Pubdate: Thu, 11 May 2006
Source: Phoenix New Times (AZ)
Copyright: 2006 New Times, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/640
Author: Richard A. Rawson

A MISTAKE IN PRIORITIES

I think you did a good job in covering many of the issues about the 
Montana Meth Prevention Project. I do think I may have 
miscommunicated a couple of points.

I did say that "reefer madness" approaches are thought to be 
counterproductive. To the extent that the Montana Meth Project 
promulgates inaccurate, scare-based information, I agree it is 
probably not going to be effective and may be counterproductive.

However, I have not studied the Montana Meth Project materials and, 
except for a piece on the national news, I haven't seen any of the materials.

 From what I have learned, there was considerable target group input 
into the creation of some (or all?) of the materials, and this is 
very positive and important.

Until you told me about the data collection being done to evaluate 
the program, I didn't know there was an evaluation being done. This 
is an extremely important and positive aspect of this program. In 
many areas, media are used to present anti-drug messages with 
absolutely no evaluation. It is good to see that a quality evaluation 
is being done.

Clearly, it is too early to expect to see dramatic effects on meth 
use, but some data do appear to be tentatively positive.

After doing a bit of reading about the overall campaign in Montana, 
which includes community-based activities and cooperation across many 
stakeholders, I can see that this campaign is not a one-note "reefer 
madness" campaign. I still don't know the nature of all the media 
spots, and I think it is safe to say that media spots that use 
dramatic, high-quality production approaches are not necessarily 
"reefer madness" scare tactics, but may, in fact, be communicating in 
an MTV-like language, which may, in fact, be extremely effective with 
the target groups.

I spend most of my life going around the U.S. speaking on meth and 
its harmful impact on people and communities inside the U.S. and 
outside. One of my very strong messages is that we have done a 
horrible job of communicating to potential users about the dangers of 
meth. I think the Montana project is an extraordinary experiment in 
drug prevention. However, it is, at present, an experiment that has 
not been completed, and while the investment of private dollars in 
Montana is a laudable and praiseworthy effort, in my opinion, the 
initiative needs to show that it works before large amounts of 
taxpayer dollars should be invested to replicate it elsewhere.

Unfortunately, tax dollars spent in one area typically mean that they 
are taken from other areas. There are thousands of meth-addicted 
individuals in Arizona who need treatment today. If the money for an 
unproven prevention campaign is taken from funds that could go to 
effective treatment services, I think this is premature and a mistake 
in priorities.

I do think the project is one of the most important drug-prevention 
programs undertaken in the U.S. in recent memory. I do think it goes 
far beyond reefer madness (although some of the elements may have 
this flavor). I think the organizers should be praised for their 
concern over the severe meth problem in Montana, and I applaud their 
willingness to invest their own private money into this effort. I am 
very impressed with their evaluation effort, as this is the component 
that is critical for us to learn from this investment, and it is the 
part that is often neglected. Richard A. Rawson, Los Angeles
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman