The Hungarian Police have launched a new drug prevention campaign in schools. Drugreporter’s position is that police-led prevention based on outdated ideas and scare tactics has no place in our classrooms.
Introduction
In August 2025, the Hungarian National Police Headquarters launched a new police-run drug-prevention program (named “RedP”). The program’s approach and methodology are outdated: based on one-way information delivery, deterrence and shock tactics. The result is not effectiveness, but rather actual harm. This police-led drug prevention campaign fits into the government’s “war on drugs,” launched in March 2025 with the declared goal of making Hungary drug-free. This goal is completely utopian and misguided. Instead of pursuing this, the government should develop a new national drug strategy (the previous one expired in 2021) in cooperation with civil society, and make substantial resources available for modern prevention and harm reduction.
Below is a brief analysis of RedP, the police-led drug prevention campaign in Hungary.
What is the RedP?
The RedP-program (the “Police Drug Prevention Program”) was officially announced in August 2025 by the ORFK, with the declared goal “to contribute to a drug-free future for young people.” According to the ORFK description: it includes interactive sessions, trainings for parents and teachers, workshops, and social-media presence, emphasizing awareness, healthy lifestyle and community responsibility. However, the model is fundamentally developed and executed by the police, with sessions almost entirely led by police officers based on their internal training system.
Is it really “new”?
Although it carries a fresh name, in neither its mindset nor its methods can the RedP be considered a genuine renewal. Its predecessor, the DADA program (Tobacco–Alcohol–Drugs–AIDS), launched in the late 1990s by the police as a school-based crime and drug-prevention scheme in Hungary (based on the American D.A.R.E. program), is very much the same model: frontal lectures, deterrent examples, legal consequences explained, and moralizing messages.
RedP essentially replicates the same long-expired product, re-packaged under a new label.
Why is it problematic when the police provide prevention?
The core role of the police is law-enforcement and legal consequences; whereas drug prevention relies on trust-building, understanding, psychological support and skill development—skills that require entirely different competencies. Even a well-intentioned police officer who attended a short training cannot substitute for a seasoned specialist in terms of competence or trust-building.
Moreover, young people often distrust authority figures; they are less likely to speak honestly about their experiences, questions or fears. This makes genuine dialogue impossible and can even put them at risk, rather than protect them.
According to media reports, during a presentation a police officer asked young people to raise their hand if they have ever tried drugs. Fortunately, not a single student raised their hand — and for good reason. In Hungary, the police have no discretionary power: if they detect a suspected drug-related offence, they are legally required to initiate proceedings. On top of that, there could also be consequences at school if it became known that someone had used drugs. Not to mention the presence of journalists in the room. This cannot be considered a safe environment where young people can speak openly and honestly about their experiences. In fact, the question itself can put them at risk, which makes it harmful.
Why are scare-tactics ineffective?
Deterrent stories can produce strong emotional reactions, but they do not change behaviour. Worse: they can backfire. Because an adolescent brain tends to seek risk and think “that won’t happen to me,” they often regard exaggerated, horrorist examples as unrealistic. If the story is too dramatic, listeners respond psychologically with denial, distancing, or simple inattention. A campaign that uses fear but offers no real alternative or coping strategies may stir anxiety but gives no tool for decision-making.
Research into programs such as DARE, Scared Straight or “Faces of Meth” shows that fear-based campaigns may increase stigma, reduce empathy, and undermine communication—resulting in an audience that rejects the message altogether.
Example: Why Kristina’s story doesn’t work
During the police campaign, a film is shown about a 23-year-old named Kristina: her story depicted how a seemingly “normal” young person’s marijuana use escalated into drug addiction, a police raid and years in prison. The intention was scare-tactic; but it fails for two reasons. First: it’s unrealistic (most cases do not escalate in this way). Second: it ignores background factors— what childhood experiences shaped her relationship with drugs? How was she functioning, how did she feel in her family, school? What supports were missing? By presenting it as “just one bad decision,” she becomes a fatalistic example: the viewer only understands “one wrong move and your life is ruined.” This is demotivating—not empowering. The narrative doesn’t build coping skills or self-efficacy; instead it triggers shame and mistrust, obstructing both honest conversation and help-seeking.
Why showing shocking images doesn’t help
Police claim shock-images are not their goal—yet they do use them, including dead bodies, sexual assault victims, young people drowned in rivers. The aim: provoke outrage, disgust, fear, then condition future avoidance of drugs. Yet scientific research shows such images might induce emotional reaction in the short term—but they do not lead to sustained behavioral change. Among the most at-risk youth, it can lead to disengagement (“that’s too extreme, that’s not me”), or cynicism (“this is propaganda”). They often ignore the complex psychological or social causes of substance use, and the campaign ends up stigmatizing users, reducing empathy and even desensitizing people to police brutality. This is socially harmful, because stigma and shame are among the main barriers to seeking help.
Entertaining – but is it effective?
In defense of these types of campaigns, the police often argue that “they are very popular.” And indeed, if you ask parents or teachers, this is usually what they expect from drug prevention: to shock and to scare. Young people themselves also often enjoy intense visual stimuli and shocking images. However, the goal of prevention is not for students to have a good time or to rate the presenter positively, but to reduce risky behaviour. Research (e.g. on DARE) has shown that many failed programs were actually liked by young people — yet they were ineffective or even harmful.
A “good experience” is therefore a misleading indicator: an entertaining presentation can be useless, while less flashy but skill-building programs are the ones that truly work. These police-run “prevention” programs often serve more as self-justification and promotion for the police, and they expose young people to a form of ideological indoctrination, rather than providing genuine prevention.
So what is effective prevention?
At a May 16 2025 conference, Hungarian professional organisations agreed on the following minimum recommendations about the criteria of evidence-based drug prevention:
- It is part of a coherent, long-term strategy — not one-off events or campaigns.
- An health-promoting approach — not only “just say no.” It addresses mental health, relationships, coping, identity.
- Youth participation — interactive, dialogical, rooted in youths’ experiences.
- Adapted to the participants’ specific needs — age, background, risk factors. Not “one message for all.”
- For school prevention: embedded in the curriculum, regular, not isolated events.
- Multiple sessions, ongoing — not a single lecture. Includes feedback, practice, reinforcement.
- Evidence-based — grounded in scientific research. Integrates addiction-, psychology-, pedagogy-based knowledge.
- Interactive & skill-building — communication, decision-making, emotion regulation, resisting peer pressure. Youths actively participate, they are not passive listeners.
- Complex, covering a broad spectrum — not only illicit drugs; also alcohol, tobacco, behaviours, mental health.
- Avoids moralizing, fear-mongering — provides credible, balanced information; builds empathy and responsibility.
Conclusion
Drogriporter’s perspective: The police-led deterrence and punishment-oriented model cannot be either effective or just. It often causes greater harm than the drug-use itself—and it fails to eliminate or even prevent use. Instead of a simplistic “just say no” approach, prevention needs to build skills, trust, and meet youth where they are.
