Efforts to educate people about the risks of substance abuse seem to deter some people from using dangerous substances, if such efforts are realistic about what is genuinely dangerous and what is not. Observed declines in the use of such drugs as LSD, PCP, and Quaaludes since the early 1970s are probably related to increased awareness of the risks of their use, and some of this awareness was file result of warnings about these drugs in 'underground' papers read by drug users. Such sources are influential, because they do not give a simple 'all drugs are terrible for you' message. Drug users know there are big variations in danger among drugs and anti-drag education that ignores or denies this is likely to be ridiculed. This is illustrated by the popularity among young marijuana users of Reefer Madness, a widely unrealistic propaganda film against marijuana made in the 1930s. This film made the rounds of college campuses in the 1970s and joined rock-music videos oncabletdevision'sMTVinthel980s. Instead of deterring marijuana, it became a cult film among users , many of whom got high to watch it. Although persuasion can work for some people if it is balanced and reasonable, other people seem immune to the most reasoned educational efforts. Millions have started smoking even though the considerable health risks of smoking have been well known and publicized for years. Moreover, the usefulness of education lies in primary prevention: prevention of abuse among those who presently have no problem. Hence, Bomier's (1978) contention that 'if the Pepsi generation can be persuaded to drink pop wine, they can be persuaded not to drink it while driving' is probably not correct, since most drunken driving is done by people who already have significant drinking problems, and hence seem not to be dissuaded even by much stronger measures such as loss of a driver's license. According to the passage, up to now, anti-drag education ______