Which intervention can be effective in reducing substance use among at-risk youth?

Which intervention can be effective in reducing substance use among at-risk youth?

• A. Restrictive policies
• B. Life skills training
• C. Increased surveillance
• D. Peer pressure techniques

Answer: (B)

Life skills training is effective in reducing substance use among at-risk youth because it equips individuals with essential skills necessary to navigate challenges and resist engaging in risky behaviors, such as substance use. This type of training often includes components that foster self-awareness, effective decision-making, problem-solving abilities, and emotional regulation. By developing these skills, youth can better manage their relationships, handle stress, and make informed choices, ultimately reducing the likelihood of turning to substances as a coping mechanism. In contrast, restrictive policies might limit access to substances, but they do not necessarily address the underlying factors that lead youth to use substances. Increased surveillance can create an uncomfortable environment and may not promote positive behavior change; it could instead breed resentment and rebellion among youth. Peer pressure techniques may inadvertently encourage experimentation with substances rather than discourage it, as they often emphasize conformity to peer behaviors, which can include substance use rather than fostering a positive choice framework.

Life skills training is effective in reducing substance use among at-risk youth because it equips individuals with essential skills necessary to navigate challenges and resist engaging in risky behaviors, such as substance use. This type of training often includes components that foster self-awareness, effective decision-making, problem-solving abilities, and emotional regulation. By developing these skills, youth can better manage their relationships, handle stress, and make informed choices, ultimately reducing the likelihood of turning to substances as a coping mechanism.

In contrast, restrictive policies might limit access to substances, but they do not necessarily address the underlying factors that lead youth to use substances. Increased surveillance can create an uncomfortable environment and may not promote positive behavior change; it could instead breed resentment and rebellion among youth. Peer pressure techniques may inadvertently encourage experimentation with substances rather than discourage it, as they often emphasize conformity to peer behaviors, which can include substance use rather than fostering a positive choice framework.