Newsflash: some kids take drugs. World shocked.

A drug counsellor gave a speech at a Sydney high school last week to students in years 9 and 10. At the end of the talk, a pamphlet by Sydney West Area Health Services was distributed - the cover is above.
Inside, it suggests young people should not experiment until they are over 18, know their family medical history and "use only small amounts and not too often".

Predictably, mass hysteria ensued. I heard some of it on radio this morning.
One mum, whose 15-year-old daughter attends Seven Hills High School in Sydney's west, said the booklet sent the wrong message to students.

"I'm always discussing the dangers of taking drugs with my kids. Drug use is a big concern for parents. I'm afraid of the negative impact drug use has on a child's life and I don't think it's a good thing to encourage them."

But many health professionals insist it's vital to be realistic about the fact that many teenagers will experiment with drugs and to give them information about how to be safe.
Read more and see the pamphlet for yourself, here.
To me, this issue is so similar to the one about Dolly providing teenagers with information about sex (read about that and the ensuing debate here).

Why do some adults blindly believe that the best way to prevent kids from doing things you don't want them to do (drugs, sex etc) is to deprive them of responsible, medical information? Why do they so stubbornly insist that "just say no" is all a kid needs to know?

All children and teenagers have to learn to make decisions about their behaviour. Because when the time comes for them to decide whether or not to have sex or experiment with drugs, in that moment, their parents and their teachers and politicians are not going to be there to influence them. They need information about the negative effects of such behaviours so they can make informed decisions themselves.

And as parents and adults, surely we should be supporting them in finding this information.....

Comments

[mandy]

I personally don't see anything wrong with this pamphlet. I think the approach of just say no, is one of ignorance. The kids think that something bad is going to happen to them straight way and when it doesn’t then it breeds an attitude of what do they know - especially if that message is coming from parents. If parents have no experience with the issue themselves I don't think that they are the best people to be trying to educate their kids. My parents have never smoked, drink rarely and always spoke to us about the dangers of drugs - my brother is a recovering heroin addict!

Kids are going to do what they want no matter what their parents/teachers say to them. I think this pamphlet has the right approach in giving them the message of better off not doing drugs but if you do these are the risks you are taking. It's important for them to realise that the bad side effects of taking some of these drugs are not going to appear straight away, they are side effects that could effect them years after they stopped taking the drugs. They should also be made aware that they can also affect your life in so many other ways then just mental health.

I don't think that we will ever see agreement on how this issue should be dealt with, but we need to educate the parents as well as the kids.

[Amanda]

It is irresponsible of people to attempt to enforce an 'abstinence only' approach to drugs (and sex, for that matter). Most of my friends take drugs or have experimented with them in the past. It is time we took our heads out of the sands of denial and realise that we need to be educating these people about how to use drugs as safely as possible. Withholding information full-stop is extremely naive and is likely to lead to more overdoses and deaths from drugs.

[Candi]

During orientation week (o week) of my first year at Uni (2006) there was a guide published by the student newspaper that had all the information you needed when you started uni. One of these things was a list of the various drugs that people get into and their various effects and whatnot. It was written in a way that was educational whilst also saying "it's your choice to do these things" and providing students with the right information. I think it was a great idea and so is the pamphlet. If people have the right information and are free to make their own choices then *generally* they're more responsible.

[A]

I have heard this news ever since I jumped into my car to drive to work this morning. and after listening to it about 500 times over the course of my work hours, I still don't understand what the big deal is. I think its been informative, and realistic. I know back in my school days, its all about, "no... you can't have this, no... you can't have that" and not to say that the No approach is bad, but i think sometimes, the more you say no to something, the more you want to try it. so i think this informative phamphlet is probably a good thing!

[Eve]

New Essential Baby post is up
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/page/freedman_celebrity_pregnancy_17jun08.html
As usual it's great :-) And more light hearted than the last couple, which I like.

[Nina]

So sad that people get up in arms about this. It's no use telling kids 'don't do drugs!'. It doesn't work. They'll do it anyway if they want to. The best we can do is educate them and aim to minimise any harm.

[Rachel]

The "abstinence is the only message we can preach" line reminds me of the approach America takes to premarital sex - "Just say no".

Can it be coincidence that they have the world's highest rate of teenage pregnancy??

Doesn't work.

[gigdiary]

This is an important issue, drug abuse is a serious problem. But how do we deflect our young from experimenting with drugs ?

A simple answer is probably that we can't. Many kids will try something, or a few somethings, in the quest for adulthood, self-determination, in answer to peer pressure, and more alarmingly, in answer to parental pressure. The bottom line is that many kids will take the plunge and experiment. How do we, as parents, protect them from the dangers of such experimentation ?

Some of us, possibly many of us, have been through this dilemma from the other side, I mean, back up a couple of decades folks. We smoked a bit of pot, the foolhardy amongst us dropped a tab of acid, and lots of us drank illicit grog. It wasn't ideal, it wasn't good, but it was what happened 'back then'. We need to remember that now as we judge and advise this new, more informed, more at risk, generation, that we care about them, even if we were willing to take chances with our own lives. It bears thinking about.

(Note to self: most readers on this blog wouldn't have been born in the era you're talking about).

Advising kids to 'just say no' isn't a panacea. To believe so is hiding our heads in the proverbial. Be careful, ostriches breed! We need to try to understand our youth.

While it's almost impossible to relate to a particular fashion in music, clothing or attitude, it is possible to offer a benign, and I mean this in the most positive way, opinion.

A benign opinion offers experience but not judgement. It offers past solutions but not todays' answers. It offers a kindly hand on the shoulder that every young person needs. It doesn't suggest admonishment, it doesn't demand improvement, it offers instead a hinted wisdom. And that wisdom will always be respected by the next generation, if portrayed thoughtfully and unobtrusively. Try it.

[Anna]

I agree with gigdiary that offering a benign opinion is a possibility. Hopefully it will remain dormant in a young person's mind and surface occasionally when required. Unfortunately, an older person's opinion, regardless of how calmly it's delivered, is often perceived by the "opinionee" as an admonishment of sorts simply because of who is offering the opinion.

I think the most useful way of getting kids' attention is to have them listen to recovering addicts who are also young and can give first hand advice about the entire journey. But not too many times, as we can see from the no smoking ads on TV, after a while you just tune out!

[lou]

I went to a private catholic high-school with girls I would never have thought would partake in drug taking. However, 90% of my year did, most once they had left school. It is so irresponsible to tell teenagers not to take drugs and think that's the end of it. Newsflash- they are teenagers, and they will probably do it anyway! Do you want them to be alive or dead, that's the bottom line here.

[Dataceptionist]

Informed or not, teenagers (and people in their twenties) are also clouded with the sentiment that "it won't happen to me" IMHO.

The approach to take is so delicate, the line so fine. Make the story too shocking, like say a heroin addict talking about their $300 daily habit and what they ended up doing to fund it and its too extreme, they can't relate "I would never get to that point".
Make it too timid, with a girl who has a bad experiene after taking half a pill, and everyone shurgs it off thinking she must have "done something wrong" when she took it.
And no matter which approach is taken, I still beleive there is a healthy dose of thinking "oh but that won't happen to ME, I'll just take this, and I'll be fine"

I don't think there is a fail safe way of education, but I agree we certainly shouldn't shoot down every attempt.

[JLo]

Im with you Datareceptionist,
an extreme example of drug use is often dismissed by young people as 'that will never happen to me'like most of us, young people dont want to identify themeselves with something horrible and believe they are invincible.

The idea that providing education to young people (like this resource) encourages drug use is naive and dangerous. (and absolutely irritates the **** out of me)

After years of working with 'at risk' young people I have come to realise all young people are different and different approaches work for different individuals. A harm minimisation approach is (both anecdotally and RESEARCHED based) the most successful intervention on reducing harm to young people and reducing number s of young people sliding from 'experimentation' to drug abuse.

However, other factors come into play, including physiological factors that pre-dispose young people to different reactions to drug use and addiction. As well as emotional factors, drugs are often used as an escape and can be used as an emotional crutch. 9 times out of 10, even if young people say they are social users they have something going on in their lives they dont really want to deal with and going out with their mates and getting smashed is a good way to forget about it for a while.

Resources like these and a range of other community programs that run info sessions are essential to at least, start a dialogue with young people about things to consider when taking drugs and where you can go if you are starting to notice the slide from recreational use to regular use.

[gigdiary]

To Dataceptionist:

Data, to quote Monty Burns from the Simpsons, 'I like the cut of your jib'.

Your above comment is an informed and perspicacious take on this issue.

Yes, an overplaying or underplaying of the dangers are equally ineffectual. A mix of the two could perhaps be a better option. I think that the shock tactic, along with the 'benign opinion', or the 'delayed dormant wisdom' as Anna described it, have a better chance of registering with young people at risk. There is no easy answer. JLo's more academic account only further supports our comments.

The point about too much, or too little warning reminds me of an old chestnut. It's about kids and the limited efficacy of our warnings.
"A boy is told that if he masturbates, he will go blind. Sneeking a peek at a Penthouse magazine, he thinks, 'aw, what the heck, I'll risk one eye'."

Now there's a boy willing to take risks. I don't think his jib is in any doubt.

And to finish, nice to see Mia posting in the Opinion page of the Herald. It is a bit about the drug stuff we've been talking about, and a cross to the Dolly mag post. Mia, it would be the best if you did one column in the mainstream every month, or whenever. You are so more refreshing than the old pollies, the amateur hecklers and the staid and tired economists currently pontificating in that section of the newspaper.

Cheers to all, and I mean, all...