Drug prevention in a community setting: A longitudinal study of the relative effectiveness of a three-year primary prevention program in boys & girls clubs across the nation

Tested the effectiveness of a youth drug prevention program in a community setting. Boys & Girls Clubs of America's Stay SMART program, adapted from a school-based personal and social competence drug prevention program, was offered, with and without a 2-year booster program, to 13-year-old members of Boys & Girls Clubs. Over 27 months, (a) 5 Boys & Girls Clubs offered the Stay SMART program, (b) 5 Boys & Girls Clubs offered the Stay SMART program with the booster programs, and (c) 4 Boys & Girls Clubs served as a control group. The Stay SMART program alone and the Stay SMART program with the booster programs showed effects for marijuana-related behavior, cigarette-related behavior, alcohol-related behavior, overall drug-related behavior, and knowledge concerning drug use. The Stay SMART program with the booster programs produced additional effects for alcohol attitudes and marijuana attitudes after each year of booster programs. Results suggest that a school-based personal and social competence program can be adapted effectively to a community setting and that booster programs might enhance program effects. Implications for alternative community models of prevention are discussed. At the time of the study, the parent organization was Boys Clubs of America.This research was supported by a grant from the Office for Substance Abuse Prevention, ADAMHA, Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services, Grant No. 1 H84 AD 00903-01.     

Bothsiderism

This paper offers an account of a fallacy we will call bothsiderism, which is to mistake disagreement on an issue for evidence that either a compromise on, suspension of judgment regarding, or continued discussion of the issue is in order. Our view is that this is a fallacy of a unique and heretofore untheorized type, a fallacy of meta-argumentation. The paper develops as follows. After a brief introduction, we examine a recent bothsiderist case in American politics. We use this as a pivot point to survey the theoretical literature on the fallacy. The most prominent theory is that bothsiderism is a case of dialogue-shifting. This view fails, we maintain, to explain how bothsiderism might be persuasive. We argue, rather, bothsiderism is a kind of meta-argumentative fallacy.