It still happens regularly: a school invites a police officer to warn students about the dangers of drugs. If it doesn’t help, it can’t do any harm, you might say. In addition, you reach many young people at once and it is a visible action that shows: ‘Look, we are engaged in drug prevention.’ That is good for the parents and looks good in the media. Unfortunately, such education does not lead to less drug use. In fact, it can lead to more use.
Effective drug prevention in schools
Below, I explain why educating children about the risks of drugs, such as ecstasy, is not a good idea (and what you can do instead).
1) First of all: of all students between the ages of 12 and 16, 1.7% have ever tried ecstasy. This means that 98.3% have never touched a pill. By far most of them will never do so. For all those children, the message is not relevant.
2) Educating children or exposing them to a campaign about ecstasy has another effect: it makes it seem as though ecstasy use is much more common than it actually is. We know that young people already tend to estimate their peers’ substance use as higher than it really is. Children reason: “If they are warning us, there must be many children who use ecstasy.” And that can rekindle interest in ecstasy. That is precisely what is not intended.
3) Education about risks does not lead to behavioral change. The few children in the class who do have experience with ecstasy use are often already aware of the risks. Warnings do not benefit them; they need other support. For example, from a parent or mentor who can identify and discuss (problematic) use.
4) A school that wants to focus on preventing substance use has many other options that are effective. These include focusing on the development of social skills, improving parents’ and teachers’ expertise, and working on a healthy school climate. They are listed in this guideline for addiction prevention in education.
5) Substance use prevention is an extensive scientific field. A great deal of research has been conducted into influencing behavior—which is what you want to achieve. International quality criteria exist, such as the WHO’s International Standards of Drugs Use Prevention. They explain the dos and don’ts of substance use prevention for every age group. They also show that interventions centered on (drug) education have no effect or can have the opposite effect.
6) Regarding parents and caregivers: their involvement is essential to achieving behavioral change in children. As children’s immediate social environment, they have the opportunity to start a conversation about ecstasy and other substances at the right moment and address their child’s questions and concerns. They can also provide support if their child needs it.
More information for parents can be found at helderopvoeden.nl and on the Facebook and Instagram account of Opvoeding & Uitgaan.
The XTC game is not a good idea
Ultimately, everyone wants to limit the risks of drug use among young people as much as possible. Recently, a game created by the Dutch police was released, in which children aged 12 to 15 produce ecstasy (through animations) and then use it at a festival. Investing money and energy in a prevention approach that could potentially do more harm than good benefits no one. The development of the game does show that there is a great deal of motivation and creativity when it comes to drug prevention. The last thing you want is for that energy to lead to more drug use.
Schools, in particular, offer opportunities to intervene at an early stage, but it is important to do this properly. Schools that want to address substance prevention in an effective and responsible way can turn to Helder op School: an effective integrated prevention approach for schools. Local prevention departments of addiction care institutions can also play a role in this.
Want to know more about the world as experienced by students?
Figures on substance use among students (aged 12–16)