Full Version: Holy Smokes!
A recent study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that programs preventing smoking in schools are ineffective.
The study, which compared students who had taken prevention programs to control groups, examined seven major programs (including DARE) in a longitudinal study of students from middle schools with follow-up data through 12th grade or 18 yrs. of age, which ever came first. Life Skills Program was the only one to have fewer smokers in a long term follow up.
One reason these programs continue to be used, though showing no statistical differences in smoking prevalence, is because for a school to receive Title IV funds they must include a "research based" prevention program.
Although the commentary of the study did suggest other methods that could be more effective strategies such as: use of the media, tax levies, and smoke-free environments.
Questions:
Should these programs continue to be used?
Since these programs may not be very effective, should Title IV funds be contingent upon use?
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
(spelling/clarity)
QUOTE(Sarah Wiehe @ M.D., M.P.H)
Our study shows there is little evidence to suggest that existing school-based smoking prevention programs produce long-term reductions in smoking prevalence among youth
The study, which compared students who had taken prevention programs to control groups, examined seven major programs (including DARE) in a longitudinal study of students from middle schools with follow-up data through 12th grade or 18 yrs. of age, which ever came first. Life Skills Program was the only one to have fewer smokers in a long term follow up.
One reason these programs continue to be used, though showing no statistical differences in smoking prevalence, is because for a school to receive Title IV funds they must include a "research based" prevention program.
Although the commentary of the study did suggest other methods that could be more effective strategies such as: use of the media, tax levies, and smoke-free environments.
Questions:
Should these programs continue to be used?
Since these programs may not be very effective, should Title IV funds be contingent upon use?
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
(spelling/clarity)
Most behavior modification programs are destined to fail. It is simply too difficult to change behaviors without completely controlling all aspects of one's life. Most drug rehabs that are effective completely remove the addict from their regular life, which is why they a slightly more effective.
Should these programs continue to be used?
School based behavior modification programs are not very effective. Does that mean we should stop trying? Maybe, maybe not.
Since these programs may not be very effective, should Title IV funds be contingent upon use?
It's my understanding that Title IV of the NCLB is fairly broad:
From the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: Title IV-21st Century Schools
Seems reasonable, I guess. Of course, such programs not not likely to have a huge impact without the direct involvement of parents, guardians, teachers and others (including the child's buy-in). Results are certainly not guaranteed.
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
I'm not sure that any program is "better". They all suffer the same weaknesses.
Should these programs continue to be used?
School based behavior modification programs are not very effective. Does that mean we should stop trying? Maybe, maybe not.
Since these programs may not be very effective, should Title IV funds be contingent upon use?
It's my understanding that Title IV of the NCLB is fairly broad:
From the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction: Title IV-21st Century Schools
QUOTE
Title IV includes the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities and 21st Century Community Learning Centers Programs. Safe and Drug Free Schools includes local, state, and national programs to: prevent violence in and around schools; prevent illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; involve parents and communities; and coordinate with other resources to foster a safe and drug-free environment that supports academic achievement. 21st Century Community Learning Centers support communities to create or expand before- and after-school opportunities for academic enrichment, particularly for students in low-performing schools. Such Community Learning Centers also offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities to reinforce and complement the regular academic program. Title IV also bans smoking within any indoor facility regularly used for kindergarten, elementary, or secondary education, library services to children, or routine health care or day care or early childhood development services.
Seems reasonable, I guess. Of course, such programs not not likely to have a huge impact without the direct involvement of parents, guardians, teachers and others (including the child's buy-in). Results are certainly not guaranteed.
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
I'm not sure that any program is "better". They all suffer the same weaknesses.
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
One of the problems I see, as a high school student, is that the programs keep telling the students "smoking is bad for you" and "you should never smoke". Actually, thats all and well, but what I'm trying to say is that the speakers and videos and everything else don't focus as much on those already addicted to niccotine. whenever you see a poster on the school wall or an ad about a help hotline, you almost always read it as talking to the FRIEND of the addicted, and how the FRIEND should ALWAYS report it, because its better that way. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a friend trying to save another friend's life, and that they should help in anyway possible. But what the posters and speakers and videos should be directed towards is the addicted themselves. sending out the message to all the high schoolers saying "GIVE UP YOUR FRIEND AND SEND THEM TO REHAB TO HELP THEM OUT" just pushes the addicted more and more into hiding and then by the time someone finds out, that teenager has a serious addiction problem and then actually DOES need to be sent to rehab.
So I say the posters and slogans and context of the programs should be changed to focus on showing the addicted how to get rid of the habit, not get rid of your friend for a few months.
One of the problems I see, as a high school student, is that the programs keep telling the students "smoking is bad for you" and "you should never smoke". Actually, thats all and well, but what I'm trying to say is that the speakers and videos and everything else don't focus as much on those already addicted to niccotine. whenever you see a poster on the school wall or an ad about a help hotline, you almost always read it as talking to the FRIEND of the addicted, and how the FRIEND should ALWAYS report it, because its better that way. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for a friend trying to save another friend's life, and that they should help in anyway possible. But what the posters and speakers and videos should be directed towards is the addicted themselves. sending out the message to all the high schoolers saying "GIVE UP YOUR FRIEND AND SEND THEM TO REHAB TO HELP THEM OUT" just pushes the addicted more and more into hiding and then by the time someone finds out, that teenager has a serious addiction problem and then actually DOES need to be sent to rehab.
So I say the posters and slogans and context of the programs should be changed to focus on showing the addicted how to get rid of the habit, not get rid of your friend for a few months.
What I wonder is why tax money is being spent trying to keep students from using a legal product. Sure, there are age limitations for tobacco use, just as there are for alcohol, but... well, it's basically a legal drug.
Why spend a penny trying to keep young kids from using a legal substance? Make some laws that prohibit the sales to minors if you must, but after that, who cares?
Why spend a penny trying to keep young kids from using a legal substance? Make some laws that prohibit the sales to minors if you must, but after that, who cares?
Should these programs continue to be used? Probably not. I remember the dreadful "just say no" campaigns of the Reagan years. I think they actually increased smoking and drug use. Young people don't respond well to lectures, and are drawn to things which adults tell them they are "too young" to do that will "eventually kill them". Few average teens worry about living to be 80. If anything, dying at 50 sounds like a bonus when you're 16. It's just too far in the future to think about. The hazardous effects of smoking should be addressed in health class, as a small portion of the curriculum.
Honestly, I think the most effective deterence to smoking is social stigma...and it's already here. You can't smoke anywhere, and smoking is very uncommon today compared to our parents' time. A pack of smokes is unbelievably expensive, too. I think my father started smoking when he was 11, which was pretty common back then (late 30s and 40s). Soldiers during wars were given packs of cigarettes on a regular basis. Fighter pilots smoked in their cockpits. In fact, the Geneva Conventions states that POWs are entitled to cigarettes! We're 180 out from that today. Most of my friends who smoke show extremes of contrition that are almost on par with the request to practice magic during the Salem witch hunts. "Do you mind if I smoke?" "YES!"...."Well, I mean, you can if you stand outside and there are no children watching! "
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above? Well, cigarettes are already taxed beyond what is reasonable. I think media campaigns might work marginally. The problem is, the media aspect which truly influences cannot be controlled effectively (in a free country, that is). It's the actors and actresses who smoke in their movie and television parts that create the positive association with smoking. Young people would much rather emulate them than the parents who are waving fingers and telling them not to smoke.
Honestly, I think the most effective deterence to smoking is social stigma...and it's already here. You can't smoke anywhere, and smoking is very uncommon today compared to our parents' time. A pack of smokes is unbelievably expensive, too. I think my father started smoking when he was 11, which was pretty common back then (late 30s and 40s). Soldiers during wars were given packs of cigarettes on a regular basis. Fighter pilots smoked in their cockpits. In fact, the Geneva Conventions states that POWs are entitled to cigarettes! We're 180 out from that today. Most of my friends who smoke show extremes of contrition that are almost on par with the request to practice magic during the Salem witch hunts. "Do you mind if I smoke?" "YES!"...."Well, I mean, you can if you stand outside and there are no children watching! "
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above? Well, cigarettes are already taxed beyond what is reasonable. I think media campaigns might work marginally. The problem is, the media aspect which truly influences cannot be controlled effectively (in a free country, that is). It's the actors and actresses who smoke in their movie and television parts that create the positive association with smoking. Young people would much rather emulate them than the parents who are waving fingers and telling them not to smoke.
QUOTE
Should these programs continue to be used?
There has been no argument for the existence of the programs to begin with, so it is hard to argue one way or the other.
QUOTE
Since these programs may not be very effective, should Title IV funds be contingent upon use?
If they aren't effective, then scrap 'em. That's science. You find something that works, and then use that. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work.
QUOTE
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
As I have already stated, there is no argument for the existence of the programs so why should we concern ourselves with different methods for programs designed for problems that we can't even say are problems?
One step at a time. First you define the problem, then we can debate the worth of any programs which have been designed to alleviate the problem.
QUOTE(Devils Advocate @ Mar 2 2005, 09:35 PM)
Should these programs continue to be used?
They should continue to be used. I am 21 years old and am a heavy smokers. I remember all the anti-smoking stuff I was forced to sit through growing up. And on my 18th birthday I went out and got my first pack of ciggarettes. The only things those programs did was make me aware of the dangers. But I know some friends who decided to not smoke because of the programs. So they work for some people. So they should not be given up on.
QUOTE
Should we scrap the programs and use different methods, like the ones suggested above?
The methods don't work for hardcore smokers. For instance the "sin" tax. We just find something to give up buying. Like I no longer subscribe to cable so that I can buy my cartons of cigarettes. It's that simple.
(spelling/clarity)
Fixed quotes. -Amlord
Should the programs continue to be used?
Absolutely not. It is not the schools place to be taking on the role of the parent. Most everything preached to the students about smoking and ETS is simply propaganda supplied by a group of cult like zealots in the first place.
Our school systems have a tough enough time teaching the children what they need to know. Let the parent handle the rest.
Absolutely not. It is not the schools place to be taking on the role of the parent. Most everything preached to the students about smoking and ETS is simply propaganda supplied by a group of cult like zealots in the first place.
Our school systems have a tough enough time teaching the children what they need to know. Let the parent handle the rest.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.