competition involving stage play artists, performers of various schools in depicting a stage play that is relevant to the present drug situation or condition based on a given theme. It aims to enhance the aesthetic abilities of students and divert their attention from the use of drugs and other substance.

National Seminar Workshop for College Student Leaders on Drug Abuse Prevention Education

This is a three-day seminar-workshop aimed at intensifying initiatives against substance abuse among college student leaders who will become partners in strengthening and mobilizing student organizations to incorporate and sustain in their general plans of action, various initiatives relative to drug abuse prevention education.

Project STAND – “Street Artists: NO to Drugs”

This is a primary prevention program under the Civic Awareness Strategy of the government designed to create awareness on the drug abuse problem and generate social response on its prevention and control through murals and paintings.

Kids Story Telling Contest

The Story-Telling Competition is an activity intended for public elementary school pupils in the National Capital Region which aims to enhance the talent of children in story-telling while at the same time introduce the concept of drug abuse prevention among grade school students.

Philippine National Red Cross-Red Cross Youth Training of Trainers on Drug Abuse Prevention Education

This is a program-designed to integrate drug abuse prevention concepts in the existing Red Cross Youth Programs. It will involve seminar-workshops on various aspects of the drug problem and will include planning of an action program on drug abuse prevention. The RCY will be utilized as trainers and facilitators in the conduct of drug abuse prevention programs for the youth in the communities.

PARENTS EDUCATION PROGRAM

Systematic Training for Effective Parenting

A training program designed for parents towards parenting, rearing children, communicating and relating with them. This program is a component of the Family Drug Abuse Prevention Program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). It aims to provide knowledge and skills among parents for them to better appreciate their roles on drug abuse prevention.

Parent-Youth Resource Against Drug Abuse Prevention

This is a two-day seminar designed to organize a well-informed parent and youth as resource against drug abuse. Objectives are to provide family members with knowledge on the dangers of drug abuse and enhance competencies to resist the temptations of drug use and encourage and motivate family members to become actively involved in drug abuse prevention activities.

Drug Abuse Prevention Program for the Families of Overseas Filipino Workers

This is a one-day activity for the overseas contract workers and their families to become aware of the hazardous effects of drug use and learn some ways of preventing it. It also aims to prevent OFW to be used as mules by drug syndicates.

Drug Abuse Prevention Program for Senior Citizens

This is a one-day activity for elderly/senior citizens for them to be aware of the hazardous effects of drug use and the prevention and control aspects. It also aims to utilize senior citizens as anti-drug advocates and counselors of people in need of assistance on drug-related matters in their respective communities.

DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE PROGRAMS

National training on the effective management of drug abuse prevention in the workplace.

A training program for Managers/Supervisors which aims to provide knowledge and skills on the effective management of drug abuse prevention program in the Workplace. This is conducted in collaboration with the Department of Labor and Employment – Occupational Safety and Health Center for the private sector and with the Civil Service commission for the government sector.

Drug Abuse Prevention Program in the Workplace

DESCRIPTION:  

An advocacy program to promote drug-free workplaces both in government and non-government agencies/organizations. It was designed to encourage workplaces to implement drug abuse prevention activities geared towards the creation of drug-free workplaces.

CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAMS: ` Training of Trainers’ on Life Skills Enhancement

           This training aims to train a core group of trainers on the enhancement of life skills for various target groups in drug abuse prevention. It is usually designed as a three-day training on Life Skills, to include the basic information on drug abuse prevention. The training also aims to enhance capacities of the participants to face life’s pressures and resist drugs.

Drug Abuse Prevention Program for the Transport Groups

This is a primary prevention activity involving the public transport groups designed to ensure the safety, well-being of the commuters and pedestrians by having drug-free travel in the streets. Cooperating agencies are the Dangerous Drugs Board, Department of Labor and Employment, Department of Health, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board, Land Transportation Office, and the Philippine Global Road Safety.

Seminar on Board Regulation Updates, RA 9165 for Doctors, Pharmacists and Allied Professionals

This is a one-day seminar which aims to inform the participants of Board Regulation Nos. 3, 6 and the recent regulations regarding dangerous drugs used therapeutically in the medical fields, especially among Pharmacists, Doctors and Allied Professionals. It aims to prevent the illicit use of dangerous drugs and diversion of controlled precursors and essential chemicals from the licit to the illicit markets.

Seminar Workshop on Dangerous Drugs Law for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcers

This is a three-day seminar workshop aimed to coordinate and integrate the overall efforts of the Criminal Justice System, especially in the field of prosecution and investigation. This is a joint undertaking of the Dangerous Drugs Board, Supreme Court and the Philippine Judicial Academy.

Trainer’s Training on Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) Program

DESCRIPTION :

A ten-day training program for Law Enforcement Officers who shall teach series of classroom lessons to children on how to resist pressures to experiment with drugs and other harmful substances. This is an initiative of the Dangerous Drugs Board in collaboration with the Philippine National Police and the Department of Education.

Training of National Service Training Program (NSTP) Implementers on Drug Abuse Prevention Education

A training program which aims to promote the anti-drug abuse advocacy through providing information on the extent of the country’s problem on drugs, government efforts to address the problem, salient provisions of the drug law, ill effects of drugs and current youth prevention initiatives. The training is part of the co-curricular activities of the students.

Integration of Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment in the Primary Health Care Program

This is a project being intended for the community health workers/volunteers. It aims to integrate drug abuse prevention activities in the Primary Health Care Program. It complements treatment and rehabilitation services after the clients’ release from the rehabilitation centers.

Strengthening Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Councils

The two-day activity produced substantial gains towards a strong foundation in their anti-drug abuse efforts involving the Barangays and Communities. This program aims to strengthen anti-drug abuse councils of LGUs through provision of knowledge and skills on the implementation of community-based drug rehabilitation programs.

Continuing Seminar on Anti-Illegal Drug Operations and Investigation

This is a five-day live-in training for law enforcement operatives which aims to enhance the knowledge and skills of the participants to effectively and efficiently conduct anti-illegal drug operations. This is a collaborative effort of the Dangerous Drugs Board and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

Regional/National Training of Trainer’s on the Universal Prevention Curriculum (UPC) for Substance Use

This is a training program which consists of nine (9) curricula on the Universal Prevention Curriculum for Substance Use. The training is for prevention practitioners/ workers designed to enhance their knowledge and competencies in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of evidence-based practices in the area of substance use prevention.

Orientation-Seminar on Community-Based Intervention Programs for Barangay Anti-Drug Abuse Campaigns Focusing on OPLAN SAGIP

The 2-day activity is aimed to capacitate stakeholders on the technical know-how in providing effective interventions to reintegrate into society those individuals who have fallen victims to drug abuse and dependence.  It also aims to update the participants on Board Regulation No. 4, Series of 2016 and orient them on the current drug situation and the government efforts with focus on policies and programs.

Project SENTINEL for Security Officers

This is a two-day training program which aims to increase the level of awareness of school-based security officers and personnel on the detrimental effects of drug abuse and for them to effectively perform their roles on drug abuse prevention in their area of responsibility.

Orientation Seminar for Dangerous Drugs Board Authorized Representatives

This is an activity designed to enhance the knowledge and empower the selected Parole and Probation Officers in carrying out/performing effectively as Dangerous Drugs Board Authorized Representatives and to ensure that the legal assistance to those who are in need of proper representation to the court for first-time minor drug offenders and in filing petitions for voluntary and compulsory confinement are properly delivered nationwide.

Divi Business Management Software

Ready to get started.