|
It has all been tried, from fried eggs to teary testimonials, yet
some kids still use drugs. It’s the nature of youth: Tell them not
to do something and they crave it all the more. Since we can never
talk every teen out of drug abuse, it might be time for a new
approach.
Schools could design educational programs to briefly
explain that drugs are bad, taking care not to turn kids off by
getting preachy or judgmental. With that out of the way,
instructors would distribute and demonstrate kits to test crack,
crank and other popular drugs for safety. Free and confidential
medical services would be made available to those who turn their
brains sunny side up anyway. As many parents would likely object,
no doubt meaning well, they would be kept out of the loop to prevent
harmful interference.
This approach could easily be adapted to a number of
youthful evils that we will never nag out of existence. For
example, teenage boys are the demographic group most likely to be
involved in auto accidents. After a good scolding, boys could
receive stunt training from professional drivers. Treatment of
broken bones and internal injuries would be at public expense and
strictly hush-hush.
I bet I had a few folks going until I got to the stunt
drivers. It is understood that most teens will rebel to some
extent; mine won’t buy everything they’re told or my daughter would
be sporting the latest in Amish fashions. Most responsible adults
can summon the guts to draw a hard line on drugs and reckless
driving, yet many of these same people can’t bring themselves to
endorse sexual abstinence without canceling the message with how-to
advice.
Congress recently began considering continuation of
certain sex education provisions of federal welfare reforms enacted
in 1996. Those measures created a federal subsidy to pay states for
so-called abstinence-only programs, though their scope is actually
much broader. All states eventually took the money; California
alone dropped out.
While the teen pregnancy rate has indeed declined over
the last decade,
a preliminary report released by the White House was unable to
tie the drop to abstinence-only programs, nor, apparently, to
anything else. Some have suggested the progress may be due to
improvements in birth control drugs.
The programs have cost nearly $500 million to date, barely toilet
seat money in Washington, but real dough all the same. Opponents
flog the notion that kids will engage in premarital sex no matter
what anyone says, though also object to the cost if the drop in
pregnancies can’t be tied conclusively to abstinence-only education.
They have a point; two actually. Some kids will ignore
advice to abstain no matter how it’s presented, just as some will
use drugs, drive like mad, or stick up convenience stores. Further,
I can’t fault wanting to verify that a program works before
continuing its funding – in fact I hope the idea catches on.
However, these rationales could be applied to most
school programs aimed at behavior we wish to discourage but aren’t.
Why? Why are some determined to treat premarital sex so differently
than everything else they claim to want kids to avoid?
My guess is there’s a two-part answer. First, those
backing the wink-and-a-nod approach to abstinence don’t truly
believe teen sex is harmful. Secondly, despite the stiff price in
teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, they think
abstinence is primarily a religious value.
It may have come to that, but maybe the good Lord knows
a few things we don’t. In any event, sex education will always be
first about values, whether the focus is self-control or condoms.
The main lesson I see in the old don’t-but-if-you-do shtick is one
of hypocrisy.
|
