Drug education in school

[Keaton]

I actually took a class required for a health credit called "Substance and abuse" (mainly because I didn't feel like taking sport med or first aid) and they did teach us a little bit about drugs, certainly more than D.A.R.E. ever could. It taught me some of the effects of substances...kind of. If I remember, it wasn't very detailed, but slightly more in-depth than the basic health class was. It wasn't harm reduction, but it was better than "drugs are bad mmmkay kids." However, they did have us watch some films like bits from A&E's "Intervention" or the film "Wasted," but those too were scare tactics. They also taught us about legally how fucked we would be with certain substances. They knew that there would be kids in the class who'd smoked bud and shit before.

Specifically, I remember an example of when they were teaching us about hallucinogens, they only talked about LSD and mushrooms, they didn't even mention salvia, DMT, LSA, and all the RCs. And all they really said about those was "these make you trip," but they didn't say what really happens in a "trip," they were just like "you hallucinate." The course overall was definitely biased, and really it only got me more curious about bud, mushrooms, and LSD if anything.

It apparently wasn't anti-drug enough for the state, because they got rid of it the year after I took it.

And it's kind of funny too, because I ended up doing a good deal of the drugs talked about, but I can't remember too much specifics as to what they taught us so I can't really compare it to reality.

If the idea of that course was to make me not do drugs at all, then the course was totally ineffective.

Lacey pretty much already said what I would have said here.

1) I find that pretty much every show about drugs on tv is either very biased or very inaccurate. For example, I was watching the drugs Inc episode where they talked about meth. At one point, they said that an extremely large dose of meth had similar effects to those of a medium dose of LSD...yea...ridiculous. I have never tried either of those drugs so I asked on the PD forum and they confirmed that it was a crock of shit.
2) The fact that they didn't expound upon LSD and shrooms is most likely due to the fact that they have no knowledge of the effects other than what their book says..they shoulda made you read trip reports IMO..ones about good trips and bad trips to ensure that you know about both..and vie asked a lot of people who have tripped to try and explain what it's like and they all have trouble describing their first hand experience.. I think it may have been a bit unfair to expect the sober scientist to describe that IMHO. Also they nay not have mentioned the other psychs due to the fact that, for the most part, unless you're into the scene, you probably haven't heard of them. Ya dig?
3) I'm guessing you were pretty open to the idea of using the drugs before you took the class? That and the fact that you like d what you heard probably encouraged you to use them. But, that's an assumption..yes I know it'll make me look like an ass, but I've been doin that all day so I'm not worried about it haha
4) I completely agree, lacey hit the nail right on the head. Said exactly what I was trying to say. Haha but obviously with a bit more intelligent thought behind it... Hehe

 

[californialove760]

1) I find that pretty much every show about drugs on tv is either very biased or very inaccurate. For example, I was watching the drugs Inc episode where they talked about meth. At one point, they said that an extremely large dose of meth had similar effects to those of a medium dose of LSD...yea...ridiculous. I have never tried either of those drugs so I asked on the PD forum and they confirmed that it was a crock of shit.

They're probably sayin that because meth in high doses can cause psychosis, and they're going by the (incorrect) assumption that tripping on acid is the same as psychosis.

Anyway, on the drug education thing, they would never allow any kind of educating on a school campus that didn't completely condemn drugs. In my ap psychology course I took this last year as a senior in high school had a drug section to it. I have a great interest in psychoactive and talked to my teacher about it and she let me borrow her textbook from a drug course she took in college. I read the entire thing and found it to be a very unbiased source of information, showing that drugs aren't as bad as they're made out to be. I obviously already knew this, but I wondered if she had actually read it because she taught the drug section in an anti drug biased way. It was lightly biased, she didn't give incorrect information, but only gave the negatives and no positives.
Anyways, I asked her about the unbiased info in her book and if she had read it, and she said yes. I asked why she didn't teach it that way, and she told me specifically it was to keep her job; if any of her students made the assumption she was saying anything "positive" (read:unbiased) about drugs and it got to parents, she would be out of a job in a heartbeat.
This tells me that schools are not about real education, but just furthering the propaganda, even though it obviously doesn't work.

-the proud winner of the essay contest of the D.A.R.E program in 5th grade :D

 

[Keaton]

They're probably sayin that because meth in high doses can cause psychosis, and they're going by the (incorrect) assumption that tripping on acid is the same as psychosis.

Anyway, on the drug education thing, they would never allow any kind of educating on a school campus that didn't completely condemn drugs. In my ap psychology course I took this last year as a senior in high school had a drug section to it. I have a great interest in psychoactive and talked to my teacher about it and she let me borrow her textbook from a drug course she took in college. I read the entire thing and found it to be a very unbiased source of information, showing that drugs aren't as bad as they're made out to be. I obviously already knew this, but I wondered if she had actually read it because she taught the drug section in an anti drug biased way. It was lightly biased, she didn't give incorrect information, but only gave the negatives and no positives.
Anyways, I asked her about the unbiased info in her book and if she had read it, and she said yes. I asked why she didn't teach it that way, and she told me specifically it was to keep her job; if any of her students made the assumption she was saying anything "positive" (read:unbiased) about drugs and it got to parents, she would be out of a job in a heartbeat.
This tells me that schools are not about real education, but just furthering the propaganda, even though it obviously doesn't work.

-the proud winner of the essay contest of the D.A.R.E program in 5th grade :D

First of all, congrats on the essay8)
And unfortunately the school systems are becoming indoctrination centers rather than places of learning.. I had an identical experience with my ap psych teacher this year(...spooky)
I've talked to teachers out side of class and a lot of them say that kids need to be educated on the specific dangers of each drug and that there are differences in the damages that different drugs cause..
So I guess that shows that the problem isn't the teachers, not the ones that we've mentioned here anyways, but the people in charge of them.. It seems a bit hypocritical to be the head honcho of a place that encourages learning would censor it.. I suppose it all comes back to political correctness.

Btw, what was the essay on? Lol

 

[Ramirez]

1) I find that pretty much every show about drugs on tv is either very biased or very inaccurate. For example, I was watching the drugs Inc episode where they talked about meth. At one point, they said that an extremely large dose of meth had similar effects to those of a medium dose of LSD...yea...ridiculous. I have never tried either of those drugs so I asked on the PD forum and they confirmed that it was a crock of shit.
2) The fact that they didn't expound upon LSD and shrooms is most likely due to the fact that they have no knowledge of the effects other than what their book says..they shoulda made you read trip reports IMO..ones about good trips and bad trips to ensure that you know about both..and vie asked a lot of people who have tripped to try and explain what it's like and they all have trouble describing their first hand experience.. I think it may have been a bit unfair to expect the sober scientist to describe that IMHO. Also they nay not have mentioned the other psychs due to the fact that, for the most part, unless you're into the scene, you probably haven't heard of them. Ya dig?
3) I'm guessing you were pretty open to the idea of using the drugs before you took the class? That and the fact that you like d what you heard probably encouraged you to use them. But, that's an assumption..yes I know it'll make me look like an ass, but I've been doin that all day so I'm not worried about it haha
4) I completely agree, lacey hit the nail right on the head. Said exactly what I was trying to say. Haha but obviously with a bit more intelligent thought behind it... Hehe

Well I really had interest in LSD after I first heard about it in health class freshman year, even though the book really only described in little detail the horrors of a bad trip. Nonetheless, the teacher/book saying "oh my godz BAD TRIPS THEY ARE HORRIBLE" definitely never deterred me from that.

I was open to the idea of smoking bud and doing psychs like mushrooms and LSD, but not to stuff like heroin, meth, cocaine, you know, the "bad" drugs, mainly because I saw what heroin addiction can do to people, as someone I know got addicted to that stuff and fucked his life up for a good bit of time...as far as I know, he's beyond that, but I know his mom and my mom constantly think that he could OMG RELAPSE AT ANY MINUTE (because he's gone through the rehab/relapse bullshit several times) which really isn't helpful to him.

Let me see if I can recall the drugs they did teach us about...

Bud
shrooms
acid
cocaine
crack
meth
heroin
prescriptions
steroids
opiates
ecstasy
alcohol
tobacco
ketamine

so out of that list...I've done half.

Course is totally ineffective.

 

[californialove760]

First of all, congrats on the essay8)
And unfortunately the school systems are becoming indoctrination centers rather than places of learning.. I had an identical experience with my ap psych teacher this year(...spooky)
I've talked to teachers out side of class and a lot of them say that kids need to be educated on the specific dangers of each drug and that there are differences in the damages that different drugs cause..
So I guess that shows that the problem isn't the teachers, not the ones that we've mentioned here anyways, but the people in charge of them.. It seems a bit hypocritical to be the head honcho of a place that encourages learning would censor it.. I suppose it all comes back to political correctness.

Btw, what was the essay on? Lol

I don't think it's ever really gonna change unless some drastic stuff happens, it won't be taught until the stigma about drugs disappears, but the stigma won't disappear until people are educated about them. We're stuck in a loop.

And the essay was on why I will never use drugs, and effective ways to "just say no" if one if those dirty rotten drug dealers offers me free drugs 8)
In my several years so far of drug use I've yet to come across this certain dealer they talk about who gives me free drugs, but when I do finally meet him, I'll know what to say because of DARE

 

[rincewindrocks]

heh, DARE made want to do drugs...

"I get to see cool colors for like 8 hours, then its over? Sweeeeeeeeet."

only partially kidding.

 

[Tommyboy]

I aint sayin they shoulnt be aware of harm reduction, but kids who aint using drugs, dont need some of the real in depth type of shit that is only relevant to users and addicts. Makin HR material AVAILABLE for kids who DO use is a GREAT idea and should be MANDATORY....But for the kids who dont use i think it would just be somethin that is seen as way too far over the top.....does that make sense?

I completely agree with this statement. I was thinking that an updated drug education should be given to everybody, and a more specific harm reduction education given to those who are known to get high or caught in class high or whatever.

They used to give detention to people that came to class blazed, and all that did was make us have to wait til 4:30 to smoke instead of 2:30. Instead, those students should be sent to speak to a school psychologist that has harm reduction literature and hopefully some knowledge too. I think if the psychologist sets the right tone, and says something like "do you smoke pot, because if you plan to continue I would like to educate you on the safest ways to do so to reduce the amount of negative effects from use", then it could lead to an open discussion with HR incorporated. I found that whenever a psychologist kinda took my side, I would open up really quick.

On another note, the general drug prevention courses should not be taught by police. Thats how dare was run when I was in school, idk how things are done now. But all that did was make me stare at their guns, and they had a female officer that was pretty damn sexy. So what do you think 6th graders got out of that other than running to the bathroom right after the class to .

But seriously, for me and my friends it was like "we don't like police, why would we listen to them about this drug info". If police teach about drugs, all they will do is use scare tactics because thats really all they know and in some fairness to them, they do see the worst case scenarios in their line of work.

 

[Keaton]

I don't think it's ever really gonna change unless some drastic stuff happens, it won't be taught until the stigma about drugs disappears, but the stigma won't disappear until people are educated about them. We're stuck in a loop.

And the essay was on why I will never use drugs, and effective ways to "just say no" if one if those dirty rotten drug dealers offers me free drugs 8)
In my several years so far of drug use I've yet to come across this certain dealer they talk about who gives me free drugs, but when I do finally meet him, I'll know what to say because of DARE

Absolutely, that's the biggest problem.
On a good note tho, I talked to one of the counselors at my old school today(Ive known her my entire life) and she says that there is a program that resembles a harm reduction program there, but it's only for kids who are known addicts not just users.. and it still doesn't say how to be safe..

I completely agree with this statement. I was thinking that an updated drug education should be given to everybody, and a more specific harm reduction education given to those who are known to get high or caught in class high or whatever.

They used to give detention to people that came to class blazed, and all that did was make us have to wait til 4:30 to smoke instead of 2:30. Instead, those students should be sent to speak to a school psychologist that has harm reduction literature and hopefully some knowledge too. I think if the psychologist sets the right tone, and says something like "do you smoke pot, because if you plan to continue I would like to educate you on the safest ways to do so to reduce the amount of negative effects from use", then it could lead to an open discussion with HR incorporated. I found that whenever a psychologist kinda took my side, I would open up really quick.

On another note, the general drug prevention courses should not be taught by police. Thats how dare was run when I was in school, idk how things are done now. But all that did was make me stare at their guns, and they had a female officer that was pretty damn sexy. So what do you think 6th graders got out of that other than running to the bathroom right after the class to .

But seriously, for me and my friends it was like "we don't like police, why would we listen to them about this drug info". If police teach about drugs, all they will do is use scare tactics because thats really all they know and in some fairness to them, they do see the worst case scenarios in their line of work.

++++
this is a great post, made me laugh and think.

If we don't have cops teach it then who should? A lot of parents would ever approve of a former/current addict speaking to their child...and even if they were able to it'd probably be through a PD program.. Which would essentially just be the dude saying, "them coppers were right listen to them"...
Idk it seems to be a lost cause..

 

[Tommyboy]

If we don't have cops teach it then who should? A lot of parents would ever approve of a former/current addict speaking to their child...and even if they were able to it'd probably be through a PD program.. Which would essentially just be the dude saying, "them coppers were right listen to them"...
Idk it seems to be a lost cause..

I think that social workers (therapists or psychologists not sure the title) from outpatient rehabs would have the time and experience to teach students drug education. They are in a way the "middle ground" between addicts and authority such as probation officers and police so their info would not be biased.

I have found that social workers knew more about drugs than the doctors in the outpatient facilities. The doctor would see me for 10 minutes a month, write a suboxone script and send me on my way. The councelor or social worker or psychologist, whatever the title was, would see me once a week for an hour so had way more insight as to how the drugs effected me.

 

[Keaton]

I think that social workers (therapists or psychologists not sure the title) from outpatient rehabs would have the time and experience to teach students drug education. They are in a way the "middle ground" between addicts and authority such as probation officers and police so their info would not be biased.

I have found that social workers knew more about drugs than the doctors in the outpatient facilities. The doctor would see me for 10 minutes a month, write a suboxone script and send me on my way. The councelor or social worker or psychologist, whatever the title was, would see me once a week for an hour so had way more insight as to how the drugs effected me.

Curious, you were getting suboxone for WD symptoms correct? Idk of any other use, but I don't wanna assume anything.
But if that is the case, did they tell you to when to take it? Like, did they say that you should wait til the symptoms are unbearable to take it? Or were you just left to assume that you were to take it when the WD symptoms were starting to kick in?
Sorry if I'm way out in left field on that.

 

[Tommyboy]

Curious, you were getting suboxone for WD symptoms correct? Idk of any other use, but I don't wanna assume anything.
But if that is the case, did they tell you to when to take it? Like, did they say that you should wait til the symptoms are unbearable to take it? Or were you just left to assume that you were to take it when the WD symptoms were starting to kick in?
Sorry if I'm way out in left field on that.

I was in treatment court, and had to complete 28day inpatient followed by 18months outpatient. So after I was done with inpatient, I had about 2 weeks til outpatient started. I got high a couple of days, then went to the outpatient place.

I did't know I was getting drug tested the 1st day, and admitted to taking an OC. So the councelor told me that they had a doc that prescribed subs that was at the outpatient place once a week.

This was in 2006, and suboxone was just starting to come around my area. I had never taken in b4, but figured I would get a scripts so I could stay clean for the18 months of treatment court. My habit had been 4 bags of dope, 3x a week. Then I had the month off due to inpatient. Anyways the doc scripted me 16mgs a day at first for maintaince. There was no waiting around. He knew I had been clean for a while. He scripted it to keep me from craving, and out of jail.

So I had 60 8mg pills after 1 visit. I took 4 pills, and was nodding so hard I was actually scared. Gave some to my friends, the loved them. The next 2 times I went to the doc I told him I was still craving, so he upped my dose over the next two appts until I was at the max of 32mgs (I know thats redic).

So pretty much I had to goto 2 meetings a week at outpatient, have 1 private session a week with a councelor, and they had the doc there that I would see once a month to get the script written. No pharmacys even carried 120 8mg pills at that time. They had to order them every time. But by mid 2007, they all had them stocked, and sub docs popped up all over.

I actually went away to school with my last script, never found a sub doc there (the only one had waiting list) so I tapered down quite fast. Worst w.d's ever.

But to answer your question point for point:
The subs were prescribed for maintainance.
I hadn't taken an opiate in almost a month b4 seeing the doc (it took me a month to finally get the appt after intake), and before that was another month clean.
So I was not in any sort of w.ds.

 

[Keaton]

Ok.
I guess the reason I asked is because, on the education topic, I was wondering if the doc even told you how and when to use it. And from what you said my question doesn't really seem relevant.
Thanks for sharing tho.

 

[Tommyboy]

He gave me the initial script, and I am guessing that he gave me such I high dose because the main focus was on keeping cravings away, not w.d's. Either way, too high of a first dose, but in his defense I doubt many ppl complained to him about getting high off a dose back then.

I just think more people may be more honest with a therapist, than the doctor that is on control of your meds ya know? If I said the wrong thing to the doctor, then goodbye prescription. But anything I said to the therapist was confidential. I had to sign a waiver allowing disclosure of drug test results to my probation officer. Also, with all the patients and the small amount of time that the doc was there a week (from 4-7), there wouldnt be any therapists running to say "Johnny said the suboxone makes him chainsmoke, last longer in bed, and nodd out a bit when taken early in the morning with his dose of xanax."

 

[Keaton]

Oh ok. Yea that's a little more towards what I was asking.
Yea I know that when I was taking percs for my broken arm ( compound fracture) the dose was too high, if you can believe that, but I didn't say anything. Haha.

 

[Irmarose]

I get taught nothing about drugs
When i first started doing drugs i didn't know shit and i learnt everything i knew from a bunch of lunatics and had some nasty experiences and a friend of mine was hospitalized once.

i learn't alot of very useful information and wise advice from this website thats helped keep me safe and make sensible decisions.

 

[Keaton]

Is that cuz you live in the UK?
Or is it the school you went to! Maybe the era you were in school?

 

[Sweet P]

I did DARE in school. The lessons consisted of a uniformed cop coming into the classroom, telling us that "drugs are bad and will ruin your life", and sharing all these horror stories (like the classic one about the girl on LSD who jumped off a building, thinking she could fly!) which all sounded like bullshit. I don't think anyone in the class took it seriously.

I agree that harm reduction is a much better approach, but unfortunately harm reduction is often misunderstood and I don't think parents or schools would approve of it being taught to kids. To a lot of people, harm reduction is basically seen as "it's ok to use drugs, and here's some tips about how to use them!" 8)

 

[Keaton]

In the book can't find my way home, the author talks about how heroin used to be seen as the gateway drug to marijuana. Lol.

 

[sleepysaint]

Interesting thoughts and discussion here. I just wanted to make a quick post saying that I believe drug prohibition should be repealed across the board ("hard" and "soft" drugs). But of course, this won't happen soon or quickly and cannot be done successfully without serious reform in drug education and resources first. I believe that changing the way we teach kids about drugs is not an unrealistic goal. It can most certainly be demonstrated to almost anyone that the current system is NOT working. Truthful information with the intended scope of harm reduction is the best way to prevent substance problems IMO, and is the first step to a more enlightened society as far as drugs, both legal and illegal, are concerned. I think one of the foremost principles that should be taught is that ALL drugs can have both positive uses as well as drawbacks and negative effects, depending on their application, and should be treated with respect and great caution. Even antibiotics have caused many issues when misapplied.

 

[Voxide]

Teaching harm reduction in schools would definitely be encouraging it in my opinion.

Lets not forget we are talking about HIGH SCHOOL KIDS. That statement should explain itself.

Honestly, who cares about how extreme DARE campaigns are? It will keep kids out of it.

I don't want my kid growing up with harm reduction classes, and then thinking it's ok to use drugs. If even a few lives are ruined by using a substance, then that is a few too many. The "drugs will ruin your life" statement is true for a large majority of the population. Drugs CAN ruin lives. How can you possibly argue that they cannot?