| Popis: |
Since the beginning of the youthful drug scare in the 196Os, millions of dollars of federal, state, municipal, school district, and private agency money have been spent in thousands of drug abuse prevention education programs across the nation. Recent reviews of the literature (Braucht, Follingstad, Brakarsh, & Berry, 1973b; World Health Organization, 1973; Randall & Wong, 1974) have come up with the same conclusion; there is little substantiated evidence that drug abuse education programs have any lasting effect on the drug using behavior of the clients. Furthermore, there is no evidence that speaks to the question, “What kinds of drug education programs have what kinds of effects on what kinds of people?” Instead of well evaluated, theoretically grounded programs, what has emerged is a large and varied number of approaches, all seemingly unaware of their philosophical proclivities, which have operated without clearly stated goals. Much criticism can be excused on the grounds that most attempts at drug education are recent; the true road to salvation, if one exists, is not well paved, nor clearly lighted. The time is ripe, however, for a systematic analysis of the underlying assumptions and philosophical perspectives indicated by the literature. This paper will first delineate models of drug abuse prevention education’ that seem to be indicated by the literature of the past 6 years. The second part of the paper is devoted to discussion of the research related to each model. Each of nine models will be considered according to: (a) its basic premises; (b) positive and negative salient criticisms; and (c) implications and modes of application for drug abuse prevention education. In order, the models that will be considered are: (1) the Legal-Political Model; (2) the Fear Induction Model; (3) the Medical, Psychiatric Model; (4) the Psycho-Social, Human Skills Model; (5) the Information Processing, Rationality Model; (6) the Reinforcement Model; (7) the Religious and Spiritual Model; (8) the Assumed Drive Model; and (9) the Alternatives Model. |
