'JUST SAY NO' -- OR 'JUST KNOW'?

My son Johnny, a high school junior this fall, is learning all kinds of new
things -- academic, social and physical. At 16, he seems fearless. And, as
a typical American teenager, he faces two risk-sensitive issues: drug use
and sexuality. So I read with keen interest a recent report by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention that addresses both of these hot-button
topics.

Its gist: Teen drug use is up, but fewer young people are having sex, and
more of those who do practice ''safe sex.'' A decade ago, a third of
students surveyed said they had experimented with marijuana. By 1999,
almost half had tried pot. But during the same time span, the number of
students having sex declined from just over half to slightly under half.
Most important: Of those who were sexually active, 58% reported using a
condom in 1999, compared with 46% in 1991.

I wanted to know why risky teen sexual activity decreased while drug use
rose. A look at our sex and drug education offers an answer: In a nutshell,
while we'd all prefer that they abstain from both, we try to reason with
teens about sex, but we scare them about drugs.

School-based drug education, its roots in the early 20th century's
temperance movement, has used a variety of tactics to frighten young people
away from using drugs. But too many still offer 1930s-style ''Reefer
Madness'' messages. As the federal prevention budget has increased, teens
have been bombarded by anti-drug school programs and media messages.

Messages are ludicrous

My strong preference is that my son abstain. But in our zeal to deter
experimentation, we may have gone too far. Many messages we have delivered
to teenagers have been ludicrous (''this is your brain on drugs'') or
grossly simplistic (''just say no''). The result: teens who are
frighteningly cynical and distrusting about what adults tell them about drugs.

Sex education began with the same basic ''abstinence'' tenets. During the
1970s, ''don't do it'' was the predominant message. Then AIDS came, and
discussions about teen sexuality began to focus on the practical business
of saving lives. One crucial piece of information -- condoms reduce the
risk of contracting HIV -- gave educators the impetus to follow admonitions
of abstinence with ''harm reduction'' information. Reality-based sex
education acknowledged the value of postponing sexual activity. It also
provided young people with the how-tos of avoiding sexually transmitted
diseases and unwanted pregnancy.

Today's drug-education programs face the same abstinence-vs.-safety
dilemma. No one wants teens to use drugs, yet government surveys indicate
that by the time they reach their senior year of high school, 88% claim
that marijuana is ''fairly easy or very easy'' to obtain. ''Harder'' drugs
such as heroin are available as well and are cheaper and more potent than ever.

We are asking young people to abstain in a culture that is hardly ''drug
free.'' At a time in our children's lives when they're most amenable to
taking risks, we not only insist that they decline, but we also offer no
practical information for those 80% of 12th-graders who say ''maybe,''
''sometimes'' or ''yes'' to alcohol and other drugs.

Prevention is better approach

Parents are terrified that a reality-based, safety-oriented discussion of
drugs will lead to experimentation. But the door already is open, just as
it is to sexual activity. Our goal ought to be drug-abuse prevention.
Teenagers who are determined to experiment need to know which drugs pose
the most risks; that mixing certain substances can be deadly; and that
driving while under any influence must be avoided.

Young people need comprehensive information that they trust. With
science-based knowledge, they will be in a better position to make reasoned
decisions. Abstinence continues to be our preference, but the promotion of
safety must be our bottom line, just as has been the case with sex education.

Marsha Rosenbaum directs the San Francisco office of The Lindesmith
Center-Drug Policy Foundation.