Absolutely, addiction prevention would be the best for everyone. However, this is easier said than done. Parents have been trying everything for years to prevent their children from experimenting with drugs. They have used the scare technique, punishment, etc., etc., etc.. The techniques do not appear to be effective for a large number of kids. As long as we have drug sellers we are going to have users. And some of these users may quickly become addicts. We must keep trying, however; and starting at the family level is the right approach, in my opinion. The breakdown of the traditional family has had detrimental consequences, I believe.

To the previous poster: I disagree, this study includes alcohol and parents are NOT doing what they can to prevent it's use. Half of alcohol given to kids is from their parents. Alcohol is the #1 gateway drug to other hard drugs. If we center on alcohol use prevention then we can make a difference accross the board. But the reality is that we are doing little to get the message out that alcohol is even a drug. The "drug sellers" in alcohol have free reign to advertise their drug products as "socially acceptable" and also are not required to label their drug products.

As an trained, professional addiction counselor, we better start pumping more money into prevention: It is the key to getting a handle on the growing substance abuse problem in the USA. Treatment is good, and so is recovery for those who make it through treatment. But unless we impact social norms that queue kids that drinking and drugging is "OK" in moderation, we are fighting an uphill battle that never will be won. This article may turn a few taxpayers heads -- hopefully politicians will respond to their constituents by coughing up money for school-based substance abuse counselors who can intervene in elementary and middle schools, after which the message of abstinence gets lost on the student population.

Prevention is one good way and the other is to hold juveniles accountable quickly and fairly for their actions so they can realize the consequences of their actions. Right now, even when they are caught by the police, it seems that the prosecution takes so long that by the time the juvinile goes to court, its almost as though thy forgot what they did and all that they worry about is settling the case against them.

Sadly, the "drug sellers" are all of us. Take a day and listen to all the socially acceptable ads encouraging drinking and pushing pharmacueticals. "Legal" drugs are what are children are exposed to first. Tailgating and sports events, St. Patty's day .. kids aren't fooled by our hypocracy! Society's mixed messages lend to the failure of prevention campaigns.

As a person who works in prevention this is helpful news. However, I found that this is not new information and this study was released in 2002. The same figure of $119,633 savings was stated there, so I would think in our current economic times the amount couldn't be the same as in 2002. I hope that this article is correct and up to date and not just bringing out an old study. The idea of the savings is extremely relevant, we just need the numbers to be accurate.

With this article comes a link to NREPP, a "searchable database of evidence-based interventions...", purportedly to include prevention of substance abuse by our highest risk population--18 to 25 year old young adults. If you look for evidence-based prevention at the primary level, however, the pickings are slim. College and university prevention professionals get no guidance from this source, meanwhile university presidents are signing on to lower the drinking age. Where are the money saving, harm reducing programs that have been researched and will help at that level?

There is a good video posted on The Behavioral Health Center website for resources for teens. It's free to watch and inexpensive to use. I like it that it can be replicated. http://bhcjournal.com/Resources/GroupSessions/tabid/306/Default.aspx

A study done by Penn State in March of 2008 showed the economic ROI in research-based programs. The Center found that Pennsylvania will benefit a potential $16 million return on investment for its implementation of Botvin LifeSkills Training. According to the report, the low cost and wide reach of this highly effective program yields a return on investment of more than $25 for each dollar invested.

I work in Prevention for a small non-profit treatment facility, and I go into schools to teach prevention life skills and run support groups for kids who are dealing with someone else's substance abuse. I started this job when my own kids were 3,5,and 7 years of age, so they grew up listening to me talk at the dinner table about what I taught that day and interesting comments that some of the kids in my classes made. When they all got to be in high school and exposed to a lot of substances, I took the opportunity to talk to each of them individually and ask them what kept them d/a free (which they were), and their responses all were "You, Mom. How could we mess around with drugs or alcohol when you are in our lives, walking your walk and talking your talk? Thanks, Mom." Are parents important? YESYESYES!! Now if we can get them to believe it, we will be golden.

The more I learn about addiction, the more I learn that the best investment that we can do is prevention. Additionally taking in consideration that the cost of rehabilitation, and the situation that an individual ends up, with out employment, with out insurance, and some times with out family or social support. Make almost impossible to access a good treatment. That is why I call the point of no return. Sadly enough, it is a reality check. Teaching parents, teaching teachers. Teaching to medical providers how to do brief interventions on patients with risk to become dependents. And teaching kids and adolescents how to cope with the every day life circumstances Letting them know that now body expect from a human creature to be perfect. That is making a difference and every hour that we expend in prevention will save days of rehab.

Keep in mind that in order for a program to be effective, the parents/youth need to be engaged in the program. Does the program take place in the school as a universal program, or is it a voluntary evening program that requires recruitment. I'm saying take note of who is at the table and are we reaching all families, for instance, in a certain grade level. Also, is the program a one time deal for a group of parents/youth or is it built upon several years with the same group ? I'm reflecting on the Northland Project, a three year program (5-8 sessions per year). In my mind a critical component of model or evidence based programs would be the parental involvement part. Reaching the parents in mindset and behavior change has a longer lasting effect as kids graduate and move out of the area generally. Parents continue to be members of the community at large, contributing to apathy/denial or supportive of youth substance prevention efforts. Parents (and other adult sector messages) have a HUGE impact, whether negative or positive, in the formation of youth values/attitudes/ideas.

We need to start earlier with children and their parents to educate them that this is indeed a health issue, more than a moral issue. The impact of drugs and alcohol on the brain at a young age is profound. In addition, those families that have genetic predisposition to addiction also need to understand and communicate and teach their children how much this will impact them. Delay of onset of use is major in both brain development and family genetics. I believe this information can have a major impact on children and parents if we come at it earlier from this perspective and take away the "moral judgement" of good or bad parents and children.