DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked
priceonomics.com
priceonomics.com
Stan: I've been told a lot of things about pot, but I've come to find out a lot of those things aren't true! So I don't know what to believe!
Randy: Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but… well, son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored. And it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything.
If you talk about LSD, and say, "I've had some amazing times on it, and other times I've had spiders in my eyes", I think most people would be less likely to try it. Sure, not everyone, but still more than people saying just spiders in your eyes.
I mean, it's a classical argument tactic, give something up to make your point more valid. But damned if it doesn't work.
And no, people should not try LSD. LSD leads to a high danger of psychosis or schizophrenia, and that is no fun at all. It is better not to risk it. Just because you may have gotten lucky so far, there is no reason to invite others to take spin on the russian roulette. If you have any mental illness in your family, it is strongly advisable you steer clear, but even if you don't, it is not worth the risk.
Citations please.
It's a powerful drug but has incredible value when used properly. If you're going to start wringing your hands over dangerous drugs, start with the killers of today: alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.
"21,967 respondents (13.4% weighted) reported lifetime psychedelic use. There were no significant associations between lifetime use of any psychedelics, lifetime use of specific psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, peyote), or past year use of LSD and increased rate of any of the mental health outcomes. Rather, in several cases psychedelic use was associated with lower rate of mental health problems."
And yes, temporary schizophrenia can be extremely dangerous. This is something no one can argue. I hate pedants.
There's no such thing as "temporary schizophrenia." If you're referring to acute psychosis, as you seemingly experienced, then yes it's certainly a possible side effect--though never a permanent one.
Bad experiences are usually triggered by an uncomfortable setting, or a dose for which you were not prepared. I'm sorry that was your experience, but concerned your reaction doesn't add to the scientific discussion.
LSD increases glutamate and modulates the 5HTA (seratonin) subtypes, as well as having modulatory effects on D2 (dopamine) receptors--it alters conscious processes and lowers the inhibitory threshold of the action potential, allowing "new" neuronal pathways to develop. While we don't know the specific pharmacokinetic MOA, we do know it has a favorable toxicological and therapeutic profile, and that the content of one's hallucinations depend far more on the individual and the setting than the substance.
Yes, it can be dangerous. Yes, you can take steps to effectively minimize the danger like you do in every other area of your life (seatbelts? helmets?). Like anything there's a cost-benefit ratio for each individual to consider--are you willing to risk a potentially terrifying experience for a chance at novel insight?
I think that's a choice everyone should be able to make for themselves.
"The 3 patients in whom an extended psychosis followed a single ingestion of LSD clearly had long standing schizophrenia..."
The page on it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD_and_schizophrenia - there doesn't seem to be any strong studies. A small increased risk is possible/likely.
On the flip side, many folks seem to feel LSD is one of the most meaningful experiences they've had in life. It seems reasonable that healthy people should seek out such an experience in a controlled, safe, environment.
* crossing the road
* driving a car
* choking on <insert any food here>
etc etc
And this is where i suspect the big anti-pot push is coming from.
With alcohol you can go out for some beers after work, get buzzed, get up the next day with a nagging ache, and still come back to work.
With pot it is more likely that you go "fuck work!".
End result, pot is not good for business.
Looking across history, there is a whole mess or barely concealed agenda aimed at maintaining a workforce. Even the modern school system is perhaps put into place to produce and maintain a more useful workforce.
edit: actually he's published it as as an ebook too, titled "And Then I Thought I Was A Fish": http://www.amazon.co.uk/And-Then-Thought-Was-Fish-ebook/dp/B...
Occsionally,people do have bad trips, however, there is truth in that. For me, that goes back to making informed decisions. Legal sales from trained folks, with stableized ingredients and dosages helps with such things. Yes, a few people are gonna be stupid, but that basically happens with everything.
"Drugs" is a legal delineation, not one of substance. Like every substance you consume, amount, frequency--and sometimes intent--matter far more than molecular composition.
In regard to LSD specifically, please note that the link to schizophrenia has since been proven null, and the individuals studied were already displaying signs of the disorder. Further research in more recent years, while limited, has been unable to find any correlation between incidents of mental illness and the use of hallucinogenics.
As per cannabis... without it I'd most certainly be addicted to Rx painkillers. I like knowing that if I travel or go somewhere it's prohibited, I won't suffer crippling withdrawals. In fact, aside from the return of a dull aching pain from chronic hyper-flexion, I wouldn't notice anything other than increasingly vivid dreams caused by REM rebound. For me it's a clear choice. It allows me to function, and unlike other pain management regimens, after 7 years its minimum effective dose (MED) despite daily administration remains unchanged; if I skip a day or 6 months, my pain is not magnitudes above baseline.
I'm not here to tout the benefits of marijuana, but to explain how drugs are an indifferent tool, and just because they are harmful in one context doesn't mean we should discount their usefulness in another. Their value is relative.
Because of a substance, I can function. Because I can function, I've been able to nurture my business from 3 people to >500, and into the Fortune 1000. For others with traumatic disorders like PTSD, hallucinogenic therapy may hold promises anti-depressants have been unable to actualize. Regardless, generalizations like yours (while in good faith) prevent the regulatory changes needed to once again allow for open research.
In respect to the diversity of the human condition, I'd implore you to take a more laissez-faire approach: decide what's right for yourself, not for others.
LSD: I've tried it a handful of times. The last time resulted in a strip so strongly horrifying I nearly stole a car with people in it to escape my extreme schizophrenic trip.
Note: I've never had any symptom of it before in my life, and it doesn't run in my family. Nor do I believe I ever will. It was so extremely out of character, I know for a fact it was induced by the drug. In fact I think the dealer who gave it to my gave me a hugely high dose, which is a big danger of taking LSD from dealers.
Cannabis: It may be good for pain relief, I had stomach issues that I used it to help with for years. Then a doctor told me it could be causing my stomach pain. Look up "cannabinoid hyperemesis". It was horrifying. The worst stomach flu you could imagine that lasted for weeks, and didn't leave me for years. I don't know if it was the weed, but I stay away from it now. I've had three different doctors talk about it (in different states), and all told me they have seen big spikes in stomach problems due to weed.
So, yea. Nothings black and white. Drugs are an "arbitrary" definition (as all definitions are) for "something that affects you strongly". And anything that effects you strongly deserves a massive warning: if at all possible, don't rely on it.
As for cannabis, the condition you're referencing is exceedingly rare. In most cases the ER attendants I've known treating individuals with these symptoms have traced them back to synthetic "legal high" cannabinoid analogues, most of which are untested with an unknown toxicological profile. Their proliferation is a symptom of criminalization, and it is a burgeoning epidemic.
I can assure you your 'stomach flu' was not caused by cannabis, however there is some data to back up the link between dysphoria at high dosages and ghrelin (the precursor hormone that makes you hungry) deregulation with consistent usage. My extensive research has turned up no link between cannabis use and an altered micro-biome, but I think it's fair to say both acute and chronic usage can lead to altered/dysfunctional eating patterns. It is also well-known for causing dry mouth, which makes oral hygiene especially important if one wishes to avoid candida-related side effects (occasionally linked with GI upset).
Also worth noting, cannabis use in adolescence is correlated with a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders, and can trigger or accelerate latent conditions in those already predisposed to mental illness. It's not all fun and games, but it has a comparatively favorable side-effect profile to most similarly-indicated pharmaceuticals.
And that was Thompson's experience with pot - in which case, he should have learned thereafter not to do pot and expect good work from himself: Others find that pot makes them more productive, and yet others find that it is good for some portions of the work, but not others. Simply because his words seem to uphold the stereotype doesn't make it any more true.
It's interesting how vastly different everyone's qualitative experiences are when the physiological states are fairly uniform... I think observing those altered processes with next-gen EEG tech may offer some illumination in our current, limited model of neuroplasticity.
It may not be the most harmful drug, but it's certainly not harmless or non-addictive.
LSD can cause mental illness to emerge in some people. I also remember a study that gave LSD to 10 people during a religious sermon. 9 of them went on the be preachers or priests later in life. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. But anything with that powerful an effect on the mind is concerning.
Amphetamines certainly seem pretty cool. Especially if you have ADHD. But it definitely has side effects and potential for addiction. It's long term effects are not well studied, and a few studies I did see were concerning. E.g. brain damage in monkeys, and a group of kids taking it did worse than the control group after 3 years.
I think people should be educated on the risks and facts before they decide to take a drug. If they still want to do it, fine. But at least they know the risks. And it's not enough just to put a warning sticker on the back of it that no one reads. Even widespread education that a drug is dangerous isn't enough. Everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer, but why do new people take up smoking?
I'm no advocate of the claims that marijuana is "harmless" or, as some even claim, "good for you". But harm is relative. Sitting in your chair all day is harmful. Eating half the food we do is harmful, as are most medications.
Arguing that marijuana is "not harmless" isn't much of an argument at all.
I find that statement absurd, anything with an effect that powerful should be cherished! Would life be desirable if it were stripped from all emotions, as they too have a powerful effect on the mind? Even if you agreed to that, it wouldn't be feasible as we are biological creatures and not pure rational beings. Denying that our biological self exists, with feelings and all, doesn't solve anything. The spiritual experience you describe is just another part of the human condition, I don't quite believe that 9 out of 10 people on LSD would become preachers, but I see how it can lead to a better understanding of religion. This doesn't require superstition, quite the opposite. When you know that those effects are caused by LSD or substances contained in Mushrooms, ferns or cacti, you don't need a higher power as an explanation for this peculiar state of mind. You might however find yourself coming to conclusions about life that other people on similar states of mind (whether induced by drugs or other means is irrelevant here) had before you, and who used the vehicle of religion to transport them.
So yes, psychedelics, as well as most drugs, should not be taken lightly, but banning them is like razing the Niagara Falls because someone might fall over the edge.
What if it became widespread and our society became super religious? What other irrational things can it convince people of?
I don't know if they should be banned or not. I'm just saying they are not safe
And on a personal level, would you want to take such a drug? Knowing it can convince you of something irrational and change your entire life path for the worse?
Why do you condemn people that find something different to help them with that than you?
There is a difference in having a spiritual experience and merely following a ritual for the sake of the ritual.
It anything, more widespread LSD usage would make people less religious by your definition.
We don't know that. All we know is that the drug made them become obsessed with something irrational.
Would you take something like that? Would you want something like that to become widespread? Do you want a society that is far more religious and devoted to their religion?
Please provide a link to said study where the words you use above are quoted from.
Otherwise you making just as much assumptions as pantalaimon
I guess you could say that occasional use is not a big problem for most drugs. But I wouldn't recommend it, because most people go through some vulnerable time when they could become addicted (or otherwise abuse drugs), and at that time you don't want to have the stuff in your house or a dealer friend ready to supply.
We dismiss people who join cults that sound crazy -- an alien ship coming to rescue them or something -- but I think a high percentage of people could be recruited if the cult appears at just the right time in their lives.
If you are a regular user of drugs, it's like always having the cult recruiter in your house, just waiting for the right time.
Sometimes people do drugs to cope with their other problems in life. They need drugs as a reprieve. Life can be hard and people have used alcohol, pot and many other substances to create a refuge. Of course that doesn't solve the problem, but solving the problem is not always the top priority, and many times the problem has no solution. Why should we morally deny a refuge from anxiety and suffering to other people?
I'm not suggesting we deny anyone anything. I'm answering the question: "why do we try to convince people not to use drugs?".
The times I've been most curious. Most engrossed in a piece of new tech has been when I'm high. Some night, I will go home from a 9-10 hour work day and get high to relax and make dinner and then go to bed... but will wind up reading about the latest and greatest in container tech, or whatever.
The notion that pot makes you distinctly less interested is just laughable in my opinion.
However, think about children who smoke pot from an early age and don't develop the kind of curiosity that I'm sure proceeded the pot smoking you're talking about. Did you first discover your passions while you were young, impressionable, and smoking pot? Or did that come afterward, after all the initial experimentation and learning about yourself had already occurred?
I think the following quote from a NYC high school teacher better explains what I'm trying to get at:
“I hate pot. I hate it even more than hard drugs. I’ve taught high school for 25 years and I hate what marijuana does to my students. It goes beyond missing homework assignments. My students become less curious when they start smoking pot. I’ve seen it time and time again. People say pot makes you more creative, but from what I’ve seen, it narrows my students’ minds until they only reference the world in relation to the drug. They’ll say things like: “I went to the beach and got so high,” or “I went to a concert and got so high.” They start choosing their friends based on the drug. I hate when people say that it’s just experimenting. Because from what I’ve seen, it’s when my students stop experimenting.”[0]
[0] http://www.humansofnewyork.com/post/129574836736/i-hate-pot-...
Your mileage may vary of course. I've met some brilliant and highly successful people who smoke every day to no ill effect.
For example, downing a bottle of Jack vs. having a couple of beers. Unless a severe alcoholic, no person will be good for anything after the former (health risks not even included), whereas you are not really impaired after the latter.
Dosage matters, and that's true for cannabis as well. Most people won't be very productive/active after hitting the bong or whatever, lightly vaporizing some sativa strain, different story.
The problem with that is that it's also super not backed up by data.
Edit: on the flip side, I have come up with some really cool solutions to problems after having a bit. But it'll never be a frequent thing for me again, precisely because of the probability of just getting back to the "OK with not doing anything" state.
This is how drugs are taken best: Not frequent.
Sorry, are you waving away the comparative value of hard data and personal experience?
> when I was smoking weed frequently, I had no problem just doing nothing with my life
Sounds like pot isn't for really you then. I'd even be OK with a statement like "A danger of pot is that some people find it makes them OK with being bored".
But making sweeping generalizations that don't apply to everybody (and haven't even been shown to apply to most or many people) is exactly what is wrong with anti-drug propaganda. First off it's bad because, you know, lying is wrong. Secondly, it destroys your credibility with anyone who decides to see for themselves, and doesn't have anything close to the experience you described.
And with drugs like cocaine, meth and heroin out there, it's probably a good idea for kids to have someone with a little credibility to turn to when they want to know what's up.
> Sorry, are you waving away the comparative value of hard data and personal experience?
Absolutely! Not because I don't see value in data, but because my personal experience is all I have to go from. A cursory lit review didn't come up with any hard data for or against that specific proposition (that marijuana makes you ok with being bored). The closest I found was:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2723942/
Which suggests that among their N=634 marijuana users, ~25% reported boredom as a motivation for smoking.
I absolutely agree that we should have credible data to use both for education and policy making! The unfortunate part of our current legal situation is that it's incredibly difficult to study those things directly.
Edit: my brother died of a heroin overdose, so I have zero fucking tolerance for this bullshit simplistic reasoning.
And all they really do is show that you should have money and the real problems aren't the drugs but finances and society.
If you are a drug user, reading / watching something that others may thing would turn people away from drugs, a certain kind of drug user (perhaps more adventurous) will be thinking, "yeah I'd like to try that".
Used to be like that for me and others I knew. Case in point, all the PCP scare stories, "man gets super human strength, fights off 10 police, gets naked". I would just focus on the "gets super human strength" - yeah should get some of that.
But at the end of the day, drugs are pretty stupid. Fun. But stupid. Doesn't mean we should stop people taking them. Lots of things are stupid - really, if you think about it. Riding your bike down mountains, any of the more "extreme" sports, rock climbing. Anything with a risk that isn't necessary. But it is up to the individual to weigh the risk, the "fun" reward and decide what they want to do
I think many socio-economists would agree with that statement.
I suspect that the perceived correlation between smoking cannabis and being a loser is that successful cannabis smokers have a strong incentive against disclosing this habit -- they could lose their jobs, or be excluded from further opportunities. They also have more resources and possibly life experience and wisdom to protect themselves from law enforcement and the social status quo (i.e people like you who might judge them unfairly).
Of course I am not advocating cannabis use. I am advocating seeing what works for you and making up your own mind. Some people love coffee, some people don't. None of our business.
One problem I suspect that the status quo has with cannabis is that it is a type of drug that makes you more relaxed about status games. Some people describe the experience like this: it's not that you don't want to do things anymore, it's that you don't care so much about what other people think you should be doing.
But mostly, cannabis is illegal because of racism (it was associated with black people and the jazz scene when it became popular in the west) while alcohol -- a much more dangerous drug that is indeed heavily used to mask boredom -- is ok because white people were used to it, it was part of their culture.
I'm not saying the GP is correct (I'd rather see a study than "something a cartoon said"), but there are "numerous counter-examples" to everything. Pack-a-day smokers who lived to 110, high-functional alcoholics, people who lived long lives around lead, mercury and asbestos. That doesn't mean you don't want to encourage people to not try to beat the odds.
This is not the case for cannabis use. The public perception of cannabis as having horrible negative health consequences comes from state propaganda, not science. Look it up yourself. But look for scientific articles, not newspaper articles.
So before you use that classical argument, you have to actually have some data that provides evidence for the substance under question being generally harmful.
Carl Sagan (one of the counter-examples) used to confront his scientist friends with this, and they were surprised to find that there is indeed very little scientific support for this view. For a while, the strongest result was that cannabis could help trigger early schizophrenia, but even this research is on shaky grounds (turns out that the population under study was highly biased).
Just because you don't have studies showing pot is harmful it doesn't mean pot isn't harmful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Prohibition prevents scientific research, but it is not true that there isn't a lot of indirect data. One of them is cause of death at emergency rooms. While alcohol produces a large number of deaths daily, cannabis produced zero so far (in the history of modern medicine).
> Just because you don't have studies showing pot is harmful it doesn't mean pot isn't harmful. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sure, but this applies to everything. Maybe having brown curtains in your living room increases your chances of suffering from depression. Let's make brown curtains illegal until we know more?
THC is fairly safe, inhaling smoke is stupid.
PS: As far as I know eating it is ok, but many things become harmful when you do them for 30+ years. Ex: Runniners often have knee problems over the long term.
I made a rule. "IF I SMOKE, I CAN ONLY PROGRAM AFTERWARDS"
IT WORKED!!!! :P
From personal experience, I feel that they would have been better off focusing on the consequences to your health rather than a fumbling attempt at peer pressure. The one class when they showed pictures of a smoker's lungs was the only one that had any lasting positive impact on me.
It means a lot for senior demographics, and so they happily push measures involving scaring young people with health problems. Which then won't work.
Health disguised as vanity works quite well though. Case in point, current fitness boom.
We didn't have much or any of that, but we did have a police officer in class once showing us a block of hash. IDK what all that was about though, we just thought it was cool to have a guy with a gun in class, :p. (note that this is in a country famous for its tolerance towards weed)
Maybe if it wasn't a top down approach, it might've worked. Like if they had my peers dramatize drug related pressure (not watching a video of my 'peers' [they were more like tacky uncool peers, by anyones standard]). Also, not having cops 'teach' it. I didn't feel educated. I felt bad for the cop, as they struggled to convince us that drugs were bad (many of my classes were just anti-cops, so we gave each cop a difficult time, just out of spite). My peers are among the average Americans, not a rough bunch, just anti-authoritarian. :)
For balance, upon writing this post, I'd like to suggest a solution (not just criticize DARE). Have specific teachers teach about drugs. Just like sex educators aren't generalists, they focus on teaching the one subject, sex. Let's have drug educators. I know sex educators get a lot of flack but that flack is falling out of fashion because sex educators are effective. Let's do that for drugs. It could educate many people on the hard drugs that are extremely difficult to quick after one dose (crack, heroin, etc). Educating kids on what's out there, is empowering. Hopefully we can see a healthy change in our system.
But then everything changed when I went to college in my mid-20s and developed a strong cannabis habit. It gave purpose to my life. I'm still a daily smoker, years later, with a fulfilling job and good friends.
D.A.R.E. is a program designed to keep kids from drugs. There are problems with D.A.R.E. though. For example, it is counter productive, gives parents a false sense of security and it wastes money.
In 1989-1996 studies done showed that kids involved in the D.A.R.E. program take 3-5% more drugs than kids not in the D.A.R.E. program. The program also shows specific interest on severe drugs such as cocaine, marijuana and meth. This can cause kids to take the drugs they learned about, making this system completely counter productive.
The D.A.R.E. program wastes money. It is funded by taxes that you pay and those funds are completely wasted on this program. D.A.R.E. shows absolutely no long-term effects on kids. The money spent on D.A.R.E. could be used for much better things than nothing.
This program gives parents a false sense of security. When parents have children in the D.A.R.E. program they think “oh, he is already learning that drugs are bad so I don’t need to teach him myself.” When this happens, kids think their parents don’t care if they are doing drugs, especially when they see other family members doing drugs without any immediate reactions they have learned about in D.A.R.E.. When this happens they think D.A.R.E. lies about what drugs do and start taking them because they believe there is no risk in it.
Some people might say D.A.R.E. helps decrease drug use in kids but there are two problems with this statement. First, it is a lie, kids who are in the dare program have been shown to take 3-5% more drugs than kids who don’t. Second, who cares if kids are taking drugs? Who says it’s a bad thing to take drugs? Yes, they do kill you, but so do doughnuts! Maybe D.A.R.E. should stand for “doughnut abuse resistance education” instead of drug abuse resistance education”. Seeing how they both kill you its just doughnuts make you fat as well as dead.
As you can see the D.A.R.E. program has some severe issues and needs to be taken care of. If we destroyed the D.A.R.E. program we could save enough money to start a new, more effective and important, program. Perhaps it could be “Doughnut Abuse Resistance Education” to warn kids of the dangers of doughnuts. For short we could even call it D.A.R.E., catchy, I know.
Are DARE programs more likely to be targeted at kids in higher-risk groups?
Note that I am not saying that we shouldn't teach those things (and schools do teach those things), but that teaching them in a lower-stakes fashion where people are able to succeed at the core learning goal (argument in this case) without bouncing off of the Wall Of Spelling is a much better approach.
'more influentiable people would be like "Oh wow I can totally get rich selling drugs as long as I don't startg using it myself!"'
...
I probably wasn't the target audience, as an introverted sciency-type, but the class gave me a survey of the various drugs on the market and an introduction to a vocabulary with which I'd had no contact. When interactions with drugs touched closer friends in subsequent years, I feel that I was better prepared than I would've been without DARE.
Anecdotally, DARE led to my confounding our family doctor when I categorically refused to take any cough medicine, even prescribed, that contained codeine.
So, Mr. DARE officer, your course worked for me.
My experience of DARE was that it had little to do with drugs. It seemed focused on getting cops into classrooms. The ones who came to our class were always horrible. They openly lied to us about drugs, cars and even the law. We played with them. The goal was to get the cop red-faced mad by asking simple questions. One handed out something he called cocaine, but we instantly discovered was just baking powder.
If any chief is reading this: Do not sent a bicycle cop in spandex shorts to talk to boys wearing blazers and ties.
When i was in 5th grade, a dare officer came to my class and told me about a piece of paper i could put under my tongue and see things that werent real(lsd)... that started a decade long journey of copious drug use.
Lastly it says that this reform started in the 2000's. That was 15 years ago. So people who went through the program in the 2000's like me might not have gotten the ineffective version. Assuming they actually made decent reforms, which the article suggests.
Substance abuse education can't be entrusted to the government given how easy it is for public programs to be corrupted by interests who are opposed to public health and safety.
The effects of DARE will echo through our society for generations. Just like the effects of a war or a natural disaster.
Q: Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
A: It was dead.
Q: Why did the second monkey fall out of the tree?
A: It was stapled to the first one.
Q: Why did the third monkey fall out of the tree?
A: Peer pressure.
EDIT: Formatting.
How is it a program like DARE could have gone on for so long without peering into their own performance metrics to see if the program had any value?
It's a rhetorical question. It's obviously political. A group of powerful people banked their political cred on the concept and was unwilling to admit defeat. Just like the entire drug war.