Is This Awareness — or Selective Silence?……………Are We Listening to Experts — or Only Repeating Slogans?
Umair bin Ashraf/Peerzada Masarat Shah
Across Jammu and Kashmir, the call for a “drug-free society” has become highly visible. Rallies, slogans, padyatras, and institutional participation have created an atmosphere of urgency. Streets are filled, messages are repeated, and the intent appears strong. Yet, when examined beyond the surface, a different picture begins to emerge—one where visibility is high, but depth, direction, and measurable impact remain uncertain. Visibility, in this context, risks becoming a substitute for effectiveness.
On the same day as one such large-scale rally, thousands of students were scheduled to appear for the NEET examination. These examinations represent a decisive moment in a student’s life, requiring not only academic preparation but psychological stability. Students prepare for months, often years, and on the day of the exam, even small disruptions can significantly affect performance. Many leave early to manage anxiety, regulate physiological stress responses, and enter the examination environment with cognitive clarity. However, due to road restrictions and movement disruptions linked to the rally, several faced delays, confusion, and heightened stress. This overlap reflects not merely a logistical lapse, but a systemic disconnect—where one arm of governance attempts to protect youth while another unintentionally undermines them.
From a psychological perspective, this pattern reflects obedience to authority. Individuals and institutions often align with directives not purely out of internal agreement, but due to social conditioning, perceived obligation, and the discomfort associated with dissent. Over time, participation becomes normalized, while questioning becomes invisible. This produces a collective image of unity that is rarely examined. What appears as consensus may, in reality, be compliance operating under structural pressure.
This dynamic becomes more concerning when one examines the selectivity of the current narrative. Illicit drugs are strongly highlighted, and rightly so. However, substances such as alcohol and tobacco—both extensively documented to produce neurobiological and behavioral harm—remain comparatively under-discussed. Alcohol, for instance, disrupts inhibitory control through GABAergic modulation, impairs executive functioning in the prefrontal cortex, alters reward processing, and contributes to long-term psychiatric and neurological conditions. Despite this, it continues to be socially normalized and less aggressively targeted in public discourse.
This selective emphasis produces cognitive dissonance. When a society is repeatedly told it is moving toward a “drug-free” future while certain harmful substances remain normalized, the internal consistency of the message breaks down. Young people, who are particularly sensitive to contradiction, begin to question not only the message but the intent behind it. Over time, this weakens the credibility of awareness efforts and reduces their psychological impact.
The structure of these campaigns further limits their effectiveness. Public demonstrations, slogan-based messaging, and symbolic participation may generate attention, but they rarely translate into behavioral change. Addiction is not fundamentally a problem of awareness. It is driven by complex interactions between neurobiology, environment, and psychological states. Reward circuitry reinforcement, chronic stress exposure, trauma, unemployment, and identity-related struggles all contribute to substance use patterns. These are not factors that can be addressed through repetition of slogans.
In consultations and discussions with psychologists, psychiatrists, medical practitioners, and behavioral analysts, a consistent observation emerges. While these campaigns may sensitize a section of the population—particularly those already distant from substance use—a larger and more vulnerable segment remains untouched. Individuals already struggling with dependence, those embedded in high-risk environments, and those lacking access to mental health support do not benefit meaningfully from surface-level awareness. Experts collectively emphasize that without structured psychological services, early detection systems, and accessible rehabilitation pathways, such efforts remain partial and insufficient.
A critical gap lies in infrastructure. Awareness without availability of treatment creates a psychological dead-end. Individuals who recognize a problem often do not know where to go next. The absence of integrated mental health services, limited presence of trained psychologists in primary care, and lack of community-level intervention frameworks mean that awareness does not convert into recovery. In such conditions, campaigns risk increasing recognition without offering resolution.
There is also a risk of unintended desensitization. When the same messages are repeated frequently without corresponding change in ground reality, individuals gradually disengage. The slogans lose emotional weight. The campaigns become routine. What initially aimed to sensitize begins to normalize itself as background activity—visible, but no longer impactful.
Another critical dimension is social modeling. Human behavior is shaped not only by instruction, but by observation of outcomes. When illegal activities appear to provide rapid financial gain or visible status, they begin to hold psychological appeal, particularly in environments where legitimate opportunities are limited. Social learning mechanisms reinforce these patterns. Without addressing unemployment, lack of structured engagement, and economic vulnerability, awareness campaigns operate in isolation from the conditions that sustain the problem.
The role of enforcement also requires examination. Inconsistent or selective enforcement can unintentionally reinforce perceptions that certain behaviors are tolerated while others are targeted. This further complicates public perception and contributes to skepticism. Effective intervention requires consistency—not only in messaging, but in action.
Trust, once affected, is difficult to restore. Governance is evaluated not only by its stated objectives, but by the alignment between policy, execution, and lived experience. When initiatives aimed at public welfare disrupt critical events such as national-level examinations, it signals a gap in coordination. When narratives appear selective, it signals a gap in transparency. Over time, these gaps accumulate, leading to reduced confidence in even well-intentioned efforts.
The goal of reducing substance use remains essential. However, its pursuit requires a shift from symbolic action to structural reform. This includes integrating mental health professionals into primary healthcare, establishing accessible and affordable rehabilitation systems, implementing early intervention programs in schools and colleges, and ensuring that awareness is supported by clear pathways for help and recovery.
Equally important is narrative consistency. Addressing all harmful substances with equal honesty, rather than selectively amplifying some while minimizing others, is essential for maintaining credibility. Public messaging must reflect scientific understanding, not just administrative focus.
Without these changes, the current approach risks remaining fragmented. One segment of the population becomes aware, while another—often more vulnerable—remains unsupported. The campaigns continue, the visibility increases, but the underlying issue persists with minimal structural change.
The question, therefore, is no longer whether action is being taken. It is whether that action is comprehensive, evidence-based, and aligned with the realities on the ground. Whether it is reaching those who need it most. And whether it is guided by expertise—or overshadowed by repetition.
