5 ms·

"Abstinence-focused," in drug and sex education, tends to mean "abstinence only." If all the kids are getting is "drugs will all cause you to get addicted and d

"Abstinence-focused," in drug and sex education, tends to mean "abstinence only." If all the kids are getting is "drugs will all cause you to get addicted and die a horrible death," then once they learn that's not true, they don't have any other knowledge to go on. I agree that the focus should still be on abstinence in most cases - many drugs can in fact cause you to get addicted and/or die a horrible death in very short order - but "teaching abstinence" is shorthand for not really teaching at all.

morgante 12y ago
I agree that abstinence-only sex education is harmful, but I'm not sure the same could be said of drug usage. There's no reason that the majority of people would need or want drugs, and many go without, so it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that most will not partake. That being said, any education should still be honest—including explaining the exact harms of different drugs and, hopefully, in the process guiding future users towards safer choices. However, I don't think that should be extended to include the corollary of condom usage—there's no reason to educate people on how to use needles, for example.
- danenania 12y ago
  A big part of the problem is lumping all drugs together in the first place and painting them with the same broad brush. While it may be true there's no non-self-destructive reason to use some drugs (meth and heroin come to mind), there are plenty of others that many people are able to use responsibly and gain enjoyment, insight, or other benefits from. MDMA, for example, while widely abused, has shown great promise as a therapeutic tool for treatment of PTSD and can have powerful strengthening effects on relationships. Is it your place to tell someone who stands to benefit greatly and plans to use this drug responsibly that there's no good reason for them to do it? Shouldn't that be up to them?
- vidarh 12y ago
  > There's no reason that the majority of people would need or want drugs Alcohol is far far more dangerous than a lot of the illegal drugs, and used by a majority of people. That we've drawn a line where one of the worse drugs we have are on the "ok" side, while many of the milder, safer ones we know of are on the "horrible, illegal, immoral" side certainly does nothing to good. Part of the problem of the education here is that if it was honest, then explaining current drug policy would be a big issue. How do you explain why drugs like marihuana or lsd that are near impossible to overdose on are illegal when a drug like alcohol that causes tons of death are not? How do you explain why codeine sales is legal over the counter in many countries now, but can only be sold adulterated with paracetamol/acetaminophen or ibuprofen in doses that means abuse or accidents of them are now a leading cause of liver failure, to the extent where the illegal prescription opioids they can get hold of on the black market is now vastly safer than some of the non-prescription over-the-counter drugs they can by at their local pharmacy? Current drug policy makes honest education impossible without admitting that the drug policy itself is not based on harm reduction or public safety. Nobody will accept drug education that explicitly admits that the policy is beyond broken. E.g. you want to "guide future users towards safer choices"? Then one of the things drug policy should do would be to recommend cannabis over alcohol if you have first made the decision to take a drug. How many places do you think that would fly when many countries still insist on depicting cannabis pretty much as evil?

morgante 12y ago

I agree that abstinence-only sex education is harmful, but I'm not sure the same could be said of drug usage. There's no reason that the majority of people would need or want drugs, and many go without, so it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that most will not partake. That being said, any education should still be honest—including explaining the exact harms of different drugs and, hopefully, in the process guiding future users towards safer choices. However, I don't think that should be extended to include the corollary of condom usage—there's no reason to educate people on how to use needles, for example.

danenania 12y ago
A big part of the problem is lumping all drugs together in the first place and painting them with the same broad brush. While it may be true there's no non-self-destructive reason to use some drugs (meth and heroin come to mind), there are plenty of others that many people are able to use responsibly and gain enjoyment, insight, or other benefits from. MDMA, for example, while widely abused, has shown great promise as a therapeutic tool for treatment of PTSD and can have powerful strengthening effects on relationships. Is it your place to tell someone who stands to benefit greatly and plans to use this drug responsibly that there's no good reason for them to do it? Shouldn't that be up to them?
vidarh 12y ago
> There's no reason that the majority of people would need or want drugs Alcohol is far far more dangerous than a lot of the illegal drugs, and used by a majority of people. That we've drawn a line where one of the worse drugs we have are on the "ok" side, while many of the milder, safer ones we know of are on the "horrible, illegal, immoral" side certainly does nothing to good. Part of the problem of the education here is that if it was honest, then explaining current drug policy would be a big issue. How do you explain why drugs like marihuana or lsd that are near impossible to overdose on are illegal when a drug like alcohol that causes tons of death are not? How do you explain why codeine sales is legal over the counter in many countries now, but can only be sold adulterated with paracetamol/acetaminophen or ibuprofen in doses that means abuse or accidents of them are now a leading cause of liver failure, to the extent where the illegal prescription opioids they can get hold of on the black market is now vastly safer than some of the non-prescription over-the-counter drugs they can by at their local pharmacy? Current drug policy makes honest education impossible without admitting that the drug policy itself is not based on harm reduction or public safety. Nobody will accept drug education that explicitly admits that the policy is beyond broken. E.g. you want to "guide future users towards safer choices"? Then one of the things drug policy should do would be to recommend cannabis over alcohol if you have first made the decision to take a drug. How many places do you think that would fly when many countries still insist on depicting cannabis pretty much as evil?