anti drug advocacy essay

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A Look At The Effectiveness Of Anti-Drug Ad Campaigns

NPR's Ari Shapiro discusses anti-drug campaigns with Keith Humphreys a professor of psychiatry at Stanford University and a former drug policy adviser to presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best drug abuse topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on drug abuse, 💡 most interesting drug abuse topics to write about, ❓ drug abuse research questions.

Drug abuse essays are an excellent way to learn about the issue and its influence on various groups and populations while demonstrating your understanding.

Various substances, including alcohol, narcotics, and other mind-altering products, are a popular method for recreation in some communities.

However, they are prone to result in addiction, psychological as well as mental, and lead the person to pursue another dose before anything else.

In doing so, he or she can eventually ruin his or her life, which is why most drugs are currently banned around the world. This article will offer you some tips that will help you write an excellent essay and receive the top grade.

Youth is a major demographic that is affected by addiction issues due to drug consumption. Young people are impressionable and prone to search for new sensations. Drugs can offer a sense of novelty and provide an experience they have not had before, leading to considerable appeal.

Considering that young people are generally not wealthy and have to focus on work to succeed in life, essays on drug among youth can use a variety of excellent topics. You can offer your ideas on the reason for the phenomenon’s existence and ways in which it can be prevented.

However, remember that the purpose of the programs should be to help the people who are at risk.

There are many other drug abuse essay topics that you can explore, with poverty being a prominent example. Despite their conditions, many people turn to substance abuse to try and escape the unpleasant aspects of their life.

These population segments are more likely to suffer after acquiring a drug habit than young people because they generally receive less attention.

Furthermore, poor neighborhoods with relatively low amounts of surveillance by law enforcement are likely to house drug dealers who prey on vulnerable people.

You can discuss this topic or discuss a variety of other ones, as the relationship between poverty and poor outcomes has been researched deeply.

Here are some additional tips for your essay:

• Try to use examples to illustrate your points about various aspects of the issue. Drug addiction essay quotations from people who are affected by the condition or have overcome it can offer valuable insights. They also legitimize your findings by providing parallels with the real world.
• Alcohol essays are an excellent choice, as the substance is legal and available to everyone without much difficulty. Nevertheless, its effects can be devastating, especially if a person’s consumption is chronic.
• Try to write a drug abuse essay outline before starting work, as it will help you to organize the essay. Select some prominent ideas that you want to discuss and organize them in a manner that represents a logical progression. You do not have to discard all of the other concepts, as you can make them sub-headings under your main titles.
• Be sure to include a drug abuse essay introduction and conclusion in your work. They will help you provide a structure to the essay and make it easier for the reader to understand your ideas. The introduction should describe the topic and provide the thesis, and the conclusion should restate your main points.

Visit IvyPanda for drug abuse essay titles, and other useful samples on various subjects to help you with your writing work!

• Drug and Alcohol Abuse For along time now, drug and alcohol abuse in the society has been a problem that affects the youth and the society at large. This paper highlights the problems of drug abuse and alcohol drinking […]
• Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse Drug trafficking contributes to drug abuse in the society. Drug trafficking also contributes to increased criminal activities that affect the security of citizens.
• Social Media Impact on Drug Abuse Thus, social media platforms definitely contribute to the misuse of various drugs by romanticizing their consumption and making “social drug use” acceptable among users.
• Drug Abuse and Current Generation Drug abuse also breeds an array of behavioral problems among young people, which may affect their suitability to fit in the society.
• Drug Abuse & Its Effects on Families Focusing on the family seems to be by far, the most known and effective way of finding a solution with regards to the “war on drugs” since it more promising to end the vicious cycle […]
• Drug and Substance Abuse Many experts consider addiction as a disease as it affects a specific part of the brain; the limbic system commonly referred to as the pleasure center.
• Merton’s Argument of Deviance: The Case of Drug Abuse The most prominent example in support of Merton’s argument in relation to drug abuse is that cultural and social circumstances play a crucial role in defining people’s desire to engage in drug use.
• Consequences of Drug Abuse The endless stream of drugs, obtainable to the individuals with little or no restrictions, poses a serious inquiry. When assessing the advantages of using pharmaceutical drugs, it is essential to consider the severity of health […]
• Drug Abuse Among the Youth Essentially, this case study will allow the evaluation of the prevailing cases of drug abuse among the youth. In this regard, the pain and peer pleasure cannot be persevered to allow an explicit cure of […]
• Prevention Research: The Fight Against Drug Abuse It is agreeable that US’s ‘War on Drugs’ has been an effective substance abuse prevention plan despite the hiccups that the program faces and its inability to attain some of its designated mandates within the […]
• Reasons Behind Youth’s Engagement to Drug Abuse in the 21st Century Although youths in the 21st century engage in drug abuse due to several factors, it suffices to declare factors such as the rising unemployment status, peer pressure, and their hiked tendency to copy their parents’ […]
• “Cocaine: Abuse and Addiction” by National Institute on Drug Abuse The literature provides us with a report of a research that has been conducted in the US regarding the topic of cocaine and drug abuse.
• Drug Abuse. “Nine Years Under” Book by Sheri Booker The book is thought provoking and important because it allows representing the difficult social situation and the problems of gang violence and drugs in the United States from the personal point of view.
• Drug Abuse, Aggression and Antisocial Behavior The use of abusive drugs can cause anger in people because of the effect they have on the brain. An example of how alcohol can cause aggression in a person is that it impairs an […]
• Drug Abuse Effects on Health and Nervous System These numerous damages severely affect the quality of the brains work and the health of the nervous system. While discussing the effects of drug addiction, it is essential to notice that it has a devastating […]
• Drug Abuse and Prevention Strategies When specialists deal with preventative factors, they pay attention to both mental and physical ways to resist the drug. The symbiosis of these procedures is exceptionally efficient in terms of the drug rehabilitation process when […]
• Youth Drug Abuse Among, Education, and Policies Although drug abuse encompasses improper use of drugs disregarding the prescriptions of medical practitioners, the principal challenges of drug abuse occasion from abuse of drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana.
• Drug Abuse and Its Psychological Effects The purpose of this paper is to explore in more depth the psychological effects of addiction on the family and inner circle of the addict.
• Policies for Pregnant Women With Drug Abuse Thus, out of all the offered policies, financial support for therapy is the best one, as it motivates prevention and treatment, which, in turn, causes the improvement of this situation.
• The Formative Evaluation: Program of Addressing Drug Abuse in Schools The proposed program sought to educate students about the challenges of drug abuse, its impacts on academic performance, and the best techniques to avoid the vice.
• Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Canada Therefore, it contributes as a central factor in the essence of the character, and it is crucial to understand the core definition and the elements that foster the ideology.
• Mitigating Drug Abuse in Pine View School The inclusion of professionals in the fields of health care, counseling, and drugs is expected to promote the delivery of desirable results.
• Drug Abuse and Its Negative Effects This paper aims to highlight what the field of psychology says about the negative effects of drugs and why people continue using despite the consequences. The main effect is that it creates a memory of […]
• Prevention Programs: Drug Abuse Resistance Education This program focuses on handling peer pressure among youths, a crucial cause of drug abuse in the country. The program is also grounded on sound research, which offers the critical elements vital to handling the […]
• Drug Abuse in Lake County, California The topic of drug abuse is essential for discussion due to the need to develop strategies to prevent and minimize the dangerous consequences of drug abuse in different regions.
• Drug Abuse Among Homeless Young Adults in New Jersey The reason why young adults in New Jersey get involved in drugs and alcohol after becoming homeless is to manage their situations in an attempt to attain the tentative pleasure of life despite their problems. […]
• Community Intervention Practices against Drug Abuse The key features that result in successful community-based intervention on drug abuse are integrated for effectiveness and efficiency. On the other hand, drug abuse refers to the consumption of substances that elicit particular feelings and […]
• Teenage Drug Abuse in the United States The problem of teenage drug abuse inflicts a threat to the future society and health state of the overall population in the United States.
• Substance Abuse: Prevention Strategies and National Benchmarks Still, this desire to get away from problems by means of substances instead of making effort to improve an individual’s environment contributed to the evolution of the challenge of substance abuse into a real public […]
• Alcoholism, Domestic Violence and Drug Abuse Kaur and Ajinkya researched to investigate the “psychological impact of adult alcoholism on spouses and children”. The work of Kaur and Ajinkya, reveals a link between chronic alcoholism and emotional problems on the spouse and […]
• Monitoring the Future: National Survey Results on Drug Use National survey results on drug use obtained by Monitoring the Future have a significant value to the development of various approaches with regard to the prevention of drug abuse.
• The Health Issues Associated With Drug Abuse It is therefore imperative to develop strategies for health promotion to reduce the number of teenagers, the most at-risk family member when it comes to drug abuse.
• Fentanyl – Drug Profile and Specific and Drug Abuse The drug has the effect of depressing the respiratory center, constricting the pupils, as well as depressing the cough reflex. The remainder 75% of fentanyl is swallowed and absorbed in G-tract.
• Cases of Drug Abuse Amongst Nursing Professionals It is noteworthy that at the top of the information, the date posted is Monday, February 14, 2011, yet against the information, the date is February 11, 2011.
• The Treatment of Drug Abuse Any medical practitioner treating a drug abuse patient has to be careful in many aspects, like: He has to be careful on the issue that if the addiction has effected the brain of the patient.
• Drug Courts and Detoxification: Approach to Drug Abuse Treatment However, since 1989, the US federal system has been providing the majority of drug abusers with proper treatment or education with the help of a drug court option.
• Drug Abuse in Adolescents Aged 15-19 Years Old: A Public Health Menace In addition, the objectives of the paper are as follows: the first aim is to analyze the collected data and produce a review of the information.
• Drug Abuse in Adolescents and Its Causes Scientific research shows that the development factors for adolescent drug abuse are not limited to a set of three to five causes, but are usually linked to the integration of destructive environmental conditions.
• Drug Abuse and Addiction Holimon has succeeded in reviving some of her family relations, and she is still putting a lot of effort to get ahead in this area to the fullest extent possible.
• Sports as a Solution to Youth Substance Abuse: Dr. Collingwood’s View His comments made me realize that it would be unwise by the end of the day for any parent to leave their children under the mercy of the media where they learned that doing drugs […]
• Drug Abuse in High School and College With respect to social work and the problem of substance abuse, research has been carried out in terms of investigating the relationship between drug abuse and poverty, the effects of drug abuse on the society.
• Critical Issues in Education: Drug Abuse and Alcoholism For this case, the ministry concerned has a very hard task of ensuring there are no critical issues that are left unsolved that relate to education, failure to which will affect the performance of students […]
• Biopsychosocial Experience in Drug Abuse Treatment There has to be a preventive strategy in every intervention procedure to avoid the occurrence of a disease. I find the course of treatment in this intervention beneficial for the creation of the needed preventive […]
• Addictive Behavior Programs and Drug Abuse Trends The involvement of stakeholders is an essential condition for the effectiveness of this model of work and its results, and all the roles should be allocated in accordance with the capabilities of the program’s participants.
• Substance Misuse in American Youth: A Socio-Cultural Analysis The paper analyzes studies regarding some of the most widespread types of substances, as well as discusses the role of the rap culture in the growing number of young addicts in the U.S.
• Social Behaviour as a Science: Drug Abuse in Youth Thus, the application of social psychology to the phenomenon of youth drug abuse helps to explain how social factors impact the prevalence of and risk for drug abuse.
• Financial Planning for Drug Abuse Prevention in Virginia Estates Therefore, the first preferred sources for the program are the County Commission and the Alabama Department of Corrections. The program can be financed by the Montgomery County Commission in the short term and Alabama Department […]
• Problem of Drug Abuse in Schools The research worked on the hypothesis that the treatment would reduce or result in the total cessation of drug use, and better relations with family and friends.
• Prescription Drug Abuse in the United States The combination of Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are effective for the patients, who want to reduce and control the level of pain.
• Impact of Drug Abuse on Adolescent Development Therefore, it is important for counselors to consider these stages to help them address the issue of substance abuse among adolescents. In the habitual stage, most adolescents take drugs to help them modify their moods.
• Drug Abuse: Age, Gender and Addictive Susceptibility This incorporates the aspects of gender where males and females possess varying biological constitutions that might affect the prescribed treatments in the realms of addiction. It is important to consider the rapidity and susceptibility of […]
• Drug Abuse Prevention Programs Additionally, it is possible to prospect the success of the program in case the required readiness from the community can be unveiled prior to the program execution.
• The Cultural Context and Ethics of Prevention of Drug Abuse The first prevention strategy outlined in the document is the involvement of young people in all levels of the prevention program establishment. Concurrently, it is crucial to relate this technique with the subject of culture […]
• Use of Psychotropic Medications in the Treatment of Drug Abuse This is because the mental illness is, literally, the one that sustains the abuse of drugs and thus after it is healed; the patient will have no reason to continue abusing the drugs.
• Drug Abuse: Awareness Amongst the Youths This project is going to carry out a public awareness campaign with the aim of educating the young people on the hazards related to the vice of drug and substance abuse. The awareness campaign is […]
• A New Alcohol and Drug-Abuse Rehabilitation Center in Liverpool Hospital, Sydney The hospital, in response to this distress, has decided to bring help closer to the people of Liverpool by the construction of the annex facility.
• The Extent of Drug Abuse Among People in America Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Said He Lied about Crack Cocaine Use Because He Was Embarrassed Mayor lied about the use of crack cocaine The article titled “Toronto Mayor Rob Ford said he lied about crack […]
• Drug Use and Abuse in America: Historical Analysis The new law was similar to the Boggs Act of 1951 in that it employed the same formula of using perceived increase in drug use in the country.
• Drug Abuse as an Ethical Issue On the side of duties and obligations, the societal norms stipulate that individuals should be caring to other members of the society especially the children and the old.
• Drug Abuse and Society Regardless of the many intervention measures that can be adopted to solve this problem of drug abuse, the most effective intervention measure is to create awareness to youths to enable them change their behaviors and […]
• Prescription Painkillers, the New Drug Abuse of Choice Studies attribute the recent increase in the misuse of prescription drugs to an increase in the use of the Internet, which facilitates the growth of illegitimate online drug stores and uncontrolled online prescription drug sales.
• Music Analysis: Drug Abuse in Music So in this song the artist is also lamenting the dangers of drugs and the theme of the music is one that advocates against tackling the problem with issues of drug abuse by arguing the […]
• Drug Abuse: Comprehensive Review The effects associated with drug abuse tend to vary depending on an individual’s age and the phase of drug abuse that the person is in.
• Drug Abuse as a Social Problem This poses as problem to the society because many of the people who are unemployed will resort to different ways of seeking money and pleasure.
• Adolescent’s Drug Abuse and Therapy Success When one accepts to put up with negative peer pressure, they end up giving up the personal trusts and values thus the pressure becomes a form of a negative force.”Does peer pressure affect the decision […]
• What Are Influences That Cause Drug Abuse on Youth?
• What Are Some Solutions to Drug Abuse?
• What Are the Primary Causes and Effects of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Among Young People?
• What Causes Teenage Drug Abuse?
• What Does Drug Abuse Truly?
• Why Do Children Need to Be Educated About Drug Abuse?
• Why Has the American Government Not Managed to Stop Drug Abuse All These Years?
• How Does Drug Abuse Affect Personal Development of Hong Kong Teenagers?
• How Does Pericarditis Form Due to Drug Abuse?
• How Drug Abuse Ruins Families and Destroys Relationships?
• How Does Prescription Drug Abuse Affect Teens?
• Does the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program Work?
• What Is the Drug of Abuse?
• What Are the Four Types of Drugs Abused?
• Which Is an Example of Drug Abuse?
• What Is the Leading Cause of Drug Abuse?
• What Are the Causes and Effects of Drug Abuse?
• What Are the Main Consequences of Drug Abuse?
• How Does Drug Abuse Affect Our Society?
• How Can We Prevent Drug Abuse?
• Why Is It Essential to Prevent Drugs?
• What Are the Ten Most Abused Drugs?
• How Do Drugs Affect Mental Health?
• What Are the Effects of Drug Abuse on Youths?
• What Is the Connection Between Adolescents From Divorced Families and Drug Abuse?
• Are Alcohol and Drug Abuse the Most Common Issues of Today?
• What Is Athletes’ Motivation for Performance-Enhancement Drug Abuse?
• What Is the Correlation Between Parietal and Adolescent Drug Abuse?
• How Is Dealing With Teenage Drug Abuse?
• What Is the Difference Between Drug Use and Drug Abuse?
• Crime Ideas
• Alcohol Abuse Paper Topics
• Mental Health Essay Ideas
• Human Behavior Research Topics
• Mental Illness Research Topics
• AIDS Titles
• Criminal Behavior Essay Topics
• Juvenile Delinquency Essay Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 26). 108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/drug-abuse-essay-examples/

"108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/drug-abuse-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/drug-abuse-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/drug-abuse-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "108 Drug Abuse Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/drug-abuse-essay-examples/.

Supporting Addicted Populations Through Advocacy

How to recognize and address the barriers that people with addiction face..

Posted June 2, 2021 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

• What Is Addiction?
• Find a therapist to overcome addiction
• Advocacy involves removing barriers to wellness among marginalized groups, including addicted populations.
• Individuals with addiction face barriers such as stigma, cultural norms counter to recovery, limited access to quality treatment, and more.
• Everyday acts of advocacy include correcting misinformation, supporting recovery efforts, and promoting informed legislation.

When people hear the word “advocacy” they often think of lobbying on Capitol Hill or writing to senators. These actions certainly play a part in advocacy efforts, but the construct entails much more, and it is something we can all do.

For example, we can all advocate for individuals with addiction by making simple changes (like not asking people why they aren’t drinking at a social event) or engaging in larger efforts (like supporting the development of a local recovery high school). Advocacy is defined as, “breaking down barriers to wellness, acting to dismantle systems of privilege and oppression, and working for and with marginalized populations to effect change and promote development” (O’Hara et al., 2016, p. 2). Therefore, to advocate is to recognize and actively work to remove obstacles faced by a person or a group of people (particularly marginalized groups), and this includes those with addiction.

Barriers and Obstacles Faced by Those with Addiction

Individuals with addiction are often marginalized in society by stigma , stereotypes, discrimination , and aspects of culture that are counter to living in long-term recovery (e.g., attending a college surrounded by bars). These individuals face a myriad of barriers to their wellness such as:

• The pervasiveness of stigma : Stigma refers to undesirable labels placed on individuals as a result of particular traits or behaviors (Link & Phelan, 2001). The stigma faced by those with addiction stems from the moral model of addiction (the perspective that addiction is a choice resulting from a character flaw or moral failing) rather than the biopsychosocial model of addiction (the perspective that addiction results from biological, psychological, and social factors). Despite being defined as a disease by the American Medical Association in 1956, a person with addiction is often still perceived as selfish, lazy, immoral, untrustworthy, or criminal by many members of society. Stigma, stereotypes, and discrimination often are fueled by misinformation about the etiology, progression, and treatment of addiction. In essence, stigma suggests that those with addiction are bad rather than sick, resulting in many barriers faced by these individuals.
• Cultural norms that are counter to sobriety : If you are a person who consumes alcohol, consider abstaining for two weeks and, while doing so, pay attention to the number of alcohol cues and reminders that you encounter. From advertisements, commercials, billboards, song lyrics, and aisles of wine and beer at the grocery store; to societal expectations of drinking at certain events like weddings, tailgates, or on holidays, alcohol and drug use permeates American society. Cultural norms do not assist individuals in abstaining from alcohol (and some other drugs); on the contrary, they often actively promote it and shame those who try to abstain.
• Limited treatment access: According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (SAMHSA, 2017), 8.1% of U.S. adults in 2016 needed treatment for a substance use disorder, but only 1.5% received any form of treatment in the previous year. Thus, a large portion of those who need treatment are not getting it. Some barriers to treatment include the affordability, availability, and quality of treatment programs specific to substance use disorders. Treatment programs vary in length, location, and effectiveness, which may preclude some individuals from accessing quality care. Additionally, many people with addiction may not be able to afford treatment, may be forced to wait long periods of time before treatment in their area becomes available, or may face difficulties finding childcare while pursuing treatment.
• The popularity of acute care models : Rather than treating addiction like other chronic illnesses that require long-term care and follow-up appointments, substance use disorders often are addressed using a very short-term (i.e., acute care) model (White, 2014). For example, a 28-day stint in rehab may be all the services an individual with addiction receives, despite the knowledge that addiction is a chronic disease and often accompanied by relapse . The lack of aftercare, step-down treatment planning, and follow-up programming is a significant barrier to those with addiction.

Acts of Advocacy

In light of all these barriers, there is ample opportunity for advocacy efforts to promote the wellness and success of individuals with addiction—and many people have been doing just that. For decades, grass-roots organizations, medical and mental health professionals, and communities have been advocating for those with addiction and making great gains.

For example, advocacy efforts include supporting and pushing through legislation such as the Wellstone and Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equality Act (MHPAEA), which requires that insurance benefits for mental health and addiction treatment be comparable to those for medical treatment. Additionally, the 2016 Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act is robust legislation that addresses the opioid epidemic by providing support for treatment and medication access, prevention programs, and grants.

Another form of advocacy that has been steadily growing is the development of recovery high schools and collegiate recovery programs. These schools and college organizations recognize the need for long-term care and support among individuals with addiction (beginning in adolescence ). Recovery schools and collegiate recovery programs work to create spaces that are conducive to recovery so students with addiction can reach their educational and career goals . As of today, there are 43 recovery high schools (ARS, 2021) and 133 collegiate recovery programs (ARHE, 2019) across the nation.

What Everyone Can Do

So, what now? Given the obstacles faced by those with addiction, how can you join in the advocacy efforts to support this population? Here are a few concrete ideas:

• Don’t ask people why they aren’t drinking. According to SAMHSA (2020), 21.2 million people in the U.S. are in recovery from alcohol or other drug addiction. Thus, the odds are good that there will be people in recovery at most events abstaining from alcohol (and who likely are tired of being singled out for not drinking). No one should have to explain why they aren’t consuming alcohol—whether or not they are in recovery. Drinking doesn’t have to be a societal expectation, and if we stop asking people why they aren’t consuming alcohol, we can begin to change these norms.
• Correct misinformation about addiction when you hear it. Not everyone has been exposed to the neuroscience and current research related to addiction, and, as such, may believe some erroneous things. We all can stay informed about addiction-related research and share this information with others (e.g., when you hear someone talk about the selfishness of someone with addiction, you could respond with, “Actually, did you know that addiction impacts the brain in such a way that people think they need substances to survive? It’s as if their brains have been tricked by the drugs and it is really hard to “just stop” without professional help…”).
• When you plan events, be intentional about making them enjoyable and inclusive of all people, including those in recovery. If alcohol will be served, be sure to provide non- alcoholic options and make them just as prominent. Keep alcoholic beverages in one designated area rather than scattered throughout the event space. Avoid making drinking the focal point of the event.
• Use your platforms and spheres of influence to give voice to those in recovery. Allow people in recovery to tell their stories, demonstrate that long-term recovery is possible, and raise awareness about the realities of addiction.
• Support recovery efforts financially or by volunteering (e.g., get involved in recovery organizations and programs, celebrate recovery month each September, give to your local nonprofit organizations that serve those with addiction). When individuals without addiction partner with those with addiction, great changes can be made.
• Support legislation that seeks to improve addiction treatment, cultivate research related to addiction, develop prevention efforts, and increase treatment quality and access. Make issues related to addiction part of your deliberations when you cast your vote and take political action.

What Mental Health Practitioners Can Do

Along with the advocacy ideas mentioned above, there are a few additional ways practitioners can combat barriers faced by those with addiction:

• Assess all clients for addiction, regardless of your setting (addiction is pervasive and you sometimes cannot tell if a client has addiction merely by their appearance). Asking all clients about addictive behaviors destigmatizes the disorder. Ensure there are items on your intake form related to addiction and that you feel comfortable broaching the topic in session (if you don’t, ask yourself why).
• Stay current on your knowledge regarding addiction and evidence-based practices for substance use disorders. Seek out continuing education related to addiction to ensure you can recognize and respond to addictive behaviors in your clinical work.
• Support long-term care rather than acute-care models for addiction. Whether you are making a referral or providing services yourself, make sure clients with addiction have a long-term treatment plan (e.g., residential treatment, then intensive outpatient treatment, then standard outpatient treatment, then 12-step support and bi-monthly outpatient check-ins).
• Provide psychoeducation to clients and their families about the neuroscience of addiction, the biopsychosocial model of addiction, and correct misinformation leading to stigma and shame.
• Partner with researchers or engage in your own scholarship to continue advancing the field of addiction counseling. As clinicians become more informed about addiction, more effective treatment and prevention efforts can be developed.

In sum, we all have a part to play in advocating for individuals with addiction.

So, what will you do?

Association of Recovery in Higher Education (2019). Standards and recommendations. https://collegiaterecovery.org/standards-recommendations/

Association of Recovery Schools (2021). What is a recovery high school. https://recoveryschools.org/what-is-a-recovery-high-school/

Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363-385.

O’Hara, C., Clark, M., Hays, D. G., McDonald, C. P., Chang, C. Y., Crockett, S., Filmore, J. Portman, T., Spurgeon, S., & Wester, K. L. (2016). AARC Standards for Multicultural Research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 7, 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150137816657389 .

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2017). Receipt of services for ubstance use and mental health issues among adults: Results from the 2016 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUH-DR-FFR2-2016/NSDU… .

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication NO. PEP20-07-01-001, NSDUH Series H-55). Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

White, W. L. (2014). Slaying the dragon: The history of addiction treatment and recovery in America (2nd ed). Chestnut Health Systems.

Amanda Giordano, Ph.D., LPC, is an associate professor at the University of Georgia and the author of A Clinical Guide to Treating Behavioral Addictions.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Public Health
• v.98(12); Dec 2008

Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on Youths

R. Hornik had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; he contributed to the study's concept, design, and supervision; the drafting of the article; and statistical expertise. L. Jacobsohn contributed to the drafting of the article. R. Orwin provided statistical expertise and contributed to the study's concept, design, and supervision. A. Piesse provided statistical expertise. G. Kalton provided statistical expertise and contributed to the study's concept and design. All authors contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data and the critical revision of the article for important intellectual content.

Objectives. We examined the cognitive and behavioral effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign on youths aged 12.5 to 18 years and report core evaluation results.

Methods. From September 1999 to June 2004, 3 nationally representative cohorts of US youths aged 9 to 18 years were surveyed at home 4 times. Sample size ranged from 8117 in the first to 5126 in the fourth round (65% first-round response rate, with 86%–93% of still eligible youths interviewed subsequently). Main outcomes were self-reported lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day marijuana use and related cognitions.

Results. Most analyses showed no effects from the campaign. At one round, however, more ad exposure predicted less intention to avoid marijuana use (γ = −0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.13, −0.01) and weaker antidrug social norms (γ = −0.05; 95% CI = −0.08, −0.02) at the subsequent round. Exposure at round 3 predicted marijuana initiation at round 4 (γ = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.00, 0.22).

Conclusions. Through June 2004, the campaign is unlikely to have had favorable effects on youths and may have had delayed unfavorable effects. The evaluation challenges the usefulness of the campaign.

Between 1998 and 2004, the US Congress appropriated nearly $ 1 billion for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The campaign had 3 goals: educating and enabling America's youths to reject illegal drugs; preventing youths from initiating use of drugs, especially marijuana and inhalants; and convincing occasional drug users to stop. 1 The campaign, which evolved from advertising efforts by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2 did not expect to affect heavy drug users.

The campaign was designed to be comprehensive social marketing effort that aimed antidrug messages at youths aged 9 to 18 years, their parents, and other influential adults. Messages were disseminated through a wide range of media channels: television (local, cable, and network), radio, Web sites, magazines, movie theaters, and several others. Additionally, the campaign established partnerships with civic, professional, and community groups and outreach programs with the media, entertainment, and sports industries. Across its multiple media outlets, the campaign reported buying advertising from September 1999 through June 2004; it was expected that, on average, a youth would see 2.5 targeted ads per week. Sixty-four percent of the gross rating points (GRPs) purchased for the ads were on television and radio. (Within the advertising industry, GRPs are the customary units for measuring exposure to ads. If 1% of the target population sees an ad 1 time, that ad earns 1 GRP).

The youth-focused ads, including ads targeted at African American youths and Hispanic youths (in Spanish), fell into 3 broad categories: (1) resistance skills and self-efficacy, to increase youths' skill and confidence in their ability to reject drug use; (2) normative education and positive alternatives, addressing the benefits of not using drugs; and (3) negative consequences of drug use, including effects on academic and athletic performance. The emphasis on each theme varied across the 5 years of the campaign studied here. To unify its advertising, beginning in 2001, the campaign incorporated a youth brand phrase: “———: My Anti-Drug” (with “Soccer,” for example, filling in the blank). Most campaign ads up to late 2002 did not concentrate on a specific drug, although some ads named marijuana. In late 2002, the campaign introduced the Marijuana Initiative, which altered the ads' mix of messages to a focus on specific potential negative consequences of marijuana use. In the final 6 months evaluated here, about half of the ads were focused on an “early intervention” initiative, that encouraged adolescents to intervene with their drug-using friends.

The campaign involved many institutions. It was supervised by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, with overall campaign management by advertising agency Ogilvy and Mather and public relations and outreach efforts by Fleishman Hillard. Most ads were developed on a pro bono basis by individual advertising agencies working with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. The evaluation, mandated by Congress, was supervised by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and undertaken by Westat and the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

We examine the campaign's effects on youths between September 1999 and June 2004, from its full national launch to 9 months after a major refocusing, partly in response to earlier evaluation results. 3 Effects on parents are reported separately. 4

Sample and Procedure

The primary evaluation tool was the National Survey of Parents and Youth (NSPY), an in-home survey of youths and their parents living in households in the United States. The first round of data collection consisted of 3 waves, approximately 6 months apart, between November 1999 and June 2001. Eligible youths (aged 9–18 years) were reinterviewed for the second round (July 2001–June 2002), third round (July 2002–June 2003), and fourth round (July 2003–June 2004). Across rounds 1 through 4, a total of 8117, 6516, 5854, and 5126 youths were interviewed, respectively. The sample was selected to provide an efficient and nearly unbiased cross-section of US youths and their parents. Respondents were selected through a stratified 4-stage probability sample design: 90 primary sampling units—typically county size—were selected at the first stage, geographical segments were selected within the sampled primary sampling units at the second stage, households were selected within the sampled segments at the third stage, and then, at the final stage, 1 or 2 youths were selected within each sampled household, as well as 1 parent in that household.

The sample for the initial round of the study comprised 3 cohorts that were interviewed in different waves of data collection. The first cohort (from wave 1) was interviewed again at waves 4, 6, and 8. The second and third cohorts (from waves 2 and 3, respectively) were combined and reinterviewed at waves 5, 7, and 9. Waves 1 through 3 were considered round 1, with pairs of subsequent waves combined for rounds 2, 3, and 4. The overall response rate among youth for the first round was 65%, with 86% to 93% of still eligible youths interviewed in subsequent rounds. (A table giving an overview of the study sample cohorts and a data collection timeline is available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org .)

NSPY questionnaires were administered on laptop computers brought into the respondents' homes. The interviewer recorded answers for the opening sections, but for most of the interview, to protect privacy, respondents heard prerecorded questions and answer categories through headphones and responded via touch-screen selection on the computer. Interviews could be conducted in English or Spanish.

The analyses reported here were based on 3 types of measures: recalled exposure to antidrug messages aired by the campaign and other sources; cognitions and behavior related to marijuana, as outcomes; and individual and household characteristics, including a wide range of variables known to be related to drug cognitions and use and to exposure to antidrug messages.

Exposure measures.

A measure of general exposure to antidrug advertising was derived from responses to questions about advertising recall for each medium or media grouping: television and radio, print, movie theaters or videos, and outdoor advertising. An example question, based on wording from the Monitoring the Future Survey, 5 read, “The next questions ask about antidrug commercials or ads that are intended to discourage drug use. In recent months, about how often have you seen such antidrug ads on TV, or heard them on the radio?”

In addition, the NSPY measured prompted recall of specific campaign television and radio ads. In general, up to 4 television and 2 radio ads scheduled to air in the 2 months preceding the interview were randomly selected and presented in full via the computer. Respondents were asked, “Have you ever seen or heard this ad?” and “In recent months, how many times have you seen or heard this ad?” Respondents answered through precoded response categories. If more than 4 television or 2 radio youth-targeted ads had been on the air in the previous 2 months, recall data were imputed for all those not presented. There is substantial evidence for the validity of this specific measure when recall of a campaign ad is compared with that of ads never broadcast and to total GRPs purchased for that ad. 6

Outcome measures.

For 3 reasons, all drug-related measures reported here relate to marijuana use. First, marijuana is by far the illicit drug most heavily used by youths. 5 Second, for other drugs, the low levels of use meant that the NSPY sample sizes were not large enough to detect meaningful changes in use with adequate power. Third, to the extent that the campaign did target a specific drug, it was almost always marijuana.

The behavior measures reported here include lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day use of marijuana. To measure lifetime use, the respondent was told, “The next questions are about marijuana and hashish. Marijuana is sometimes called pot, grass, or weed. Marijuana is usually smoked, either in cigarettes, called joints, or in a pipe. Hashish is a form of marijuana that is also called hash. From now on, when marijuana is mentioned, it means marijuana or hashish. Have you ever, even once, used marijuana?” This was followed up by the question, “How long has it been since you last used marijuana?” Possible responses were (1) “During the last 30 days,” (2) “More than 30 days ago but within the last 12 months,” and (3) “More than 12 months ago.”

The cognitive measures were developed on the basis of 2 health behavior theories, the theory of reasoned action 7 and social cognitive theory. 8 Four measures or indices represented the following constructs: (1) marijuana intentions, (2) marijuana beliefs and attitudes, (3) social norms, and (4) self-efficacy to resist use.

The intention measure was based on one question that asked, “How likely is it that you will use marijuana, even once or twice, over the next 12 months? When we say marijuana, we mean marijuana or hashish.” The answer categories provided the following alternatives: “I definitely will not,” “I probably will not,” “I probably will,” and “I definitely will.” For analytic purposes, the responses were dichotomized into “I definitely will not” vs other responses. Consistent with the theory of reasoned action, this intention measure proved to be a powerful predictor of future behavior: among those aged 12.5 to 18 years who said they had never used marijuana, 9% of those who answered “definitely will not” at a given round reported use when they were reinterviewed 12 to 18 months later at the next round. By contrast, 39% of prior nonusers who gave any other answer said at the next interview that they had initiated use.

The antimarijuana attitudes and beliefs index included responses to 8 specific expected-outcome questions (e.g., “How likely is it that the following would happen to you if you used marijuana, even once or twice , over the next 12 months? I would: Get in trouble with the law,” with responses on a 5-point scale from “very unlikely” to “very likely”). Initially, respondents who had never used marijuana were randomly selected to be asked about the consequences of marijuana use on a trial basis (“even once or twice”) or regularly (“nearly every month”), whereas all of those who had previously used marijuana were asked regular-use questions.

For trial use, respondents were asked how they rated (“very unlikely” to “very likely”) the following possible consequences of marijuana use: “Upset my (parents/caregivers),” “Get in trouble with the law,” “Lose control of myself,” “Start using stronger drugs,” “Be more relaxed,” “Have a good time with my friends,” “Feel better,” and “Be like the coolest kids.” For regular use, possible consequences were as follows: “Damage my brain,” “Mess up my life,” “Do worse in school,” “Be acting against my moral beliefs,” “Lose my ambition,” “Lose my friends' respect,” “Have a good time with my friends,” and “Be more creative and imaginative.”

The index also included responses to 2 attitude scales in a semantic differential format: “Your using marijuana nearly every month for the next 12 months would be ———,” with 2 sets of responses, both on a scale of 7: “extremely bad” to “extremely good” and “extremely unenjoyable” to “extremely enjoyable.” For these items, respondents were again assigned trial-use or regular-use questions, depending on whether they had previously used marijuana.

To create the overall index, we used data from waves 1 and 2, regressing all of the belief and attitude items on the intention question and assigning weights to each item for the overall scale that reflected those coefficients. The summed index was then scaled so that the mean (and standard deviation) for the entire population of nonusers aged 12 to 18 years at wave 1 was set to 100. Among all youths (users and nonusers) aged 12.5 to 18 years, those who scored above the median on the index had a relative odds of 21.7 of responding “definitely will not” to the intention measure compared with those who scored below the median.

The anti-marijuana social norms index was created with a statistical approach parallel to that of the attitudes and beliefs index. There were 5 parallel questions that assessed social normative pressure regarding marijuana use. They asked about perceptions of friends' marijuana use, other peers' marijuana use, parents' disapproval of “your” marijuana use, friends' disapproval of “your” marijuana use, and disapproval of “your” marijuana use by most people important to you, in the context either of use “even once or twice” or of use “nearly every month” over the next year. Through use of a regression model, the questions were then weighted according to their ability to predict the intention to use marijuana once or twice in the next year. The summed index was scaled so that the mean (and standard deviation) for the entire population of nonusers aged 12 to 18 years at wave 1 was set to 100. Among all youths (users and nonusers) aged 12.5 to 18 years, those who scored above the median on the index had a relative odds of 17.4 of responding “definitely will not” to the intentions measure compared with those who scored below the median.

Finally, for the antimarijuana self-efficacy index, all respondents were asked the same 5 questions about their confidence that they could turn down use of marijuana under various circumstances: “How sure are you that you can say no to marijuana, if you really wanted to , if: You are at a party where most people are using it? A very close friend suggests you use it? You are home alone and feeling sad or bored? You are on school property and someone offers it? You are hanging out at a friend's house whose parents aren't home?” Through use of a regression model, these 5 questions were then weighted according to their ability to predict the intention to use marijuana once or twice in the next year. Once again, the summed index was scaled so that the mean (and standard deviation) for the entire population of nonusers aged 12 to 18 years at wave 1 was set to 100. Among all youths (users and nonusers) aged 12.5 to 18 years, those who scored above the median on the index had a relative odds of 4.0 of responding “definitely will not” to the intentions measure compared with those who scored below the median, making this the least predictive of the 3 indices.

Potential confounder measures.

The analyses employed propensity scoring for confounder control by weighting adjustments, 9 – 14 incorporating a wide range of standard demographic variables and variables known to be related to youths' drug use or thought likely to be related to exposure to antidrug messages. Propensity scores were developed for the general and specific exposure measures. More than 150 variables were considered possible confounders. (For a detailed description of the propensity scoring process and the confounders included in the final models, see Orwin et al. 4 ) They include age; gender; race/ethnicity; wave of survey response; urban–rural residency; neighborhood characteristics from the 2000 US Census 15 ; school-related variables, including self-reported academic performance, family functioning, extracurricular activities, perceived parental supervision, association with antisocial peers, and media consumption. A wide range of parents' questionnaire items were also considered potential confounders, including household income; responding parent's demographics; media use; use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs; and involvement with their children. In addition to the variables listed here, an overall estimate of the level of risk of marijuana use was developed and used as a potential confounder in the propensity scoring models.

Regarding individual risk of marijuana use, an empirically derived risk score was created as the regression-defined weighted sum of a set of youth and parent risk factors that were predictive of marijuana use. Those that had independent predictive weight included youth's age, sensation seeking, 16 urbanicity, cigarette and alcohol use more than 12 months prior to the date of questionnaire completion, and religious involvement, along with shared parenting and marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use by the parent. Risk was an important predictor of marijuana initiation. Among the 12.5- to 18-year-olds, 1 in 4 of those with a higher risk score ( > 0.08 on a 0–1 scale), but 1 in 12 of those with a lower risk score (≤ 0.08), reported initiation at the next interview.

Statistical Analyses

Given the campaign's national coverage, our evaluation was forced to rely on naturally occurring variation in campaign exposure among individuals to estimate the campaign; effects, after adjustment for variation in potential confounders, including the amount and type of media consumption. Whereas comparisons between geographic areas were considered an alternative approach for providing exposure variation, the advertising agency's projected buying plans did not forecast such variation. Three types of analysis were conducted, with claims of effect strongest if the results of all 3 were consistent.

First, the evaluation examined changes over time in each outcome, on the assumption that a successful campaign would produce trends in desired antidrug directions. However, upward or downward trends can be the result of many influences, without the campaign necessarily being the cause.

Second, the evaluation examined the associations of individuals' exposures to antidrug advertising with concurrent drug-related outcomes, with statistical control for potential confounders through the use of propensity scoring. These associations were computed from data pooled across all survey rounds. The relationship between exposure and each outcome was estimated by Goodman and Kruskal's gamma statistic (see, for example, Agresti 17 ). The gamma statistic, which estimates both the direction and strength of an association between 2 ordinal variables, can vary between −1 and 1, with 0 indicating no association. These cross-sectional gamma statistics provide evidence as to whether variations in individual exposure and outcomes are associated, once likely confounders are controlled, but they do not establish whether exposure influenced the outcome or whether the supposed outcome influenced recall of exposure.

The third mode of analysis addressed the issue of causal direction by examining whether exposure at one round of data collection was associated with outcomes at the next round, once confounders, including prior round outcomes, were controlled. The analyses (referred to as lagged analyses) were also pooled across rounds, with exposure measures taken from the first 3 rounds and the outcome measures taken from the second through fourth rounds.

Each of the analyses was performed for all youths, as well as for important subgroups defined by gender, age, race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic), and risk of marijuana use (lower and higher). Analyses were restricted to youths who were nonusers of marijuana at the current round (for cross-sectional analyses) or at the previous round (for lagged analyses). The focus on nonusers and their transition to first use is consistent with one of the campaign's goals: preventing any drug use. The campaign also aimed to encourage those who were using occasionally to reduce their use. However, that objective is not examined here because the sample sizes of occasional users did not provide sufficient power to detect effects on that subpopulation.

Weights were used in all analyses to compensate for differential probabilities of selection, nonresponse, and undercoverage. We adjusted the cross-sectional weights for nonresponse by using demographic, household, and neighborhood characteristics. In addition to these variables, prior-round measures of general exposure and marijuana-related outcomes were used to adjust the longitudinal weights. Sampling errors were computed with a jackknife replication methodology that accounted for the NSPY's complex sample design. 4

To maintain consistency for all analyses, and because by the fourth round the sample contained few youths younger than 12.5 years, only those youths aged between 12.5 and 18 years at the time of outcome measurement are included. However, all conclusions presented here were supported by prior analyses with the broader age range of youths. 18

Youths reported substantial exposure to antidrug advertising. Overall, 94% of youths reported general exposure to 1 or more antidrug messages per month, with a median frequency of about 2 to 3 ads per week, consistent with the campaign's GRP purchases. Fifty-four percent of youths recalled at least weekly exposure to specific campaign television ads that had aired in recent months. At the same time, there was considerable variability among youths in their exposure levels. Across the campaign, 15%, 31%, 38%, and 16% recalled seeing less than 1, 1 to less than 4, 4 to less than 12, and 12 or more campaign television ads per month, respectively.

There was no change in the prevalence of marijuana use among those aged 12.5 to 18 years between 2000 and 2004. A small but significant increase in antimarijuana beliefs and attitudes was not accompanied by significant parallel gains in intentions not to use, social norms, or self efficacy ( Table 1 ). There were some significant year-to-year changes (including an antimarijuana shift in intentions from 2002 to 2004) and a few significant changes for subgroups of the population. 4

Changes Among Youths Aged 12.5 to 18 Years in Marijuana Use Cognitions and Behavior: National Survey of Parents and Youth, United States, 2000–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.

In general, lower- and higher-risk youths, and younger and older youths, differed markedly in their absolute levels of marijuana use and in antimarijuana cognitions, whereas there were minimal differences in these outcomes by gender or race/ethnicity. In most cases, the changes from 2000 to 2004 for subgroups were broadly similar to those displayed in Table 1 for all youths. 4

There is little evidence for a contemporaneous association between exposure to antidrug advertising and any of the outcomes, after adjustment for confounders. Nonusers who reported more exposure (general or specific) to antidrug messages were no more likely to express antidrug cognitions than were youths who were less exposed ( Table 2 ). The same analyses were undertaken for subgroups defined by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and risk score. Only 3 of the 80 gammas in these analyses were significant; they may easily be chance findings.

Cross-Sectional Association of Exposure to Antidrug Advertising and Marijuana-Related Outcomes Among Nonusers of Marijuana Aged 12.5 to 18 Years: National Survey of Parents and Youth, United States, 1999–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Estimates were adjusted for confounders (see “Methods” section for details). General and specific exposures refer to exposure to campaign ads as a whole and exposure to specific ads, respectively.

The final set of analyses examined whether exposure during an earlier round of measurement was associated with outcomes among 12.5- to 18-year-olds at the next round of measurement, after we controlled for confounders measured at the earlier round. These analyses were conducted separately for each pair of consecutive rounds, as well as with data pooled across all 3 round pairs (i.e., pairs of consecutive rounds). Outcomes included cognitive measures and initiation of marijuana use since the prior round. The results from the pooled data show no evidence of antimarijuana lagged effects. Rather, they indicate the possible presence of pro-marijuana effects: 2 of 10 associations were statistically significant, both in a pro-marijuana direction, and results for 6 of the remaining 8 lagged analyses were in an unfavorable direction ( Table 3 ). Examination of the 80 subgroup analyses reveals 20 significant effects, with 19 of those in a pro-marijuana direction. Thus, there is an overriding pattern of unfavorable lagged exposure effects.

Lagged Association of Exposure to Antidrug Advertising at Earlier Round and Marijuana-Related Outcomes at Next Round Among Nonusers of Marijuana Aged 12.5 to 18 Years at Earlier Round: National Survey of Parents and Youth, 1999–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Data were pooled across round pairs (i.e., pairs of consecutive rounds). General and specific exposures refer to exposure to campaign ads as a whole and exposure to specific ads, respectively. Estimates were adjusted for confounders (see “Methods” section for details).

To investigate whether the effects of the campaign differed over its duration, the lagged analyses were carried out separately for each of the paired rounds. The results in Table 4 show no significant antimarijuana lagged associations, and at least 1 significant pro-marijuana lagged association, for each of the paired rounds. In the analysis of round 3 to round 4, the effect of exposure to general antidrug messages also includes a barely significant association in the direction of increased initiation of marijuana use.

Lagged Association of Exposure to Antidrug Advertising at Earlier Round and Marijuana-Related Outcomes at Next Round Among 12.5- to 18-Year-Olds Who Were Nonusers of Marijuana at Earlier Round, by Round Pair: National Survey of Parents and Youth, 1999–2004

Note. CI = confidence interval. Data pertain to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. General and specific exposures refer to exposure to campaign ads as a whole and exposure to specific ads, respectively. Estimates were adjusted for confounders (see “Methods” section for details).

Overall, the campaign was successful in achieving a high level of exposure to its messages; however, there is no evidence to support the claim that this exposure affected youths' marijuana use as desired. Analyses of the NSPY data for the full sample yielded no significant associations of exposure with cognitive outcomes when both were measured simultaneously. There is some evidence that exposure to the campaign messages was related to pro-marijuana cognitions on a delayed basis throughout the campaign. In light of these findings, we examined the apparent implication that the campaign was not effective and discuss possible mechanisms by which it could have had unfavorable effects. The findings of unfavorable effects are particularly worrisome because they were unexpected and were found not only for cognitions but also for actual initiation of marijuana use.

Comparison of These Results With Other Relevant Evidence

There are a number of other sources that provide trend data concerning marijuana use. 19 – 21 Some sources have shown a downturn in use among some youths from 1999 to 2004, whereas the NSPY did not show a parallel change over the same period. However, results from the NSPY are similar to those from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (to the extent that they are comparable), and the other surveys are quite different in that they are conducted in schools and not households. 4 Furthermore, even if they were entirely consistent and universally present, trend results alone would not provide solid grounds for a claim of success or failure of the campaign, because they may have been influenced by secular forces other than the campaign's ads and public relations efforts. The presence of such other forces is suggested by the fact that there are even larger declines in both tobacco and alcohol use than in marijuana use in 2 other surveys, 19 , 20 suggesting that all substance use was on a downward trend regardless of the campaign. No other studies have provided information that is comparable to the lagged associations between exposure and subsequent outcomes shown in Tables 3 and ​ and4, 4 , and such additional evidence is crucial for making causal inferences about the campaign's effects.

Possible Reasons for Lack of Evidence of Success

Two alternative explanations for the sparse evidence of the campaign's success are that (1) the evaluation was insensitive to its success or (2) the campaign was indeed not successful. Each alternative is worth some discussion.

Is it possible that the program was successful but the evaluation failed to find supporting evidence? There are some possible circumstances under which the evaluation might not have detected true effects. The evaluation focused on comparing youths who reported different levels of ad exposure. There was substantial variation in self-reported exposure. However, if youths who were personally exposed shared their new learning with those who were not personally exposed, the campaign's effects would be diffused across social networks so that analyses focused on individual differences in exposure would underestimate the effects. However, except in the implausible case that the effects diffused across the entire population of the United States, there should still be some associations between individual exposure and outcomes.

Another concern might be that the first round of NSPY data collection was undertaken simultaneously with the launch of the full campaign, and after substantial prior efforts in its developmental stages. Thus, the evaluation might have missed startup effects. However, the other national surveys of drug use found no significant decreases between 1998 and 2000 in the outcomes they measured related to marijuana use, making it unlikely that the effects were already present by 2000. Also, if exposure to the campaign after 1999 was not positively associated with the outcomes, as both the trend and association data show, then the conclusion that the campaign after 1999 was unsuccessful remains correct, regardless of what happened before.

Alternatively, if the campaign actually has been unsuccessful, how can that be explained? A number of previous mass-media, anti–substance abuse campaigns have affected the substance use of young people, including their use of tobacco 22 – 28 and marijuana 29 – 31 and possibly of alcohol consumption before driving. 32 , 33 Although not all such campaigns are effective, there are now a reasonable number of examples of successful campaigns. 34 , 35 Why, then, does this campaign appear to have been unsuccessful thus far?

One explanation is that the campaign did not add appreciably to the large quantity of antidrug messages youths were already receiving. In 2000, recent background exposure to antidrug messages was reported by more than 50% of youths—through, for example, in-school drug education (66%), conversations with friends about negative consequences of drug use (52%), 2 or more conversations with parents about drugs (54%), and weekly exposure to nonadvertising mass-media content about drugs and youths (54%). Relative to this level of background exposure, across the NSPY's 4 rounds, youths recalled a median frequency of exposure to campaign ads of once to twice per week, mostly through television. Because an ad is typically 15 to 30 seconds in length, 2 such ads would produce up to about one minute per week of antidrug message exposure. Given all the antidrug messages to which youths were already subject prior to the campaign, the fact that the implicit messages of the campaign were not novel and that the incremental exposure was small, a lack of campaign effects is perhaps unsurprising.

What is harder to explain is the possibility suggested by the lagged results of an unfavorable influence of exposure to the campaign. This is sometimes called a boomerang effect. 36 Of several possible explanations, we offer here 2 speculative ideas, which admittedly are somewhat at odds with the reasons just given for the lack of favorable results.

One idea, which comes from psychological reactance theory, 37 , 38 argues, in part, that youths react against threats to their freedom of choice by experiencing and succumbing to pressure to reestablish that freedom, including some pressure to engage in the proscribed behavior. By this explanation, youths who were exposed to these antidrug messages reacted against them by expressing pro-drug sentiments; the greater the exposure, the stronger this reaction. In analyses reported elsewhere, however, we did not find support for this explanation. 39 , 40

The second idea is that antidrug advertising conveys an implicit meta-message that drug use is commonplace. As a result, youths who saw the campaign ads took from them the message that their peers were using marijuana. In turn, those who came to believe that their peers were using marijuana were more likely to initiate use themselves. There was evidence consistent with this speculation: more ad exposure was associated with the belief that other youths were marijuana users, and this belief was predictive of subsequent initiation of marijuana use (data not shown). 4 , 40

Conclusions

The evidence does not support a claim that the campaign produced antimarijuana effects. Palmgreen et al. have reported such effects, but only in 2 medium-sized cities for one 6-month period of the campaign. 41 In contrast, the current evaluation provides some evidence that the campaign had pro-marijuana effects. The boomerang pattern, however, was irregular: it was not evident among cross-sectional associations, was significant for only some outcomes and time periods in the lagged analyses, and showed an increase in initiation of marijuana use only between rounds 3 and 4. At the start of this project, the evaluation team stipulated that it would confidently claim an antimarijuana effect for the campaign only if it were to affect trends, cross-sectional associations, and lagged associations. Against these criteria, the claim that the campaign produced pro-marijuana effects has tentative but not definitive support.

Despite extensive funding, governmental agency support, the employment of professional advertising and public relations firms, and consultation with subject-matter experts, the evidence from the evaluation suggests that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign had no favorable effects on youths' behavior and that it may even have had an unintended and undesirable effect on drug cognitions and use. This evaluation challenges the usefulness of the campaign as implemented between 2000 and 2004.

Acknowledgments

Research for and preparation of this article were supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (grants 3-N01-DA085063-002 and 1-R03-DA-020893-01). The evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign was funded by Congress as part of the original appropriation for the campaign. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy directly supervised the campaign. The National Institute on Drug Abuse supervised the evaluation; Westat, with the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania as a subcontractor, received the contract. All authors were funded for this evaluation and other projects by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

The following individuals contributed to this research and to prior technical reports. From Westat, David Maklan, PhD, was coprincipal investigator; Diane Cadell, BS, was project director and supervised data collection; Robert Baskin, PhD, Adam Chu, PhD, David Judkins, MA, Carol Morin, MBA, Sanjeev Sidharan, PhD, Diane Steele, MA, and Paul Zador, PhD, worked on research design, instrument development, statistical analysis, and report preparation. From the University of Pennsylvania, Joseph Cappella, PhD, and Martin Fishbein, PhD, worked on instrument development; Paul Rosenbaum, PhD, and Elaine Zanutto, PhD, provided statistical expertise; Carlin Barmada, MA, Vani Henderson, PhD, Megan Kasimatis, JD, Jeff Niederdeppe, PhD, Anca Romantan, PhD, Brian Southwell, PhD, and Itzhak Yanovitzky, PhD, worked on statistical analysis and report preparation.

Note. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the study's sponsors.

Human Participant Protection

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Westat. Parental permission was obtained to conduct interviews with youthful participants, who gave their consent and were ensured of the confidentiality of all their responses.

Verifying that you are not a robot...

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Studentshare
• Medical science
• The Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign

The Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign - Essay Example

• Subject: Medical science
• Type: Essay
• Level: Medical School
• Pages: 3 (750 words)
• Downloads: 1
• Author: krowe

Extract of sample "The Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign"

"The Anti-Drug Abuse Campaign" is a wonderful example of a paper on the addiction.

The goal of this campaign is to promote the elimination of drug and substance abuse among the youths in order to ensure safety, health as well as their quality of life.

Background Information

In the year 2009, a study was conducted in the United Kingdom that depicted that approximately 22 million people in the UK were facing societal challenges resulting from drug and substance abuse. The study also indicated that about 95% of this group was unaware of the challenges they faced from the use of drugs (Ghodse 2009). However, a small percentage of those who recognized that they faced drug use challenges made efforts to create solutions but were not successful.

  The rationale of the Campaign

            Justification

The use of drugs and substance abuse has a major negative effect in modern society; specifically, it affects families, individuals, communities which directly impacts economic development. The problems associated with drugs and substance abuse are cumulative in nature as they lead to other more extreme dangerous health problems for instance: HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, criminal activities, suicide as well as domestic violence (Times of India 2012).

This campaign will focus on creating awareness among the Youths age 18-25 years; this age group forms the foundation of the future generation and studies have shown that they are the most affected by drugs and substance abuse.

Current Campaign Practices

Various organizations and institutions have made different efforts to curb this menace in the current society; however, their efforts have not been adequately successful, hence creating the need to create more solutions. This is what has been my drive to create this campaign, which I believe will bring a major change in our society (Healthy People 2011).

The most applied technique is awareness creation on various media channels such as radios, television programs as well as internet sources. Despite these efforts, drug and substance abuse challenges have been on the rise for the last four decades (Healthy People 2011).

However certain measures have shown success in the reduction of drug and substance abuse among the youths. One of the successful measures that have been taken is the use of punitive measures implemented by the law (Healthy People 2011).

Planning Process

Health Issue Targeted

This campaign focuses on creating awareness among the youths on the negative effects of using drug and substance abuse.

Methods of Communication Applied

Various means of communication are usually employed to ensure that the information is properly received and taken into consideration. There will be various volunteers who will assist in disseminating the information to the public, specifically, the youth. This information will be disseminated by use of flyers that will contain summarized information containing the negative impacts of drug and substance abuse, pictures of affected body parts as well as the reasons why the youths should stop using drugs. The information contained in the leaflets will be used as a form of encouragement to inform the youth that they have the power to stop drug and substance abuse among themselves.

      Target Areas

The flyers will be distributed randomly in public places such as Shopping Malls, streets, public parks, public resting places like areas with ‘frustration benches’, stadiums, airports, and bus terminals.

                                                      Expected Outcomes

The main expectation of this awareness program will be an enhanced knowledge of the negative effects of drug and substance abuse in society. Additionally, it is expected that there will be reduced negative health effects resulting from drug and substance abuse hence improved economic development.

   Implementation and Evaluation

These activities will be conducted simultaneously; the awareness will be implemented after gathering adequate resources ranging from financial to human resources. At the same time evaluation will be conducted to determine areas of weakness or challenges that may hinder the success of the campaign.

At the end of the campaign evaluation studies will be conducted to determine the efficacy of the campaign in reducing reduce health hazards related to drug and substance abuse. These studies will be conducted by the use of interviews that shall be conducted in major health institutions, the local communities as well as in rehabilitation centers. Consequently, the study will also assist in the determination of whether the campaign was a success or not and the formulation of solutions to future awareness programs.

                             Critique of the Resource Used

One of the probable challenges that the campaign may face is the fact that most people tend to ignore or dismiss the information contained on the fliers as a result of their simple appearance. Moreover, Flyers may not have a long term advantage over the targeted group; studies have shown that the average attention people tend to give to the flyers is forty seconds.

However, our main intention is to create awareness among the youth that the habit of using drugs and other substances is actually dangerous to their health and to the overall society. In as much as most campaigns have been done to create such awareness, I believe that this campaign will also have significant effects among our youths. It will also act as a reminder to the youths that drugs and substance abuse is dangerous.

• Cited: 0 times
• Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied Copy Citation Citation is copied

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

Children and the anti-illegal drugs campaign: When the cure is worse than the disease | ABS-CBN News

Children and the anti-illegal drugs campaign: When the cure is worse than the disease

ADVERTISEMENT

Search the United Nations

• UN Observances

By resolution 42/112 of 7 December 1987, the General Assembly decided to observe 26 June as the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking as an expression of its determination to strengthen action and cooperation to achieve the goal of an international society free of drug abuse.

Supported each year by individuals, communities, and various organizations all over the world, this global observance aims to raise awareness of the major problem that illicit drugs represent to society.

The evidence is clear: invest in prevention

The global drug problem presents a multifaceted challenge that touches the lives of millions worldwide. From individuals struggling with substance use disorders to communities grappling with the consequences of drug trafficking and organized crime, the impact of drugs is far-reaching and complex. Central to addressing this challenge is the imperative to adopt a scientific evidence-based approach that prioritizes prevention and treatment.

The International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, or World Drug Day, is marked on 26 June every year to strengthen action and cooperation in achieving a world free of drug abuse. This year’s World Drug Day campaign recognizes that effective drug policies must be rooted in science, research, full respect for human rights, compassion, and a deep understanding of the social, economic, and health implications of drug use.

Together, let us amplify our efforts to combat the global drug problem, guided by the principles of science, compassion, and solidarity. Through collective action and a commitment to evidence-based solutions, we can create a world where individuals are empowered to lead healthy, fulfilling lives.

#WorldDrugDay #InvestInPrevention

World Drug Report

Every year, UNODC issues the World Drug Report , full of key statistics and factual data obtained through official sources, a science-based approach and research. UNODC continues to provide facts and practical solutions to address the current world drug problem and remains committed to attaining health for all. Health and justice sectors are under pressure and access to services and support is obstructed when we can least afford it.

Why Is Cocaine Trafficking Surging?

For two decades, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has been helping make the world safer from drugs, organized crime, corruption and terrorism. We are committed to achieving health, security and justice for all by tackling these threats and promoting peace and sustainable well-being as deterrents to them.

The World Drug Report provides a global overview of the supply and demand of opiates, cocaine, cannabis, amphetamine-type stimulants and new psychoactive substances (NPS), as well as their impact on health. It highlights, through improved research and more precise data, that the adverse health consequences of drug use are more widespread than previously thought.

Why do we mark International Days?

International days and weeks are occasions to educate the public on issues of concern, to mobilize political will and resources to address global problems, and to celebrate and reinforce achievements of humanity. The existence of international days predates the establishment of the United Nations, but the UN has embraced them as a powerful advocacy tool. We also mark other UN observances .

• Political Communication

THE ANTI -DRUG CAMPAIGN PROGRAMS OF PNP TOWARDS LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN VALENZUELA CITY

• February 2021

• Rizal Technological University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Paul Farmer

• Bruce W. Wilkinson
• Richard J. Barnet
• John Cavanagh

• Luke Samson
• D Buddenberg
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up