drug abuse - summative (3)_final
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
1/14
Total Number of Words: 2508
The suggested question for the assignment is A critical analysis on the
effectiveness of zero tolerance school discipline policies in the U.S.A
The components of the current assignment are the drug use policy in the
U.S.A and in specific the implementation of zero tolerance policies as a non-
effective way to reduce illicit drug use in school settlements. A critical
analysis will focus on the current zero tolerance school discipline policies in
the U.S.A, will compare the effectiveness of US policies against other policies
implemented in other countries, will try to elucidate the main weak points of
those policies and to make recommendations to improve their application.
Education nowadays is often misinterpreted as being an equal to
accumulating skills and facts, whereas, health is simply described as the
contrary situation of illness (WHO 1995). Instead, education is a prerequisite
for health and both education and health are strictly related and cannot be
divided (WHO 1986). This strong link between them is a reason that could
explain why health promotion programs lanced in school settlements could
more efficiently influence students since those programs target the most
crucial developmental stages of their life and there the most prone to
modifications (Evans-Whipp et al 2004, WHO 1995). However, schools do not
remain intact from the environment and the problems of the society; they are
seriously affected by illicit student drug exposure (Ross et al 1995), since its
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
2/14
illicit drug consumption initiates mostly coincides in adolescence (Millman and
Botvin 1983). A standard definition of drugs would be a chemical substance
that, when taken into the body alters the structure and functioning of the body
in some way, excluding those nutrients considered to be related to normal
functioning (Levinthal 2012). What school policies usually try in is to secure a
drug-free learning environment (Yamagushi et al 2003) via discriminating and
attributing different interventions to the processes of possessing, using and
supplying drugs (Murphy 2000). Although those policies should be applied in
all schools this still remains unrealized in some parts of the world.
From a historic point of view and according to the Monitoring the Future Study
(Johnston et al 2001), adolescent drug consumption gave rise in early 1990s
up to 1997 (Muck et al 2001). More specifically, in the U.S.A illicit drug use
among youth is the highest in the industrialized world (Johnston et al 2001), a
phenomenon that urged society to set drug abuse as one of the most crucial
issues for the public schools to deal with (Ross et al 1995). There are three
main considerations of the addiction issue in America and are illustrated in
three views; the Colonial or Moralist view which considers drug use as an
illegal act (zero tolerance policy) and therefore it should be dealt with as a
crime and be followed by penal sanctions; the temperance view according
which drugs are addictive substances and policies should focus on the root of
addiction (smugglers and dealers) to efficiently manage the problem and
thirdly, the disease concept where drug addiction is viewed as a disease and
drug policy should mostly set treatment and rehabilitation as the center of the
efforts against this phenomenon (Rosenberger 1996).
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
3/14
Drug policy is influenced by societies but also can affect societies (Chilea and
Chilea 2011). Although the implementation of a reasonable policy with logical
and achievable goals would be the desired outcome, the prevailing Colonial
or Moralist view in the U.S. society invokes high moral principles and
proposes a fight between good and evil with the ultimate goal being the
complete elimination of drugs from our societies (Guzman 2003). This
prohibitionist predominance perceives the drug issue as a war or crime or
threat and permits no tolerance for less severe perceptions that fall between
the acceptance of a crime, by using drugs, or its total rejection, by denying
drug consumption (Guzman 2003). As a consequence, nowadays prevailing
anti-narcotic policies are firmly rooted in prejudices and remain almost
irrelevant to what the current reality is (Cardoso et al. 2009).
In the U.S. almost 90% of schools adopt zero tolerance approaches for
substance misuse (Yamagushy et al 2003, Brown 2001) under the scope of
minimizing drug use prevalence (Caulkins and Reuter, 1997). As mentioned
above, Zero tolerance reflects those policies that adopt a severe punitive
approach regardless of the severity of offence in their effort to deal with
problems of safety and discipline in school communities (Hanson 2005, Skiba
and Peterson 1999). Punishment and penal sanctions are those aspects that
better represent this approach which is known as punitive drug prohibition
approach or moral/criminal justice model (Evans-Whipp et al 2004, Aoyagi
1997). Aspects of the policies aiming at the implementation of these policies
can entail education against drug use (e.g., "Just Say No" curricula), testing
for drug consumption, metal detectors, closed circuit cameras systems in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_Nohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No -
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
4/14
school settlements, sniff dogs and penal sanctions (expulsion, suspension
and referral to law enforcement agencies) (Evans-Whipp et al 2004,
Yamagushi et al 2003, Brown 2001). But, those policies measures have
increased financial demands and as a consequence, most of the financial
means in the US against drug use are channeled into interdiction and
eradication efforts which have yielded several concerns over the advantages
and disadvantages of controlling and punishing students (McKeganey 2005).
In addition, in countries/continents where other policies are implemented as
Australia and Europe are, priority is attributed at education, prevention,
referral and intervention (Murphy 2000). They have adopted the harm
minimization approach and in those continents there has been noted a
decreased association with illicit drug use and decreased correlation of social
detachment with substance use in relation to the punitive policies adopted by
the U.S. government (Beyers et al 2004).
Unfortunately, there is a growing piece of evidence clearly showing that due to
its long history of failure, drug education remains highly controversial in the
U.S. (Guzman 2003, Sycamnias 2000).Although zero tolerance initial aim
was the improvement of society, these policies heterogeneous in nature have
in contrary led to a dramatic increase in suspensions and expulsions (Hanson
2005, Insley 2001, Essex 2001). Serious concerns are raised by leading
psychologists, as James Comer and Alvin Poussaint are, that relate those
policies with unhealthy childhood development, contradicting the belief of
certain school administrators that the aim of just reducing the number of
http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-5http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-5 -
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
5/14
expulsions could be seen as a positive aspect of zero tolerance (Insley,
2001). Moreover, the fact that the Constitution in the U.S. does not consider
the right to education as fundamental one exacerbates the phenomenon of
deprivation from alternative educational opportunities to those students
suspended and expelled and in the meanwhile growing feelings of alienation
increases the possibility to drop out of school (Insley 2001, Brown 2001). The
implications of leaving school are numerous but the most severe of them can
be the potential criminalization of students since once a student is left
unsupervised, the possibility of misbehavior or the integration to gangs and
crime acts can raise serious concerns (Insley 2001, Sycamnias 2000,
Ashford, 2000). Moreover, application of such policies brings conflicts at
school administrators, teachers and counsellors too (Pentz et al1997), since
suspending and expulsing students are believed to be inefficient ways to
prevent them from illicit drug consumption (Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002).
Finally, those policies can induce feelings of fear or shame in students having
as a consequence to fail to engage with educators because simply by
discussing drug issues but not getting involved in students cognitive and
emotional development is of minor contribution to the prevention of drug use
(Brown, 2001).
Zero tolerance school discipline policies have clearly brought inequalities and
have violated students rights (Hanson, 2005). This is the result of those
policies that do not take under serious consideration the target populations of
concern in order to apply prevention programs, that fail to weight the severity
of the developmental stage of the person enrolled in a program or the severity
http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-31http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-31http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-31http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-21http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-21http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-31http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/2/227.long#ref-21 -
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
6/14
of the offense, the students history, the duration of the program as well as the
role of the person realizing the program (e.g., teacher, law enforcement
officer, peer) (Essex 2001, Sycamnias 2000). Finally, sociology and
psychology have demonstrated that children, just as adults are, are more
prone to listening, understanding and respecting experiences or advice if
educators and parents have the willingness to listen to them and get involved
in discussions (Sycamnias 2000). Therefore, an alternative education which
aims at bringing a balance between safety environment and the legal rights of
students under supervision or punished with a long term expulsion, could
minimize the unwanted outcomes of zero tolerance policies (Essex 2001).
Education needs to be more interactive and the goal of decreasing drug
consumption via the educational system should be one of the guiding
principles of minimizing drug consumption in the society (Cardoso et al 2009).
Modern educational needs on drug education shall ensure that young people
can incarnate all drug use impacts, prepare for living in a society that
consumes drugs and finally are capable of developing those abilities that
could reduce harm caused by drugs in their personal lives ad can effectively
minimize or manage stress without getting involved with drugs (Sycamnias
2000). In addition, the belief that younger students should be considered as
less of a priority for schools, because they are more manageable without
formal policies, needs to be reoriented towards enforcing those policies that
target all age classes irrespective of what educators may believe (Evans-
Whipp et al 2004, Ashford 2000). Therefore, different prevention and
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
7/14
intervention strategies could offer better solutions for dealing with drugs at
school than zero-tolerance expulsion and alternative schools based on
prevention and planning could help children towards this direction (Cardoso et
al 2009, Ashford 2000, Skiba and Peterson 1999).
Due to the fact that substance abuse problems do not easily give rise using
simple prevention strategies, prevention efforts need to match the severity of
the problem, to provide continuous focus on the solution and to amplify the
level of communication and cooperation on the administrative level
(Sycamnias 2000). Drug prevention education programs and long-term
planning could be divided into information programs where by giving
information on substance use the desirable results can be expected, affective
programs where enhancing students own communication skills increases
their self-esteem and social skills or influence programs in which learning the
way to refuse substances is of primary importance (Brown 2001). In addition,
and according to Greenberg (2003), prevention in schools should also entail
mentoring, self-control, counseling and social competency instruction along
with establishing behavioral expectations and discipline management
interventions.
Initial efforts in adolescent treatment had as basis adult models that failed to
incarnate the needs of adolescents. Recently, however, substance abuse
intervention models specifically designed for adolescents have been
developed and evaluated (Wagner, Brown, Monti, Myers, & Waldron, 1999;
Muck et al. 2001). In all behavioral approaches, irrespective of whether called
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
8/14
behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT),
substance abuse is perceived as a learned behavior susceptible to alterations
via applying behavior modification interventions (Miller & Hester, 1989). In
particular, cognitive-behavioral techniques attempt to alter behavior via
altering the way of thinking (Muck et al 2001).The desired outcome of such
approaches would be to enable adolescents unlearn drug use and learn
alternative ways to cope with their lives by establishing behavior support
teams, consistent and individualized response to disruptive students and
emergency and crisis planning (Miller & Hester, 1989).
Application of specific skills leads to testing new behaviors in low-risk
situations and applying them in more demanding real-life incidences (Muck et
al 2001). They vary according to the followed program and can include drug
and alcohol refusal skills, resisting drug pressure, communication skills,
problem-solving skills, anger management, relaxation training, social network
development, leisure time management and homework assignments (Muck et
al 2001). Finally, behavioral contracting is another technique during which the
student and the counselor explicitly define to arrange a set of behaviors to be
altered on a weekly basis and weekly goals to be achieved by the adolescent
as well as the criteria and time limitations. As each goal is reached, the
adolescent feels and becomes more reinforced (Muck et al 2001).
Schools rarely use the most effective strategies despite the fact that modern
school-based prevention programs could delay or hinder drug use initiation
(Ennett and Burritt 2000, Hansen and McNeal 1999). In reality school-based
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
9/14
drug prevention programs appear to reveal contradictory results in improving
student health outcomes. There are several studies that show that
interventions for handling aggressive behavior and therefore ameliorating
early stage drug use are regarded as being successful (Faggiano et al 2005,
Lochman and Lenhart 1993). In addition, self-control or social competency
programming using cognitivebehavioral and behavioral instructional methods
in a consistent manner are considered as effective in reducing dropout and
nonattendance, substance use or conduct problems (Greenberg 2003),
whereas, programs teaching social and coping skills have lower efficiency in
reducing drug use compared to normal instructional activities in class
(Faggiano et al 2005). Moreover, programs that simply convey didactic
information about drugs and their effects were found to be the least efficient
(Faggiano et al 2005). Despite the fact that in general the most effective
programs are very interactive and attribute special attention to comprehensive
life skills or refusal skills (Tobler et al 2000, Tobler and Stratton 1997). A
rigorous study on group school counseling, however, yielded cautionary and
contradictory findings in the effectiveness of group counseling that finally led
to increased drug use (Gottfredson 1986). This and other study findings have
led researchers to caution against the positive contribution of some policies.
In order to change policies and practice, prevention should be accustomed to
the mission and focused on the target population. Since financial means
strongly influence the application of all these policies, linking prevention to the
cost effectiveness of proposed interventions would be an important
suggestion (Halfors and Van Dorn 2002). School-based prevention
coordinators could support improved prevention by gaining access to
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
10/14
information about effective prevention programs for high-risk youth and they
could also open new ways to research in school settlements for prevention
scientists (Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002). On the other hand, prevention
scientists must acknowledge school priorities and show the capacity to
apprehend the school needs, timelines and scarce financial means while
teachers could give their support to prevention efforts by documenting truancy
and allowing evaluation activities, such as school surveys are, to be
conducted in their classrooms or in addition to become an active part of the
strict implementation of effective prevention programs while being capable of
communicating their advice to prevention scientists about how these
programs could be improved (Hallfors and Van Dorn 2002).
Unfortunately, a shift from zero-tolerance to these types of prevention policies
which are consistent with the cultural role of schools and the needs of
students and do not burden drug education with fantastic objectives are not
likely to occur anytime soon. Such strategies take time to develop and even
more time to implement. But it is clear that much more research is needed to
determine if zero-tolerance is a truly effective strategy for keeping our schools
safe from those who would inflict weapons-related violence on others (Ashford
2000).
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
11/14
REFERENCES
Aoyagi MT (1997) Beyond punitive prohibition: Liberalizing the dialogue oninternational drug policy. International law and politics. 37(3), 555-610.
Ashford RW (2000) Can Zero-Tolerance Keep Our Schools Safe? The
popularity of zero tolerance may have less to do with its effects than with its
get-tough image. Principal. 80 (2), 28-30.
Beyers JM, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF, Arthur MW and Hawkins JD
(2004) A cross-national comparison of risk and protective factors for
adolescent substance use: the United States and Australia.
Journal of Adolescent Health. 35 (1), 316.
Brown JH (2001) Youth, drugs and resilience education. Journal of drug
education. 31(1), 83-122.
Cardoso FH, Gaviria C and ZedilloE (2009) The War On Drugs Is A Failure.
The Wall Street Journal. 23rd February. Avaiable at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535114271444981.html (accessed
10/12/2012).
Caulkins JP and Reuter P (1997) Setting goals for drug policy: Harm
reduction or use reduction?Addiction. 92(9), 1143-1150.
Ennett ST, Burritt SC. Estimation of the effectiveness of current practice in
school substance use prevention programming through application of meta-
analysis findings. Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
Prevention Research, Montreal, Quebec, June 13, 2000.]
Hallfors D and Van Dorn RA (2002) Strengthening the Role of Two Key
Institutions in the Prevention of Adolescent Substance Abuse. Journal of
Adolescent Health..30(1),1728.
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
12/14
Hanson AL (2005) Have Zero Tolerance School Discipline Policies Turned
into a Nightmare? The American Dreams Promise of Equal Educational
Opportunity, UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy. 9(2), 289-379.
Essex NL (2001). School uniforms: Guidelines for principals. Principal. 80 (3),
38-39.
Evans-Whipp T, Beyers JM, Lloyd S, Lafazia AN, Toumbourou JW, Arthur
MW and Catalano RF (2004) A review of school drug policies and their impact
on youth substance use. Health Promotion International. 19 (2), 227-234.
Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth Development Through
Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic Learning
Gottfredson DC (1986) An empirical test of school-based environmental and
individual interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology.
24 (4),705731.
Greenberg MT, Weissberg RP, OBrien MU, Zins JE, Fredericks L, Resnik Hand Elias MJ (2003) Enhancing School-Based Prevention and Youth
Development Through Coordinated Social, Emotional, and Academic
Learning.American Psychologist. 58 (6-7), 466474.
Guzmn SB (2003)A Constructivist Approach to the U. S. War on Drugs(PhD
thesis). Department of Political Science: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hallfors D and VanDorn RA (2002) Strengthening the role of two key
institutions in the prevention of adolescent substance abuse. Journal of
Adolescence Health. 30(1),1728.
Hansen WB and McNeal RB (1999) Drug education practice: results of an
observational study. Journal of Health Education Research. 14(1),8597.
Insley AC (2001) Suspending and Expelling Children from Educational
Opportunity: Time to Reevaluate Zero Tolerance Policies, The American
University Law Review. 50(4),1039-1079.
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
13/14
Johnston LD, OMalley PM and Bachman JG(2001) Monitoring the Future
national survey results on drug use, 1975-2000. Volume I: Secondary school
students (NIH Publication No. 01-4924). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on
Drug Abuse.
Levinthal CF (2012) Drugs, Society and Criminal Justice (3rd edition). Pearson
Education.
Lochman JE and Lenhart LA (1993) Anger coping intervention for aggressive
children: conceptual models and outcome effects. Clinical Psychological
Review. 13(8), 785805.
McKeganey N (2005) Random drug testing of schoolchildren: A shot in the
arm or a shot in the foot for drug prevention? York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Millman RB and Botvin GJ (1983) Substance use, misuse, and dependence.
In Levine MD, Carey WB, Crocker AC and Gross RT (Eds) (1983)
Developmental-behavioral pediatrics. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
Muck R, Zempolich KA, Titus JC, Fishman M, Godley MD and Schwebel R(2001) An overview of the effectiveness of adolescent substance abuse
treatment models. Youth and Society. 33(2),143-168.
Murphy CA (2000) Drug policy in schools: Department of Social Studies:
University of Dublin, Trinity College.
Pentz MS, Sussman S and Newman T (1997) The conflict between least
harm and no-use tobacco policy for youth: ethical and policy implications.
Addiction. 92(9), 116573.
Rosenberger LR (1996) Americas Drug War Debacle. In Sharp EB (Eds)
(1994) The Dilemma of Drug Policy in the United States. New York, NY:
HarperCollins College Publishers.
Ross JG, Einhaus KE, Hohenemser LK, Greene BZ, Kann L and Gold RS
(1995) School health policies prohibiting tobacco use, alcohol and other drug
use and violence. The Journal of School Health. 65 (8), 333-338.
-
7/30/2019 Drug Abuse - Summative (3)_final
14/14
Skiba R and Peterson R (1999) The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can
Punishment Lead to Safe Schools? The Phi Delta Kappan. 80 (5), 372-376
and 381-382.
Sycamnias E (2000) Strategic Drug Control "Concepts & Direction For
Planners". Available at:
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc80.html (accessed
22/12/2012).
Tobler NS and Stratton HH (1997) Effectiveness of school-based drug
prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary
Prevention. 18 (1), 71128.
Tobler NS, Roona MR and Ochshorn P (2000) School-based adolescent drug
prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention.
20(4),275336.
World Health Organization (1995) Promoting health through schools.
Available at: www.who.int/school...health/.../85.pdf (accessed 12/12/2012).
World Health Organization (1986) The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.First International Conference on Health Promotion, Ottawa, 21 November.
Yamaguchi R, Johnston LD and OMalley PM (2003) Relationship between
student illicit drug use and school drug-testing policies. Journal of School
Health. 73 (4), 159-164.