The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0314.048 1996-1998 o,_,,,w,,, ; PAMELA G. ucHTY 2216 Aha Niu Place ~ \ ~~_„I Honolulu, Hawaii 968?1 r~ R~ ~ June l6, 1997 ' 37 JUN 16 rail 7 55 TO HA\\'AI`1 COUNTY COL?v'CIL FII~,~,I~'CE COVL~IITTEE00UNTY G~ HAWAII FRO44. P.4D~LA EIGHTY, ASSISTANT CLINICAL PROFESSOR, UH - \4A.\~OA SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH RE: TESTLMONY ON CONTACT RE?~E\V.4L FOR\I.4RIJU.4NA ERADIC.4TI0N PROGRAM Good morning, Chairman Cllun~ and members of the Committee. 1 +vould like to testify today about some concerns I have about the continuation of the marijuana eradication programs on the Big Island I have been researching and orgatilzing conferences on drug policy over the last several yeazs. and most recently taueht a course at UH Manoa on Harm Reduction as Public Health Policy. The marijuana eradication program is an example of old +vays of thinking and throwing money at the drug problems in our state, and I would argue that: 1) It's not working and 2) it may be having counterproductive effects. True, it has suppressed much of the erowing of marijuana, and it has certainly increased its scarcity and price, yet recent surveys have sho+vlt that in both Hawaii and the mainland, the number of youngsters using pot has increased steadily over the past three years. In many other jurisdictions, most notably Northern California, citizens are speaking out against the invasion of privacy, the encroachment on property rights, the noise, and the cost of these eradication programs. Many of those in rural areas moved there explicitly for peace and quiet and the ilttrusion of the helicopters is extremely disturbing and can even cause negative health effects, for example precipitating flashbacks among Vietnam vets Its my undemanding that the County Council is required to review and evaluate programs every four years, but that the eradication program has never received a serious review. I'nl sure it is tempting in these hard economic times to accept the Federal monies for this program. but I believe that it is the Council's responsibility to take its mandate seriousl}• and to really examine whether or not file program is cost-effective- is fulfillins its mission (without unanticipated effects such as driving youngsters to more readil}• available and cheaper drugs such as "ice"), and whether or not the people of the Bi¢ Island support its continuation. Debate is raging now all over this country about the effectiveness of the \b'ar on Drus and whether we should continue down the same path. Marijuana suppression programs such as the one on the Big Island epitomize some of the worse aspects of the War on Drugs approach. This is our opportunity to tell the Federal government that their priorities are wrons and that funding should instead be used for effective dru; education. drug treatment, and the suppression of hard drugs and the violence often associated with them. i arse the Committee to recommend rejection of the Federal grant to send a strong message that marijuana eradication is a wasteful. counterproductive use of taxpayer's dollars which could be used in far more positive and productive ways. Thank you for the opportunity to testif}~ today -a!ecn ones (8C8) 735-8001 Fax: (8G8) 735-2971 a-mail: pglicgty@lav-a.net 3/Ll L/O moa, a , 7-0 F]le 1(a V S G - Rd. 4b1 Prasenfod f-' G D.~ti J11N ] 6~~ PAMEtJ+ G. LJCHTY 2216 Aha Niu Place Honolulu. Hawaii 96821 June 16, 1997 TO: HA\V'AI'1 COUNTY COUNCIL FIi:.~\~CE COVLvIITTEE FROM: P.~MELA EIGHTY RE. TESTL\70NY Oti CONTRACT RENE\VAI. FOR D.A.R.E. PROGRAM Good morning Chairman Chung and members of the Committee. I'm sorry i couldn't be in Hilo today- in person to offer my testimony in opposition to the renewal of the DARE program contract. There has been increasing controversy surrounding the effectiveness of the DARE program in terms of its chief goal preventing drug abuse by children. The popularity of DARE is widely acknowledged. However, in this time of scare resources and growing demands on law enforcement, many drug education experts believe that the DARE program and methodology are not the most effective for achieving the goal of reducing or eliminating substance abuse among children. In April of this year, the University of Michigan released their Surveying the Future report. It revealed that dmg and alcohol use by teens and preteens has increased steadily for the last 3 veers. Bear in mind that this is the very group flf children who were subjected to years of 'just say no" types of drug prevention education. You have probabh• already heard about the major report published in Ihe.dnrerrcun Journnl njP«hlic Hen/!h detailing a comprehensive evaluation of all the studies of DARE. This report concluded that any drug prevention effects of DARE were minor and transitory. \V'hile the program may have some benefits, especialh in terms of the other social skills it teaches, it does not appear to be achieving its major goal Let me briefly summarize some of the concerns found in the literature Many e~;perts question both the appropriateness and the effectiveness of uniformed officers doing the teaching. These officers receive a scant two +veers of drug education in preparation for this role in contrast to the four years of college work that most drug prevention specialists have. More importantly perhaps, is this the best use for these officers in a time when the county budget is squeezed? Couldn't these officers be better used in the ttimtnunity addressing criminal activities directh•O l~ve had access to a curriculum review of several drug education programs done by a parent's group in a small A4assachuset school district (the Ashfield-Plainfield Regional School Distract) Among its criticisms of the DARE. Program Is the fact that its curriculum is formulated -eiepnor.e: 1808) 735-8001 Fax: (808) 735-2971 e-mail: p8lichtyClava.net by a national organization which does not take into account local coriditions, cultural values, etc Unlike som :other programs, it does not encourage parental invoh~ement ~ is newsletters or other commum~auon; nor are students permitted to take the educational matertals home to show their parents. They also felt that the curriculum itself was "sof•.•' on alcohol and had very little information on the harms of tobacco -probably the moss dangerous and common substance our children could be using. The study also faulted the DARE program for its lacl: of definitions of such crucial terms as "misuse" and "wrong". The point, however, is not to bash the DARE program, but rather to take an objective look at this use of county and federal dollars and determine how to get "the best bang for the buck" There are other programs available which tnay be better suited to preventing drug abuse among our children. One cited in the Massachusetts report is called "Here's Looking at You ?000" which is a ven• comprehensive K-12 curriculum with 150 lessons which encouraees parental involvement. Another highly touted program is one called Life Skills which was written up in Time in \ovember 1996. I urge the Committee to carefully examine the record of the DARE program and to look into the other cities such as Oakland and Seattle which have canceled DARE and elected to fund alternative, potentially more effective drug prevention programs. I thank you for permitting me to submit this testimony today. I would be pleased to offer the Council further information or assistance. Pamela Lichty, MPH Assistant Clinical Professor University of Hawaii at Manoa School of Public Health