Drug testing and you...

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This is a rediculous arguement.

If the schools do it, it will be the schools paying for it. This is again another waste of money placed on the school system because parents are lazy more often these days than in the past.

If parents feel the need to drug test their kids, then let them do it. The school is paid by government money and run as a government function.

This would entail that it is an extention of such and would make complete drug testing wrong regardless of parental consent or not.

I am a parent who is tired of lazy kids being raised by lazy parents. Get a grip, do your job, and stop letting society rule your house, schools, and your kids lives.

Exactly. If you can't tell that your own kid is a coke addict, then you need to blame yourself rather than school systems. It should be up to parents...they can drug test their kids if they feel it is necessary, although I would never do it.

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.

Understand Venus that I am no boy.

I am a father of two boys which I hold to be two of my most prized people in my life.

I want them to go to school to learn. I want education money to go to that.

I seek to improve the community, which will curtail the drug problem.

I seek to improve families, which will curtail the drug problem.

I seek to attack the source rather than the effect. By attacking the effect, we have an astrinomical amount of drug offenders in prison yet no change in the drug situation.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

I seek to improve the community, which will curtail the drug problem.
I seek to improve families, which will curtail the drug problem.
I seek to attack the source rather than the effect.

What are you actively doing to help any of these situations?

By attacking the effect, we have an astrinomical amount of drug offenders in prison yet no change in the drug situation.

There ya go............maybe we need to do a little more to educate the youth of today instead of crying about losing some "imaginary" right to privacy. How much privacy do you think inmates have? How many of them do you think wish they had the threat of drug testing when they were first starting off with this lifestyle?

I'm sure all of us love our children and want to protect them from anything we humanly can. Sometimes that just isn't enough to keep them clean. We need our schools involved.

Originally posted by Venus
Originally posted by KrazyJethro

I seek to improve the community, which will curtail the drug problem.
I seek to improve families, which will curtail the drug problem.
I seek to attack the source rather than the effect.

What are you actively doing to help any of these situations?

By attacking the effect, we have an astrinomical amount of drug offenders in prison yet no change in the drug situation.

There ya go............maybe we need to do a little more to educate the youth of today instead of crying about losing some "imaginary" right to privacy. How much privacy do you think inmates have? How many of them do you think wish they had the threat of drug testing when they were first starting off with this lifestyle?

I'm sure all of us love our children and want to protect them from anything we humanly can. Sometimes that just isn't enough to keep them clean. We need our schools involved.

You speak to educate the children as to the danger and rigors of drug use. I agree with you, but drug testing does nothing in the educational department. I am a big proponant of education, which I would agree, would fit into the schools role.

This would entail the extent of their "involvement". Drug testing should be on a case by case basis, and should only be done by parents.

As for what am I doing, I involve myself in the community as best I can. I help those who I see in need. I am unable to do more at the moment, but await a time when my finances allow me more wiggle room.

Sure, sometimes love and guildance is not enough to keep kids clean, and at that point nothing will.

I do not care about kids "right to privacy", but I think that there is a gross underestimation of kids, in that not all kids are bad and/or drug users. It is rediculous to drug test all kids because of a few.

I do believe it is along the same lines as breathalizers in everyones cars to reduce drunk driving. It is an overextention of governmental responcibilities. I do agree that offenders should have them for a period of time, but not everyone.

It is not right to punish the masses for a few lawbreakers. That is not the American way.

See now breathalizers in the cars....that's a little severe. But if that will cut down on the amout of DUI's and deaths............move over and let me blow. (stop laughing....you know what I meant) I have no fear of this....I have nothing to hide....my car will start! Give me a cup to pee in....I love NEGATIVE test results. Let them write that all over my public record. When you have nothing to hide.....there is NO FEAR

It's been nice debating with you KJ...........but I'm getting a headache

What then, if a student fails a drug test but has never used drugs? Urine tests are well known for giving false positives if the person has eaten certain foods, or taken certain legal medications. I think it would also be very disruptive to learning..a student is in the middle of a class, and someone walks in to get them for a random drug test.

I agree with KrazyJethro...you have to focus on COMMUNITY and FAMILY issues first, and that will improve abuse. Moral values need to be upheld, kids need to be set on the right track..starting random drug tests MIGHT deter some kids from using drugs out of FEAR. It is not them making their own decision to stay away from drugs, this isn't going to stop anything in the long run. And school isn't a place that should invoke fear in anybody.

If someone tried marijuana at a party ONCE and was drug tested and forced into some rehab program, do you think they would deserve it? If this is true, then there are about 97 MILLION or more people in this country who should have to go to rehab for trying marijuana...this is getting into a different issue.

I would like to hear your responses to all of the above, if you can manage it.

Here is a very similar situation:

The U.S. Supreme Court decided November 28, 2000 that an Indianapolis Police practice of using roadblocks to check cars for illegal drugs using drug-sniffing dogs violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. Their decision is an excellent small victory for those who believe the War on Drugs has been used to justify a chilling erosion of rights in the United States over the last 30 years.

In a 6 to 3 ruling, with the arch-conservatives Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting, Justice O'Connor, writing for the top US court, said "We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime."

www.erowid.org...

...My wife recently moved to Arizona to start her 'Dream Job' (offered in July) and was given the standard pre-employment physical at a local hospital. She was given no warnings of what NOT to eat, and I believe was not even asked what she had recently eaten. She ate two poppy seed muffins that morning and registered a positive morphine level on their drug test that afternoon. She was fired because she was a 'drug abuser'....

The NIDA 5
Federal government guidelines (by NIDA-The National Institute on Drug Abuse and SAMHSA-The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) require that companies which use commercial class drivers licenses for employees must have a testing system in place. Among other things, this required testing program must test for 5 specific categories of drugs (sometimes referred to as the "NIDA 5"). Because of this federal requirement, most drug testing companies offer a basic drug test which checks for drugs in these 5 common categories.


Cannabinoids (marijuana, hash)
Cocaine (coc aine, crack, benzoylecognine)
Amphetamines (amphetamines, methamphetamines, speed)
Opiates (heroin, opium, codeine, morphine)
Phencyclidine (PCP)

.....

LEGAL Products which can cause false positives:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Ibuprofen; (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Excedrin IB etc)
Naproxen (Aleve)
Ketoprofen (Orudis KT)
Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan)
Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil)
Kidney infection (Kidney disease, diabetes) Liver Disease
Dronabinol (Marinol)
Amoxicillin
Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, propylephedrine, phenylephrine, or desoxyephedrine
(Nyquil, Contact, Sudafed, Allerest, Tavist-D, Dimetapp, etc)
Phenegan-D, Robitussin Cold and Flu, Vicks Nyquil
Over-the-counter diet aids with phenylpropanolamine (Dexatrim, Accutrim)
Over-the-counter nasal sprays (Vicks inhaler, Afrin)
Asthma medications (Marax, Bronkaid tablets, Primatine Tablets)
Prescription medications (Adderall, Amfepramone, Cathne, Etafediabe, Morazone,
...phendimetrazine, phenmetrazine, benzphetamine, fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine,
...dexdenfluramine,Redux, mephentermine, Mesocarb, methoxyphenamine, phentermine,
... amineptine, Pholedrine, hydroymethamphetamine, Dexedrine, amifepramone, clobenzorex,
...fenproyorex, mefenorex, fenelylline, Didrex, dextroamphetamine, methphenidate, Ritalin,
...pemoline, Cylert, selegiline, Deprenyl, Eldepryl, Famprofazone)
Kidney infection, kidney disease
Liver disease, diabetes
Poppy Seeds
Tylenol with codeine
Most prescription pain medications
Cough suppressants with Dextromethorphan (DXM)
Nyquil
Kidney infection, Kidney Disease
Diabetes, Liver Disease
Various Quinolones & Antibiotics

from erowid.org

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Shoktek]

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Shoktek]

According to the ACLU's report, the drug testing industry's promotion of "junk science," based on unsubstantiated claims and phantom research, has fueled the growth of employee drug testing since the mid-1980's. But respected scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences have looked at the record and found little support for most of the drug testing industry's claims.

"We have always believed drug testing of unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," said ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either."

Among the report's findings:


-"Lost productivity" studies claiming that drug users cost businesses up to $100 billion each year are based on dubious comparisons of household drug use and income, with no analysis of actual productivity data;

-The moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours is no more likely to compromise workplace safety than moderate off-duty alcohol use;

-A recent survey of 63 Silicon Valley companies found that urine testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity.

from aclu.org

Let me start by saying "I do respect your PASSION"

Here's the deal..............all the info you posted is all well and good AND I'm sure we could keep going round and round but I think you are trying so hard to defend your position (I know how that is too) that you are overlooking the point. I understand your fear (for lack of a better word) of losing your fundamental constitutional rights...........but it isn't about that. It's about trying to stop a problem before it starts. I love my son and I believe I am doing my best to protect him from something I know first hand about. I also want to see other peoples children protected from something so evil, if you haven't lived it, you could never understand. I certainly don't want to see anyones privacy invaded or anyone humiliated. This testing is NOT MANDATORY and parents can opt-out if they don't want their child tested.

From my experience on this board I have found that most people with your outlook think I have a problem with weed and that that is the drug I am talking about....it's not. I fight against hard drug use/abuse.

Hope you understand and if you want to debate the "testing in general" subject....I'll be there! As for this topic.....I am "opting-out"

well, I think hard illegal drug usage (not weed) isn't that common of a problem for teenagers...and the extra effort wouldnt really be worth the money. If you look at the number one "drug" responsible for killing teenagers (and anyone), it is alcohol. anyway, I guess if it is up to the parents that is their decision...but I was under the impression that it was required for all students, or all participants in extra curricular activities/sports, or something like that.

Venus, love ya, but I can not sit by and watch the school system denigrate into ineffectiveness, yet approve of another task for them to manage.

The school system is not broken, it is a broken money well. A black hole if you will.

Sure, parents can "opt out" but who pays for this? They do. It is not only rediculous to ask some parents to pay for what they do not want. Some parents raise good kids, but get the negative downfall for those who are degenerate.

This is not a prevention issue, because the test can not test intent, but rather former action.

This is another overextention of resources not directly related to education in the least.