Drug testing and you..., page 4

You are both just too damn funny! You almost pissed me off but then I thought to myself "These are boys you're dealing with....they don't know any better"

I agree this is a pointless arguement to continue especially since neither of you make any sense and just want to insult me............

I have a brilliant 12 year old son who had the priviledge of seeing first hand what drugs can do to a family so I'm not real worried about him abusing drugs or alcohol...he already knows what can happen. I will however support this bill and will continue to fight against hard drugs and ignorant people who think it's not a major problem today.

Random Pupil Drug Testing � some common misconceptions explained.
Random Pupil Drug Testing is non-punitive. One misconception comes from the mistaken association of pupil drug testing with law enforcement or the police. If a child is abusing drugs and that abuse is detected through RPDT, that child ends up in the educational or medical environment, getting the counselling and treatment he or she needs. Without Random Pupil Drug Testing, detection of drug abuse is likely to be delayed until they commit some drug-related crime or become so anti-social that they are unmanageable at home or school � or they end up in the morgue. Of course pro-drug advocates have tried to fight this, but testing has been upheld in the US Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Non- Punitive Pupil Drug Testing is not an infringement on the Constitutional Rights. No one claims it is a violation of motorists' civil rights to have speed cameras installed. Pupils are often checked for head lice. No one claims it is a violation of a child's civil rights to have their head checked for lice. Some schools require that the pupil be tested in order to participate in extracurricular activities, such as sports and clubs. RPDT is not a requirement to attend school.
Why does Random Pupil Drug Testing work? RPDT gives young people a reason to say "No" and enhances the possibility for early intervention. The knowledge that their drug abuse can and will be detected may prove stronger than the attraction of any drug. However, before implementing a drug-testing program, schools must make
sure appropriate resources are in place to deal with pupils who test positive. Conduct-related infractions involving drugs and violence would still be treated as punishable offences under existing disciplinary procedures.
Effectiveness of Random Pupil Drug Testing � the evidence. Recent evaluations done in the USA on schools that have implemented RPDT demonstrate that these programmes are highly effective:
Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey, USA implemented mandatory random drug testing for all student athletes in 1997. In 1999, a major decrease in drug abuse was observed. Between 1997 and 1999, there had been no changes in the school anti-drug program except the introduction of random testing. In the highest risk drug abuse category of "Multi-Drug Users", this was reduced as follows: 9th grade: 57% decrease; 10th grade: 100% decrease; 11th grade: 14% decrease and 12th grade: 52% decrease. In the State Indiana, USA, 94 High School principals that had adopted random drug testing policies in their schools were surveyed.
Respondents were asked to contrast substance abuse activity during the 1999 � 2000 school year when drug tests were first used, with the 2000 � 2001 school year when schools were not permitted to use random pupil drug testing due to a lower court decision, and then after 2002 when RPDT was formally approved. A disturbing 85% of the principals saw an increase in either drug or alcohol abuse, and 80% reported an increase in illicit drug abuse when drug testing was not used. When RPDT was not in place, 518 pupils were suspended or expelled for drug or alcohol related incidents, compared to 352 pupils for the year where RPDT was used.