What we talk about when we talk about how we talk about Drugs with our kids.

Sipping my morning brew and reading NY Times and see a full page (back page) ad from Partnership for a Drug Free …hmm, it actually doesn’t say America anymore, just The Partnership At Drugfree.Org. Maybe they realized that adding America sounded somehow jingoistic—and implied that they didn’t really care about Drug use by non-Americans. But they’ve got my attention and dubious as I am (full disclosure—I did some ads for the Partnership back in the early 90’s and it was not a particularly rewarding or productive experience…I’ll elaborate further at the end of this post) and I keep reading.

The headline reads:

How to talk to your kids about drugs if you did drugs.

The subhead:
The fact that you’ve had experience may actually be an advantage. Read on:

The all text ad --except for a small inset photo of a long haired male teen in a hoodie with backpack standing in a Library with an open book in hand and smiling toward camera—goes on with 12 individually titled short paragraphs outlining their suggested approach to the problem.

I thought I might reprint selected sections here and go through it item by item but realized that would take some time and wouldn’t really be playing fair since I don’t want to risk sounding like I’m finding fault by taking things out of context.

But I do think it’s fair to quote a few sentences to give you an idea of the tone and manner they adopt in making their case.

“…This isn’t about what you did or didn’t do. It’s about what your child is going to do or not do. So let’s talk about how your personal experiences might help steer your child in a good direction.”

“…For every psychologist who recommends openness and honesty about your past, another advises caution. The fact is, you can say too much.”

“Some kids demand candor. Others are happy just to talk. Use your judgment. You know your kids better than anyone.”

“ YOU COULD SAY IT LIKE THIS: I tried drugs because some of the other kids I knew were experimenting with them, and I thought I needed to try drugs to fit in. “

“Everyone makes mistakes and trying drugs was a mistake I made. “

“I love you too much to watch you repeat bad decisions I made.”

“…even if drugs didn’t ruin my life, I’ve seen them ruin other people’s lives. And God forbid that you should be one of those people.”

Okay, you get the idea. And much of the rest of it goes on in similar fashion with recommendations to Stay Calm, Listen, Don’t raise your voice, and ends with an encouraging …Good Luck. And again, to be fair, my selected quotes are only here to give you an idea of the piece, and I think if you read the whole thing you’ll see that it’s a pretty accurate representation of most of it.

Okay, here’s my problem with it. One, it’s dishonest. Patently. In fact it’s all about how to appear honest to your kids while keeping them in the dark about some of the most pertinent (and useful to them) truths. Two, it’s deceptive. It’s about how to keep your kids from using drugs by spinning and manipulating the truth of your own drug use experiences in such a way as to keep you (the parent) from having to face the facts regarding your own choices and behavior so you can still come out smelling like a rose.

But that’s not really my problem, my problem is that if the Partnership was really serious about helping parents help their kids, they’d have learned long ago that this approach is doomed to fail. They bought a $40,000.00 full page ad in the NY Times and hired who to write it? A scholar in the field of related sociological, medical, psychological, chemical issues? No. A wise and experienced person who by dint of personal experience and/or study/or research has developed a program or approach proven to work in the real world? No. I won’t bet my life on it, but my guess is that this ad was written by an advertising copywriter with the assistance (so to speak) of a few Board members and a couple of lesser Partnership functionaries who because their hearts are in the right place consider themselves competent to tell parents how to solve this problem, assuming we all know what the problem is. Now I said I won’t bet my life on it, but this ad smells too much like what I experienced when I worked for them for me to imagine this is any different.
But like they say…this is not about me. It’s about the kids. And I’m no expert on drugs or kids but if given the assignment (assuming I couldn’t pass it on to someone more qualified and/or they were paying me a shitload) I think I might say:

DRUGS ARE A PLEASURE.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if the founding fathers didn’t mean it, they knew it was a pretty good line. And people have been quoting it and repeating it ever since for every reason under the sun including the making of profits, the stealing of land, and the taking of drugs. And it all comes down to one thing. Pleasure.

Pleasure is what drives us in just about everything we do. The anticipation of it, the hope for it, the feeling of it, even the memory of it. It is central to all our basic appetites and needs. Sex. Food. Shelter. And how we look for, find and experience pleasure is a function of countless factors. It’s tied to who we are physically and chemically.It’s tied to our inherited DNA and our cultures and traditions and histories.

But what the founding fathers didn’t say is that all pleasures are not created equal.
All things come at a price. And Pleasure is no exception. Some prices are high. Some low. Some fair. Some unfair. Some dangerous. Some safe. Some healthy. Some fatal. And with some we don’t even know what the price is because they’re too new and it’s too soon to tell.

So when it comes to pleasure, the question often becomes: What price can you afford? Can you pay the price of what comes with indulging your every sexual instinct and desire with anyone at anytime? Can you afford to punch your evil boss in the nose? Can you afford to ask your parents for some money so you can buy some more marijuana? If you can afford to, chances are you will. If not, you won’t. John Lennon said he wanted success so he could have Fuck You Money. But he also said he paid a price for it. Keith Richards indulged his huge appetite for drugs...cause he could afford it. (Not just financially, he could also afford the luxury of not having to do much more in his life than play the guitar occasionally and even then he used a tuning method to make it even easier...or as he said " Three fingers, two chords, one asshole". Others tried the same and it killed them cause they couldn't. All depends on whether you can pay the price.

If you can find pleasure without fear of finding pain. You’re gonna go for it.
Not because you’re greedy. Not because you’re lazy. Not because you’re immature.
It’s because you’re human. Humans are animals and The Human animal seeks pleasure.

So what about drugs? Well, what is a drug? Is it a remedy, a painkiller, a consciousness changer? A way to forget? A way to relax? A way to change?
If drugs can do all those things then many things can be called drugs. Some people consider music their drug. For others it’s religion, or the adrenaline that’s released when doing a high risk sport. For some it’s nicotine or caffeine or alcohol. For some people power and control are drugs. Some people get pleasure from inflicting pain on others. And money may be the most powerful drug of them all.

So what’s so different about drug drugs? The ones you smoke, ingest, snort, shoot or drink or get at the CVS with a little piece of paper signed by your friendly enabling Doctor? Why all the fuss about these drugs? Good question, and one with a whole lot of answers --most of which have nothing to do with you. But if you really want to know then go find out and learn more for yourself. Knowledge is mostly free…which is why it’s not always very popular.

In the meantime, you can also ask yourself:

What do I want?
Where am I going?
What’s my pleasure?
and
CAN I AFFORD IT?

----------------

I've had many a conversation with friends (who are also parents) over the years about this "What to tell my kids about my drug use" topic and I'm often surprised at what I've heard. I don't think an all the truth all the time approach is necessarily the right thing, but isn't it sorta in the right direction? The ad suggests telling your kids that you "experimented" or "tried" drugs because you wanted to fit in with the crowd. Well, ok, if that's the truth, then tell it. But that particular reason is the one that even if true would be the least likely for any self respecting parent to admit to. " Yeah son, I did drugs, but only cause I was like sheep following the mob." What's wrong with " I was curious", " I was bored", " I was in pain", " I was confused","I was into altering my consciousness", " I was angry," " I was dating a girl/boy who liked it", " I was trying to piss off my parents", " It was fun"....if one or more of those applies? Should'nt we want our kids to know that we were not so different from them when we were young? Wouldn't that help keep the doors of communication open? Wouldn't that be fun to talk about? Hey...what a concept, talking to your kids about Drugs can be fun! Or am I discounting that perhaps the unspoken message in the ad is that we parents who took drugs (yes we took them, not tried them or experimented or some such bogus euphemism) should be ashamed? Is that the message buried in that ad? We are ashamed, but at the same time we love our kids and have this responsibility to guide them and protect them...but god forbid we reveal to them the truth about something in our past for which we feel guilt and remorse. I don't particularly relate to that, but perhaps some people do and they're the ones this ad is trying to reach. if that's the case, the ad that might really be effective and useful would be the one with the headline:

HOW TO TALK TO YOUR PAINED AND CONFUSED PARENTS ABOUT YOUR PAIN AND CONFUSION AND TURN IT INTO SUCH A PLEASURE THAT YOU BOTH COMPLETELY FORGET ABOUT DRUGS.



* my Partnership with the Partnership lasted about a month. I wrote 6 or 7 TV spots and produced one of them. I wrote 10 or12 print ads of which they approved one. My general impression was that they functioned like private country club with a big budget and a well heeled board of directors. Every meeting was like a country club luncheon. Chatty, friendly, self-satisfied and with little or no attention paid to business at hand. I met and worked with no one who had any expertise, experience, or specialized understanding of issues related to teen drug use. The director I brought in to work on the one spot we made had spent many years working with teens and others who had been drug abusers or had served time for drug related offenses. He made a documentary that was shown on some PBS stations. The people at the Partnership paid little or no attention to his suggestions and ideas...and it was clear to me at the time that it was because he dressed and looked like a recovering drug user himself...which he was.