"DRUGS: THE FIRST DECISION"
sear 1971.
Time: 81,4 minutes.
Source : Bailey Film Associates, 11559 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90025.
Date evaluated: February 8, 1972.
Synopsis: This film addresses the problem of drug abUse at the elementary
school level. Through interviews and review of case studies of teenage drug
users, the effects of drugs on young lives are explored. The film seeks to encour-
age young people to look for positive alternatives to drug exploration and to
participate in some critical decision making on their own to avoid the dangers
of "turning on."
Evaluation: Although the Committee felt that the film is fairly well-produced,
it is sensational, superficial and of little use..
Rating: Unacceptable.
"EASY WAY OUT"
Year: 1971.
Time : S minutes.
Source : ACI Films, Inc 35 West 45th Street, New York, N.Y. 10036.
Dale evaluated : April 11%1972.
Synopsis : This film shows the difficulty that young chickens experience in
hatching from their shells. It then shows the ease with %Vhicb they could get out
of their shells if they had the help of a human hand. However, the chicks that
Come out of the shell with no help have greater chance for survival and good
health than those that have help, for in breaking out of their shells, they developand strengthen muscles which-are vitalearly In their lives. The fl*n then makes
an analogy hetween the chickens that had help in getting out of their shells and
young people who use drugs. By- use of the analogy the film says that although
it may seem easier to use drugs to face probleins, that it really does not improve
situations and may actually make problems worse.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that this film is a refreshing change from
films that are usually -shown to classes. It is thought 'provoking and, with a
'strong discussion leader, could lead to good discussion. It is relative not only. to
the dnig question, but can be used in a variety of courses.
Rating : Good; acceptable.
Audience: Upper elementary, junior high, senior high.
"THE FLORRIE FISHER STORY:. THE TRIP BACK"
Year 1968,
Time: 28 minutes.Source: AssociationSterling Movies, Inc., 41 West 61 Street, New York, New
York 10023.
Date evaluated: October 5, 1971.
Synopsis: Florrie Fisher, an ex-addict is- finned as she speaks to a group of
NOV York City high school students. Florrie tells her story of addiction, prostitution, imprisonment and rehabilitation. She talks briefly of her experience at
Spit-atoll, the self-help organization for' drug-addicts, which she credits for saving her life. After speaking, Florrie answers questions from the audience.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that much of the information given. in this
film is scientifically tinsomul.heavily emotional, and in some cases, rather pointfess. The Committee was unanimous in their opinion that this film is not to be
shown to Virginia audiences.
Rating: Unacceptable.
.
... Year : 1970.
.
"FOCUS ON ,DRUGS"
Time: 15 minutes each..
Source : American Educational Films, 331 N. Maple Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210,
Date evaluated October 5, 1971.
67
(l) Focus on Marijuana
synopsis : P,oth sides of some arguments often used for smoking mayfijuana are
explored in four situations in which teenagers face peer pressure. Different re-
fusals are given. Tommy Roe narrates.
Evaluation : The Committee reacted against the progression theory ; i.e., that
smoking leads to shooting heroin. The Committee felt that the film is moralistic
and preachy and would depict those people who smoked marijuana as losers,
1.1tle-r than winners and losers both engaging in "pot" smoking. Some of the
ron:mitiee members expressed the feeling that if this film were shown to any
group above the grade school level, it would be laughed out of the auditorium.
This film brought about the widest range of ratings with a teenager giving the
averagerating and two members, a poor rating.
Rating: Fair; acceptable.
Audience: Elementary School only.
(2) Focus on Heroin
Synopsis: The question of whether or not one drug leads to use of another is
probed in this film which tries to trace the source of heroin addiction. Narrated
by David Hartman.
Evaluation : The Committee reacted strongly against the progression theory,
specifically such statements as "if it was a drug that started this person on the
road to heroin, let's find out what drug it was." Members also questioned a number of the facts that are portrayed.
Rating: Fair.
Audience : Unacceptable for Virginia audiences.
(3) Focus on LSD
Synopsis : The film visually identifies samples of LSD, peyote, DMT, STP,
mescaline, psilocybin, hashish and marijuana. A series of situations in which
young people advocate use of psychedelics is examined, giving an opposing point
of yiew.
Evaluation ; The medical members of the Audio-Visual Materials Screening
Committee found a number of scientific errors In this film ; i.e., the potency of
LSD. They questioned if LSD has a lethal close as portrayed in the film. This,
like the other' films in this series,. is very stagey. One member noted, "It is oversimplified, but factual."
Rating : Unacceptable for Virginia audiences.
(4) Focus on Downers
Synopsis : Vignettes illustrates how barbiturates can had to death. The nar
rator, Greg
questions the reasons why young people abuse barbiturates.
A representative of the Los Angeles Free Clinic explains why barbiturate with
drawal should occur only under medical supervision and over a period of several
weeks.
Evaluation : In spite of the fact that certain "scare" tactics are used in this
film, the Committee felt that overall, it gives a relatively realistic appraisal of the
effects of taking barbiturates. One Committee member noted, "It is oversimplified
but faCtual."
Rating: Fair ; acceptable.
Audience : Junior high school and older.
(5) Focus on Uppers
Synopsis : The film explores reasons why amphetamines are used and presents some social, physical and pPychologleal outcomes from amphetamine
abuse.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that. this film is the hest in the "Focus"
series with good scientific content and reasonable portrayal. The Committee
recommended it for junior hkgh and older.
Baling: Good ; acceptable.
Audience : Junior high and older.
,
Year : 1970.
"FOE ADULTS ONLY"
Time : 28 minutes.
Source: Professional Arts, Inc., P.O. Box 8484, Universal City, California
Date evaluated: February 8, 1972.
Synopsis : A film director, a group of actors and a, technical consultant offer
strategies, techniques and ideas far adults in responding to young people's
91008.
68
experiences and comments on drugs. Various approaches such as honest and unemotional fiiSCUSSI011 between parent and youngster, or teacher and class. and
the importknce of .factual drug knowledge are demonstrated, as well as the
need of meaningftil alternatives to drug use.
: This film -is limited in factual content, but emphasizes the need
for parents to cominnuicate with their children. The. Committee felt that the
technique of producing aifilm within a film obscures the message of the film.
The end produdt is corny, staged, unrealistic, and sometimes ludicrous.
Rating: Unacceptable.
"FORESTS OP THE NIGHT"
Year : 1971.
Time : 20 minutes.
Source: CCM Films, Inc., 34 MacQuesten Parkway South, Mount Vernon, New
York.
Date evaluated : August 2, 1972.
Synopsis : This flint attempts to define characteristics and actions which might
enable the law enforcement officer to identify Moth drug abusers and drug
distributors.
Evaluation : The Committee's primary objection to this film is that it stereo-
types drug nsers as either blacks from the ghetto or long-haired whites. It is
extremely slanted, and could foster prejudice and develop undesirable attitudes
among law enforcement personnel. When symptoms which might indicate that a
person is usine drugs are cited, the film fails to point out that these same
symptoms may be caused by a variety of other reasons. The film is simplistic and
would provide no understanding of the problem or the drug culture-to the law
enforcement officer.
Rating: Unacceptable.
"GLASS HOUSES"
Year : 1972.
Time : 21 minutes.
Source : See-Saw Films, P.O. Box 262, Palo Alto, California 94302,
Date evaluated : April 11, 1972.
Synopsis : This film is a series of interviews with various types of people- about
their use of barbiturates and amphetamines. Some of those interviewed are a
middle-aged housewife who uses amphetamines for weight reduction, a thirty.
three year old honors English graduate of the University of California who has
become involved with speed, a fifteen year old black youth, and two Vietnam
veterans. The film does not attempt to give factual information about ampheta.
mines and' barbiturates. It rather. explores the motivations and lifestyles of those
who use the druLs. A discussion manual is included which provides material for
discussion of the film as well as pharmacOlogical informationabOut amphetamines
and barbitnrates.
Evaluation : The-Comthittee considered thiSfilm to be very realistic. It shows
a good cross-cut of types of people who abuse amphetamines. and barbiturates,
and.does not stereotype drug users:.The film lacks in organization, and a strong
discussion leader is needed for .effective shOwing. The, film is not recommended
for students of the junior high age, or below, as the Committee felt that .the drug
users portrayed might serve as models for younger audiences who might consider
them funny or hip. In addition, language is occasionally used which might be
considered objectionable for younger audiences.
Rating: Fair ; acceptable.
Audience : Senior high, adults.
"GROOVING"
Year : 1970.
'
Time : 31 minutes.
Source : Benchmark Films; Inc., 145-Scarborough Road, Briarcliff Manor, New
.
York 10510. ;
Date evaluated : November 16, 1971.
.
Synopsis : The film consists of unscripted rap 'sessions among a group of teenagers. Both sides of drug use are presented -With some youngsters candidly relat-
ing the pleasant effects of their drug taking experiences. ln balance, however,
they reject further drug use and talk about the attitudes that have led them to
make this decision. Thd emphasis is on marijuana, but LSD, 'mescaline' and
heroin are discussed peripherally.
Evaluation: The Committee looked on this film with some enthusiasm, judging
it to be of excellent potential benefit -if used. correctly. They noted that the drug
69
issue is dealt with in a realistic manner by showing both sides of issues. The
Olin deals with some of the motivation behind today's drug use. This, if followed
up by classroom raps, could have beneficial effects on potential drug abusers.
The Committee recommends stopping the film at natural cut offs for classroom
raps, They felt that the film could be. very effective if shown to mixed groups
of parents and youngsters.
Rating : Good ; acceptable.
Audience : Junior high school.
"nEnoix"
Year : 1971.
Time : 2214 minutes.
Source : Bailey Film Associates, 11559 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles,.
California 90025,
Do to evaluated : December 28. 1971.
Synopsis: This film deals with the expectations of drug abusers, the addiction
cycle, the goals, problems, successes, and failures of substitutive programs-such
as methadone therapy, and the distribution chain in drug traffic. Discussions
with legislators, public health officials, members of treatment and rehabilitation
centers, policemen, psychiatrists, and drug users reveal that While there may
he contradictory- arguments about the best. treatment 'for drug users, there is
no disagreement about the damaging effects of heroin use.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that the film-. contains good explanatory
remarks for the educated person who knows little about heroin, with adequate
description of-the physical effects.of addiction. It was felt, however, that the film
lacks in its discussion about methadone. The Committee felt that the film presents
only time good points of the methadone program, and should discuss the weaknesses of the progrmil as well. An empliasis on the inclusion of counseling as a
part of the program is needed, and should be brought out in discussion.
Rating: Good ; acceptable.
Audience : High school, PTA, medical professionals, colleges, hi-service training.
"HELP"
Year ; 1970.
Time : 25Vrminutes.
Source-: Concept Films, Suite 312, 1155' Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington,
.
.
.
D.C. 20005.-
I ,----/Date evaluated : February 8, 1972.
Synopsis : Live_scenes filmed at a hotline crisis center in Philadelphia portray
Ms staff in action as they: offer telephone counseling, .give medical examinations and trace potential suicide calls. The film covers an assortment of prob.
t---
lems which arise with such centers, including funding, the drug use policy of staff,
crank calls and returning runaways to-parents.
.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that this film is professionally done, and
presents a method of solution- to the accompanying problems realistically and
authentically. Criticism of the. film is that-it implies that the hotline approach is
the only approach, it does not provoke discussion. Members of the Committee
generally felt that although the film could be valuable for fund raising. campaigns
or in-service training fOr similar agencies, it has limited use.
Rating : Pair ; acceptable.
Audience : High school. and above, program planners, community groups, fund
raising campaigns, in- service training..
.
.
.
"HOOKED"
Year : 1967.
Time: 20 minutes.
Source : Churchill Films, 662 N. Robertson, Blvd., Los Angeles, California
90027.
Date-evaluated : Not available.
Synopsis : The film consists of a series of statements and discussions with exheroin addicts from various socio-ethnic backgrounds. They have been cured for
various periods ranging- to two years. They project an air of honesty and concern
as they discuss their personal problems.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that this filmis slightly Outdated, as noted
in the haircuts and language used I y the children. It does not seem to use scare
tactics and as one panel member noted, "It will not turn anybody off or on to
drugs." Another comment Was, "This film is useless if shown, without discussion."
70
Rating: Fair ; acceptable.
Audience : Effective at lower ages and could perhaps be used most effectively
for small groups of children with their parents.
Year : 1971.
Time: 22 minutes.
Source : Stephen Bosustow Productions, 2540 Pacific Coast Blvd., Malibu Beacle
California 90265.
Date evaluated : December 28, 1971.
Synopsis : Designed to raise questions and stimulate discussion about drug
addiction and society's responsibility regarding this problem, H+2 documents
the frustration and failure of two actual heroin addicts. Both addicts undergo
rehabilitation and are released to face pressures and responsibilities.
Evaluation: The Committee agreed that this film will be effective only if followed by discussion, led by a strong discussion leader. It is strongly emotional.
perhaps overly so, although it does effectively demonstrate the problems faced
by addicts in trying to refrain from usage, even when strongly motivated. The
Committee felt that the Mm is not for general use, but better used for in-service
_
_
training.
Rating : Fair ; acceptable.
Audience : Adults, high school, counselors, in-service training for rehabilitation workers, teachers, parole officers.
Year : 1971.
Time : 8 minutes.
"IS IT ALWAYS RIGHT TO SE EIGHT?"
Source: Stephen Bosustow Productions, 2540 Pacific Coast Boulevard, Malibu,
California 90265.
Date evaluated: April 11, 1972.
Synopsis : Presented in cartoon form, and narrated by Orson Wells. this film
talks grille schism and lack of progress that results -when no one will admit that
his beliefs maybe wrong or that another person may be right.
Evaluation: Although this film does not deal specifically with drugs, the
Committee felt that it could be used to provoke good discussion among the audience as to the reason for extended drug use in today's society. It is more a film
on attitudes, and could be used as an introduction for a- discussion of any controversial material, as a vehicle to make groups with different views realize that
"the other side" may have something very worthwhile to say and that "the other
side" may be right. The film is well - produced, the story is well-organized, simply
and effectively told, and is up-to-date and relevant today.
Rating: Excellent ; acceptable.
Audience : Community groups, adults, youth, parents and youth together.
Year : 1970.
"IT TAKES A LOT OF xtELP"
Time: 27 minutes.
Source : Advertising Department, Kemper Insurance, 4750 N. Sherdon Road,
Chicago, Illinois 60640.
Date evaluated : February 8, 1972.
Synopsis : The Documentary illustrates the dynamics of an interdisciplinary
committee organized to take positive action against at local drug problem. The
community, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. and the members of the drug committee are
profiled. The film also identified a variety of drug programs in other 'cities
group therapy; hotline services, sensitivity sessions, treatment centers.
Evaluation: This film is Intended to illustrate the approaches that communities can take in drug education and treatment. It does not educate about drugs.
The Committee felt that although the methods of solution presented are good,
they are too late and would be of little help, as no new ideas are presented. The
Committee felt the presentation of the material is bad and the quality _of the
film is poor.
Rating: Unacceptable.
Year: 1971.
Time: 6 minutes.
"JOSHUA IN A BOX"
71
Source Stephen Bosustow Productions, 2540 Pacific Coast Boulevard, Malibu,
California 90265.
Date evaluated : August 2, 1972.
Synopsis : This non-narrated film in cartoon form depicts Joshua trying to
get out of a box that has no exit. It shows his frustration, anger, and despair
in trying to escape. Finally, Joshua is able to escape ; once free, be creates another box in which he imprisons himself.
Evaluation : The Committee considered this a good film to stimulate discuksion. It is not specifically a. "drug film," but can lie used in drug education courses,
especially when talking about choices, values, and decision making about life
styles. It is an abstract and intellectual film; as such, a strong discussion leader
is absolutely essential. The negative ending should be used as a tool to stimulate
discussion, and not as an absolute. answer to what happens in such a situation.
Rating : Good ; acceptable.
Audience: Community programs, adults, college, high school, mental health
discussion groups.
"JUST LIRE YOU"
Year : 1971.
Time : 6 minutes.
Source Stephen Bosustow Productions, 2540 Pacific Coast Boulevard, Malibu,
California 00265.
Date evaluated : August 2, 1972.
SynoPSis : This fihn, narrated by Eugene Osborne Smith, expresses the shared
hopes and dreams of all people. Against a montage of photographic portraits and
scenes of daily life from around the world, the film stresses that all people are
all "just like you" in the desire for rewarding and meaningful lives.
Evaluation : The Committee considers this film "not a drug film, but a human
film." However, it could be used effectively in a &mg program, whether an edu-
cation program or a rehabilitation program, to relate drug use to culture, and
to relate "how people treat people." It is too short and too abstract to be Used
alone, but must be used with discussion and a strong disCussion leader.
Rating ; Good ; acceptable.
Audience : Universal use.
"THE LOSERS"
Year ; 1965.
Time : 31 minutes.
Source : Carousel Films, 1501 Broadway, New York, New YOrk. 10036.
Date evaluated : January 11, 1972.
Synopsis : Au examination of the phenomenon of drug use and abuse, especially
among the youn& produced by CBS News. The investigation reveals that drug
use cuts across social and economic Hues, and includes interviews with slum
youths, teenagers from "nice" neighborhoods, and authorities on various aspects
of the problem. The harmful effects of various drugs are discussed.
Evaluation: The Committee felt that although the film was probably very
'Valuable in 1965, when it was produced, it is outdated, and would he useless today, except for historical interest. Although factual, it is heavily slanted, superficial, and sensationalies.drug use.
Rating : Unacceptable.
Yew:: 1968.
Time : 28 minutes.
"LSDINSIGHT OR INSANITY"
Source: Bailey Film Associates, 11559 Santa Monica-Blvd., Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia 90025.
Date evaluated. October 12,1.971.
Synopsis: The film begins with a good-natured look at teenage faddism: such
as clothes, hair styles. etc., and then moves on to less desirable fads ; such as
gang fights, "chicken contests," and drug experimentation. The possibility that
LSD exercises damaging genetic effects on human beings is emphasized. This
is illustrated by scenes-of deformed fetuses carried by guinea pigs that were (lobed
with LSD in pregnancy, along wi;'1 photos of chromosomal breaks and abnormalities associated with human legislation. The film .closes with a warning by
former U.S. Food and Drug Commissioner James Goddard that LSD experi-
m,ntation is like playing Russian roulette. Film is narrated by Sal Mitieo.
Evaluation : Scientific content considered acceptable although somewhat outof-date. Specifically, studies made since the filM was produced question the
amount of chromosomal damage from taking LSD. Also the film does not put
1
.
72
much emphasis' on "flashbacks". (An explanation of this is that this has only
been experienced in measurable numbers recently.) All evaluators disliked the
heavy emphasis on scare tactics. It was noted that scenes depicting users jumping off cliffs- or in front of cars are unrealistic since the incidence of this is
extremely rare. Newspaper- headlines. stating that LSD. is more dangerous than
thalidomide to unborn babies and classing-LSD as a narcotic. are misleading and
untrue.
Ra ti lig : Good ; acceptable.
Audience : High school and above.
"L. S.D.-2 5"
Year : 1967.
Time: 27 minutes.
Source: Professional Arts, Inc., P.O. Box 8484, Universal City, California,
91008.
Date evaluated : December 2S, 1971,
.
.
Synopsis The chemical. LSD 25, is given a voice and this voice narrates the
film, explaining its properties and possible usage. dangers.' Drainatic scenes portray various aspects of the controversy over LSD and the experience of those
who use it. "LSD" discussion potential dangers inherent 'in the use of illegally
Purchased drugs, from bad trips, from possible chromosomal daniage, and selfinjury while under its influence, and from recurring effects.
Evaivation Seientifically, the film was judged acceptable, although some Com-
mittee members felt it is too generalized in areas where it should be specific.
.Almost all Committee members reacted negatively to the scare tactics used and
to the personification method. All evaluators disliked the tone of LSD's voice,
noting that it is extremely provocative. It was felt that this type of gimmick approach takes away from the_possible credibility of the film. The scene in the hospital 'emergency room seems to *tray. the nurses, doctors, and policemen as
"enemies" from the viewer's point of view. Largely because of the overdra
atizntions and scare tactics, and .because the Committee has viewed other films
on this. subject thafitre'far superior, they found the film to be unacceptable.
Rating: Unacceptable.
"THE LAW, HOW EFFECTIVE IS IT"
Year :1968:
Time: 36 minutes.
Source: NET Films Service, Indiana University, Audio Visual Center, Bloomington, Indiana 49401.
Date evaluated : January 11, 1972..
Synopsis : This film consists of a fast paced, at times, chaotic, discussion
tbout the laws and morality surrounding the marijuana controversy. Included
-on the-panel are a former L. A. Police Department Narcotics Oflicer,"tt social psy-
chiatrist, au attorney, and two medical doctors. The discussion covers a broad
raf,geof questions including the role of the mass media in publicizing drugs-and
the propriety of the government in attempting to regulate private morality. The
geneval consensus is that today's marijuana laws are ineffective.
Evaluation ; Many ofi the evaluators expressed dismay at portions .of_. the
heated discussion, which-at times is very. confusing and contradictory.' As one
said "the film gets very fatiguing when you cannot pick out what any one person
is saying." However, it was pointed out that this confusion has become synonymous with the whole marijuana issue and perhaps accurately reflects the gulf
that exists, between people about the problem. Discussion leaders should be
aware that many of the penalties for possession, use or sale .of marijuana have
been changed since this film was produced (1968). Discussion 'leaders should be
knowledgeable of present laws...The Committee felt that this film could he used
very effectively as a lead to encounter hi-service awl general audience discussions.
Rating: Fair ; acceptable.
Audience : High school and above.
"MARATHON*. THE STORY OF YOUNG DRUG 'USERS"
Year : 1967.
Time : 51 minutes.
Source: Flms Inc.
Date evaluated : March 14,1.972.
Synopsis : The documentarY camera records highlights from a 30 -hour "marathon", encounter session among young. drug addicts undergoing voluntary treat-
73
went at New York's Daytop village. Dr. Efrau Ramirez, coordinator of drug
addiction agencies in New York, comments on the meaning of the individual
dramas unfolding in this pressure-cooker atmosphere, and describes the thedry
behind the marathon encounter method. The stories of five Daytop residents are
highlighted in the film : Charlie and Eileen, a Young married couple, both of
whom are addicts : Sena, who is only 20 years old ; Judy, 23 year -old daughter of
a prominent surgeon; and Roger, a former college student. "Marathons are just
life meaningless at time, but meaningful when we start to relate to one another
as people," declares Dr. Ramirez. The final sequence shows a corpse being delivered to the morgueone of the victims of the recent increase in deaths among
New York City heroin addicts.
Evaluation: The Committee agreed that this film, although produced in 1967, is
still valid and demonstrates good techniques in group therapy. It is emotional,
but calm, and exposes some of the deeper, human problems that underlie drug
addiction. The Committee felt discussion-should accompany any usage of the
film specifically. that the audience should be carefully briefed as to the dynamics
of group therapy. This film is in black and white: however, the Committee felt
that the message in the film is so well presented that this technically does not
take away from the film. Committee members commented that the film makes
one feel that he is a participant, rather than an observer. Criticism of the film
is that it is too long, and that the clOsing taorgne scene is overdramatic and
unnecessary.
Rating Good ; acceptable.
Audience: In-service training, those Ivlio are about to undergo therapy,
teachers, parents, mental health workers.
"MARIJIYANA-TIIE GREAT ESCAPE"
Year : 1970.
Time: 20 minutes:
Source: Bailey Film Associates, 11550 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90025.
Date evaluated: NOvember 17, ]971.
Synopsis: George Willis is a teenager interested in drag racing. He ignores
the advice of a fellow drag racer and experiments with marijuana. After his
girlfriend is persuaded to try marijuana by him, she is injured in a .car accident.
George participates in a major race after smoking marijuana and is involved in
a presmnably serious -crash.
Evaluation ; The Committee felt that this is a well-clone Hollywood production, but that beneath the slickness there are a number of overgeneralizations
and a sense of overdramatization that badly mar the overall effect. Specifically,
a number of statements were thought to lack credibility; i.e., "Most pot smokers
feel compelled to turn .others on :".YYou can never tell when marijuana will hurt
you ;" "Pot smokers have one thing in commonwork is -a drag." The Committee
felt that the film creates a false impression eonterning cause - effect relationship
between smoking grass and automobile accidents. One Committee member noted
"'This filet taken a, few old generalities and elaborates them into ft. plot." Another. stated "As.a warning against drag racing while .stoned, it's,OK; as an educational film, no."
Rating; Unacceptable.
"MAIM' L'A X A"
Yea r :
151-18.
Time: 34 minutes,
Source : Bailey Film Associates, 11559 Sanata Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, California 00025.
Date evaluated : October 12, 1971.
Synopsis: The film presents arguments for and against smoking. marijuana
and then advises individualS
make their own decisions. Sonny :Bono, of the
folk group. Sonny and Cher, narrates the discussion against the Setting of a
"'pot" party which is ititerrapted by the police. As the teenagers are led away
by the finthorities, 'they shout Out justifientions for legalization and ues of marljuana...p:ach oi, the.arguments is then individually examined in Bona's diSenssion.
Evalmition : TheCo.minittee felt, tha (the fIlM is enrrept,' bur preSents mislead
Ia. and sometimes inacenratae ,!:tatetneats :Mout 'the effects- of inartina an.
use are jmesented.7 the
Alilna,04. both the Pro and coi? POA t i 6/ LS 0.11.
ne.glitive comments outweigh the reasons Presented'
favor of usage.- awl the
prffentat ion is not objective.The.Committee felt that scare tactics are overused,
and Iliac the Min related marijuana use and narcotics use too closely,
hating Unacceptable.
74
"2.fARLTUANA."
Year: 1969.
Time: 52 minutes.
Source: Carousel Films, Inc., 1501 Broadway, New York, New York 10036.
Date evaluated :'March 14, 1972.
Synopsis: The CBS documentary surveys -the controversy over the social and
legal aspects of marijuana use. Interviews with drug users, judgeS, clergymen,
medical authorities, policemen. and legislators present a spectrum 'of opinions
about marijuana's use, its possible harmfulness or harmlessness, its effect on the
user's creative powers, and legal consequences of its use. CBS concludes that to
them marijuana has not been proven to be any more harmful than alcohol or
tobacco. They deny that its use can stimulate creativity. They do not condone its
use; however, they agree that the legal penalties are too stringent in proportion
to any potential danger of the drug. Mike Wallace narrates.
Evaluation:. The Committee agreed that although this film was probably ex-.
cellent when it was produced, it is useless today. Recent research has changed
the scientific information which the film presents. In addition, the film is in black
and white. It is too long. and the Committee felt that interest, especially among .
students, would be short-lived.
Rating : Unacceptable.
"METHADONE"
Year : 1971:
Time: 30 minutes.
. Source :
Films, Inc., Distribution Center, 733 Grecnburg Road, Wilmette.
Illinois.
Date evaluated March 14. 1972.
Synopsis :. This film surveys the methadone maintenance program at New
Yorleg Beth Israel Hospital. It hielndeS interviews with addicts. hospital and
program personnel, and leaders of the Black community. Opinions of both advocates and opponents are voiced.
Evaluation : The main Criticism of the film is that it shows very had control
practices. and may give the impression that...striet.controls are not needed in a
methadone program. Examples of this are careless handling of urine specimens.
Ijoor methods of dispensing.the thug to addicts, and poor security nicaSureS. in
addition, the film emphasizes a life time maintenance program. Perhaps the film
1s overly optimistic. The Committee felt that the 80% success rate cited in the
film is inflated. The film indicates that blockage occurs instantaneously, when
it is necessary to continue methadone use from three to six months. before reaching a blocking point. For these reasons, the Committee felt that a good discus
sion leader is needed to present necessary. controls, defined good: medical .praefices, and point out inaccuracies.
In spite of its Weaknesses. the Committee felt that the film is timely, and is a
fair survey of a methadone maintenance program. One particular point which
the Committee felt is beneficial is that the film recognizes that methadone treat'meat is not sufficient, but that various kinds of supportive services are essential,
if the program is to be successful.
Rating: Fair ; acceptable.
Audience: Community groups. professionals. addicts who are about to begin a
methadone maintenance program.
"A MOVADLE SCENE"
Year : 1968.
Time 15 minutes.
Source National Audiovisual Center (GSA), Washington, D.C. 20409.
Date evaluated : Not available.
Synopsis: This film was originally part of a three-part series called "Distant
Drummer!'. It is more or less a survey of the international youth and drug scene
ranging* from California, London. Istanbul, and Kathmandu.
Evaluation: The Committee felt that the Introduction by Art Linkletter, which
has been added to the original film is out of context and that.' the film might
'better be shoWn at its original starting Place, cutting out the Linkletter piece.
The Committee felt that certain portions of the film are outdated but overall
presented a good broad picture of the youth culture. One criticism of this film
is that it graphically shows people shooting. heroin, which may "scare the
straight:4 but might also make the ex-addicts extremely desirous of shooting up.
The Committee felt that this film is geared towards addicts, is a good entre to
Wide-range discussion, but will hold little interests for anyone in school.
75
Rating : Fair,.acceptable.
Audience : "Adults Only."
"sem?'
Year : 1970:
Time : 20 minutes.
Source: Britannica Educational Corp., 425 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois 00611.
Date evaluated :.December 28, 1971.
Synopsis: This film relates the experience of two heroin addictsa middle
class white male and an inner-city black girl. A narrator -describes how a 40
dollar poppy crop in Turkey becomes a 280 thousand dollar heroin ^r. my in the
streets of New York. It also focuses on several rehabilitation houses .1 the use
of methadone in the rehabilitation process,
Evaluation : The Committee generally felt that this is a well-done, up-to-date
film with scientifically acceptable content. Especially noteworthy is that both
sides of 'methadone treatment arepresented in an objective manner. Some memhers felt that it is not necessary to show so ninny scenes of addicts shooting up.
In balance, however, the Committee felt that with a good discussion leader this
is an effective herOin film.
Rating: Fair, acceptable.
Audience : High school and above.
"THE SEEKERS"
Year : 1967.
Time : 31 minutes.
Source : Benchmark Films, Inc., 145 Scarborough Road, Briarcliff Manor, New
York 10510.
Date evaluated : January 11, 1972.
Synopsis : Former drug users and addicts discuss their personal experiences
with driws. In conversation among themselves, with students, "hippies", and
others, they attempt to understand and explain the reasons behind drug use.
The discussions result in a strong feeling that drugs ,are a "cop-out" and-provide
no answers to the problems of living.
Evaluation: Most of the evaluators felt that the film .is fastbecoming out-ofdate due to the great strides in therapeutic' community treatment methods since
the film was produced. In spite of this, the Committee felt that there is much to be
learned from the film. Specifically, they felt the emphasis that. drugs are a symptom. not the primary disease, is good and cannot be said too often. :quay mem-
bers reacted against the scare tactics used as well as the many "war stories"
related by addicts. The feeling is that people today know about the "horrors"
of drug addiction. To hear them related again and again does little good and
could perhaps have a negative effect: On balance, the Committee rated the him
acceptable but not recommended.
Rating: Fair, acceptable.
Audience : High school and above (professidual groups).
Year : 1970.
Time : Three 3-minute films.
"TRIGGER 111.1f S"
.
Source : Television Center, University of Michigan, Anti Arbor, Michigan.
-
Da to evaluated : November 10, 1.971.
Synopsis : The three "Trigger Films" on 'drags suggest the drug scene without
showing such stereotypes as needles, pills and bad trips. They ask the teenagers
to look within themselves to see why drugs might be tempting. to them. They are
Called "Trigger Films" because their purpose is to trigger discussion. They are
open ended. They are not information packages. The filni is divided into three
distinct films. At the end of each film there must he adequate time for discusSion.
The three films are: (1) "Linda," (2) "The Door," (3) "The Window."
Evaluations :
-"Linda" on the.surface, presents a mother-daughter conflict over playing the
radio too loudly, and might be interpreted merely as a film about the generation
gap. Subtle, yet recognizable, signs point to Linda's drug useher detachment,
her flushed face, 'continuing music after the radio has been removed, and exaggerated sounds.
"The Door" is about pee: pressure to gain status. The setting is a teenage
party within a party whose focus point is a bright red door, behind which some-
76
.
; is going on. Some of the guests are invited behind thedoor, others excluded.
,y playing chess observes the action and wonders about himself.
'The Window" suggests that loneliness, boredom, and depression can lead to
sensation seeking through drugs. A boy sits alone in his room, strumming his
guita? and feeling blue. He looks out the window, sees two people in the school
yard below, hastily grabs some money, and rushes off.
Evaluation : The Committee agreed that this film is an excellence vehicle for
good discus:Jon and that a strong discussion leader is needed. Committee mem-
'pproach used, feeling that it allows youth to explore their own
bers ike
thotight ^ t s, thus giving insight into their own persons. The Committee also
views t
drug ed.
Ratio}
Audien
I.
1 as being used for multiple purposes, not necessarily restricted to
,xcellent ; acceptable.
; Jr. high school and above with study guide.
"urs/DowNs'"
Year :1971.
Time: 24 minutes.
Source : Britaunica Educational Corporation, 425 N. Michigan Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60611.
Date evaluated : December 28, 1971.
Synopsis : The film examines_ amphetamines and barbiturates. Much of the
evidence is given by young people. How our pill-popping society fosters abuse
of these sometimes useful drugs, how severe a user's dependence on them can
be, and what's involved in getting free are among the topics explored.
Evaluation: The Committee felt that the film is an informative, well-produced
presentation, realistic in stressing public acceptance, yet high risk potential of
the drugs examined. However, it was felt that the film exaggerates and that.
elimination of scare tactics which are used, would have improved the presentation.
Rating: Good ; acceptable.
. Audience: High school and above.
.
.
"UP PILL, DOWN PILL"
Year: 1970.
Time: 23 minutes.
Source : Bailey Film Associates, 11559 Santa Monica Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif.
90025.
Date evaluated: December 28, 1971.
Synopsis : This film illustrates the different life styles of Roger. a teenage dropout. and Charlie, an old man living at a home for the elderly. Charlie decides to
refurbish a boat that Roger has been rising as his crashpad. The friendship and
tragedy that follow cause Roger to make some important decisions.
Evaluation : The Committee found this film to be a pleasant change from most
drug films' viewed. The.soft-sell, low-key approach centered around attitudes and
vAlues rather than rightness and wrongness is refreshing. The few scientific facts
presented are factual. All Conthfitteemembers felt that this film could be best
used with small group discussion following the showing.
Rating : Fair ; acceptable.
Audience: Junior High and above.
"WEED"
Yea.:-1971.
Time: 24 minutes.
Source: Encyclopedia Britanniea Education Corporation, 425 N. Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
Date evaluated : November 16, 1971.
Synopsis : The film covers some legal,- historical and sociological aspects of
inarijnana. The mother of a 17 year old, arrested and booked on charges of mail-.
juana possession, discusses the implications of the charge with his lawyer. A.
variety of opinions aboutmarthiana use and its effects are expressed lq users,
ex-users, and-some adults whose opinions are obtiously based on misinformation.
The film reviews what is now known about physical effects of marijuana and discusses current research efforts. Marijuana's growth, cultivation, a history of its
use and the misinformation prevalent in the71930's are briefly reviewed. A coinbination'of live filth, stills, and:cartoons are used.
77
Evaluation: The Committee had mixed feelings about this film. Generally.
however, it was felt that the factual content, especially regarding the legal
aspect, is not current or accurate. Although it was felt that the filial discussed
many juestiOnS frequently asked about marijuana, the Committee felt I hat it
tries to tell too much, resulting in generalizations and making conclusions
difficult.
Rating: Unacceptable.
"wfrAT WOULD von nor"
Tear: 1971.
Time : 3 lints (1) 12 minutes, (2) 12 minutes, (3) 19 minutes.
Source: Film Distributors International, Inc., 213 South Olive, Los Angeles,
California 90007.
Date evaluated : November 17, 1971.
Synopsis: (1) "The Model Problem, Behavior." Two boys are standing In a
school cafeteria line. They both begin disrupting the line by pushing. One of the
boys Is finally pushed hard and falls hitting" the tray of food of another boy
coming out of the cafeteria.
(2) "Drugs in the Home." A small boy has cut his finger. He goes to the bathroom medicine cabinet to get a hand aid. After looking at the medicines on the
shelves, he removes a bottle of. n, pith'. As he is about to ()pen it, his mother calls
t
hint,
(3) "Stranger." A small :.1.1
school with sonic of her friends, and oi
viously they enjoy walking
t the corner they part company, and the
girl walks on by herself. She coitis :',non a parked ear in which there is sea t-'1
a nice - looking man. Ile looks at int! girl, smiles and Invites her to get in the ear,
saying that he will drive her home.
(4) "Pills." A young girl is attracted to some of the packages her mother has
just brought home from shopping. With a healthy curiosity, she opens sonic pre.
seription medicine bottles -and looks at the pills. Iler mother then enters the
room and hurries toward her daughter.
(5) "Tobacco and Alcohol." A father and son are relaxing together. to the
living room. When the father leaves the room. the boy' looks at the cigarette
that his father left on the ashtray. Ile goes over, takes at puff or two and be-
gins to spotter and cough. Ile also takes a sip of a eau of beer.
(0) "Volatile Chemienlis." A brother and sister are worldng in the bedroom. The
girl is spraying a wig with hairspray and the boy is painting a picture. Suddenly
they both become dizzy.
(7) "Marijuana." A sixth grade boy is approached by an older boy. A police
ear Is parked nearby. The older boy quickly reaches out his hand to the younger
boy and passes him a marijuana cigarette.
Evaluation : The Committee felt that these films will be valuable in stimula Gag
children to think independently about the consequences of the choices they make
311141 to help them develop ti sense of values. The films do not stress only problems
of drug abuse. The Committee felt that these films are excellent openers to classroom discussion. The films are current and.present realistic day-to-day situations.
Rating: Excellent ; acceptable.
Audience: Elementary school.
DIOR LIGITTR OF DRUG EMICATION IN VIRGINIA
This summary has been prepared to present concise information about what has
happened in drug education in Virginia since the first law was passed in 11J25.
This Iaw says:
"Study of rails of alcohol. and narcotics . . . In physiology and hygiene the
textbook and course of study shall treat the evil effects of alcohol and other
narcotics on the human system."
On March 0, 1009. Dr. Woodrow W.' Wilkerson, went a Memorandum .(No. 5490)
to all school superintendents focusing attention on the spread of drug abuse
and stressing the importance of providing appropriate instruction in public
schools about drugs and the dangers of drug abuse.
A guide, Drug. and Drag Abuse, was published as a resource unit for health
and physical education teachers in the intermediate. junior, and senor -high
schools. It was prepared to help school administrators and health edueation
liS
7S
teachers recognize symptoms of .,drug abuse, assist them in dealing with the drug
abuser. and to provide instruction about the dangers involved in the use of drugs.
Copies of the publication w7re distributed to all school divisions in January 1970.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION,-MARCH 197 0
Recognizing the growing seriousness of the drug abuse problem, the General
Assembly agreed to "House Joint Resolution No. 122" requesting local school
boards to intensify their instructional programs dealing with drugs and Drng
abuse and take other appropriate action to prevent drug experimentation and
drug abuse among pupils on school property.
I gave a decent explanation on how to use whippets, and clearly said you only need balloons or the like if you're using a 'cracker' (that's what they're called here anyway).
