Editing Narconon (section)

===Cecchini/Lennox study===
In 2008, Narconon executive Marie Cecchini published, with Richard Lennox, a paper that claimed to show that the Narconon educational program reduced drug use among youths.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Richard Lennox |author2=Marie Cecchini |year=2008 |title=The NARCONON™ drug education curriculum for high school students: A non-randomized, controlled prevention trial |journal=Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy |volume=3 |pages=8 |doi=10.1186/1747-597X-3-8 |pmc=2330037 |pmid=18348735 |doi-access=free }} The peer-reviewed paper, published in the journal ''Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy'', presented the findings of a research study conducted with approximately 1,000 Oklahoma and Hawaii high school students to test Narconon's high-school curriculum efficacy. They evaluated students using the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Participant Outcome Measures for Discretionary Programs survey at three time periods: baseline, one month later, and six-month follow-up. Schools assigned to experimental conditions scheduled the Narconon curriculum between the baseline and one-month follow-up test; schools in control conditions received drug education after the six-month follow-up. The study concluded that at six-month follow-up, youths who received the Narconon drug education curriculum showed reduced drug use compared with controls across all drug categories tested; that the strongest effects were seen in all tobacco products and cigarette frequency followed by marijuana; that there were significant reductions measured for alcohol and amphetamines; that the program produced changes in knowledge, attitudes and perception of risk; and that the eight-module Narconon curriculum had thorough grounding in substance abuse aetiology and prevention theory, and reduced drug use among youths.</ref> However, the study was funded by Narconon's parent organisation, ABLE,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/954/188/2007-954188814-04877c2f-9.pdf |title=Tax declaration ABLE 2007 |date=August 2008 |page=37 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191230182246/https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2007/954/188/2007-954188814-04877c2f-9.pdf |archive-date=30 December 2019 |url-status=live |access-date=1 February 2012 |quote=ABLE funded a multi-year study of the delivery of the Narconon drug Education curriculum to high school students in Hawaii and Oklahoma, which was completed and written up in 2007. }} [http://thilo.tjps.eu/doc/2007-954188814-04877c2f-9.pdf Alt URL]{{Dead link|date=December 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Beit-Hallahmi|first=Benjamin|title=Scientology: Religion or racket?|journal=Marburg Journal of Religion|date=1 September 2003|volume=8|issue=1|url=http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/mjr/beit.html|access-date=5 September 2012|quote=For Scientology, using fronts is one way of obtaining funds from government and charity sources (Mallia, 1998c). ... The so-called drug rehabilitation program known as Narconon has been an incredibly profitable front through federal grants and corporate donations (Mallia, 1998c). Fronts may help one another look respectable and make more money. Thus, the Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE) may come out in support of Narconon}}</ref> and subsequent correspondence in the same journal asserted that the study's conclusions were contradicted by its own data: that the control group "were more likely to resist pressures to take drugs" than the Narconon group.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Catt |first=David |title=Further request for clarification |journal=Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy |date=11 June 2008 |volume=3 |issue=8 |pages=8 |doi=10.1186/1747-597X-3-8 |pmid=18348735 |pmc=2330037 |quote=In Table 9, item D22 shows that a greater percentage of the control group feel they can easily resist pressures to take drugs than the drug education group (78.8% compared with 74.5%). The text on page 11 of the report states that "students who received the curriculum were more likely to say they could resist pressures to use drugs than those who did not receive the program". Could I ask the authors to account for this seeming contradiction? |doi-access=free }}</ref>