Answer:
Option A, true
Explanation:
Though various studies continue to debate the efficacy of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) programs, the current consensus is that these programs were ineffective in the long-term at substantially reducing substance abuse (and use in general) among adolescents, though short-term effects were demonstrated.
Among other theories, it is speculated that D.A.R.E failed because rather than striking fear in young and impressionable teens, they were able to see through how exaggerated the presentations about certain substances (legal and illicit) were, some of which was disputed and factually incorrect propaganda. For example, early curriculum stated marijuana did not have any medical benefits; meanwhile modern medicine explores the ability of cannabis products to reduce anxiety, reduce pain in patients with cancers, and reduce seizure episodes. Further, rebellion and defiance, it can be argued, are marked characteristics of the teenager years, and the D.A.R.E program potentially introduced them to which substances could achieve that exact goal, and how. In this regard, the D.A.R.E program was seemingly counterproductive.
However, this does not mean anti-drug campaigns like the old D.A.R.E program are destined to fail for these reasons. Rather, programs focused on harm reduction -- which acknowledge that the pressure to use substances may be heavy for various reasons and emphasize safe usage rather than abstinence -- may prove more effective.
These alternative program strategies, though, are yet to be implemented. Until then, the research shows that the D.A.R.E program was indeed an ineffective strategy to reduce drug abuse so the given statement is true, option A.