Hitting close to home...

[Ryudo Lee]

A little background...

I'm from the New Orleans area, and I actually went to De La Salle high school.  I was there when they first implemented drug testing.  They did hair testing.  They did a whole big presentation on it, brought over one of the sheriff's aides to explain the process, and then told us all it was mandatory for the full student body the first time around, and then randomly after that.  Anyone who got caught was expelled.  Zero tolerance.  This was a good policy back in the day because I wasn't going to be the one getting caught.  In fact, it knocked out a good 3% of the student body, and the majority of that 3% were the ones who caused the most trouble.  That was my junior year.  My senior year was the most peaceful year of school I'd ever had... ever.

Now I get this in my e-mail.

Mar 7, 4:29 PM EST


Drug czar to visit N.O. school that drug-tests students

By BECKY BOHRER
Associated Press Writer

 

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- When De La Salle High School resumed drug testing after Hurricane Katrina, officials were surprised to find that 8 percent of the student body tested positive for marijuana or other illegal substances - the highest percentage at the Roman Catholic school since it began testing nine years ago.

Since then, the figure has dropped to under 3 percent, the principal says, a result that both she and the White House drug czar, who is set to visit the school Thursday, attribute to the constant threat of random drug testing.

"Doing drug testing is just like ordering the science books," principal Regina Hall said. "Again, it's like locking the door. You're doing what's right and safe."

Not everyone agrees: the ACLU considers testing constitutionally questionable, unproven deterrent and a waste of millions in federal dollars that would be better spent on other programs. And a local health care official who works with people with addiction and mental health issues questions testing young people already stressed - and, in some cases, self-medicating - after Katrina.

"You have a number of components we need to consider before blanket-applying this to children," said Jerome Gibbs, executive director of the Metropolitan Human Services District in New Orleans.

Currently, about 1,000 schools nationwide test students for drug use, and the number is rising, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The practice is encouraged by the Bush administration, which last year provided $8.6 million in grants to help public schools cover testing costs, office spokeswoman Heather Janik said.

White House drug czar John Walters said testing reduces the number of teens who use marijuana, methamphetamine, cocaine and other drugs and "gives them the perfect excuse to do the right thing."

As more teens in a school abstain, there is less pressure for other students to use drugs, he said.

A study, released in December by the University of Michigan and National Institute on Drug Abuse, found illegal drug use declined slightly from 2005 to 2006 among eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders surveyed at over 400 schools nationwide. It was a continuation of a trend that began in the mid-'90s, the study said.

But the study's lead investigator said it's "extremely unlikely" that testing contributed to the decline, since it's done at relatively few schools. Neither Walters' office nor the U.S. Department of Education could provide statistics on the effects of drug-testing programs in the roughly 360 schools that receive federal dollars through the department to help pay for the tests.

Nonetheless, Walters believe drug testing has been a "powerful deterrent" in the schools that have used it. Some school leaders agree.

"Students get so many mixed messages on the use of drugs and alcohol that when a school implements programs like this, there's no question what the message is," said Lisa Brady, former principal at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, N.J., which she said began testing student athletes in 1997 and has since expanded the program, after a court challenge, to include random urine tests of students in extracirriculars and who drive or park on campus.

"It creates a culture shift in the school," she said.

Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, isn't convinced. He questions the reliability of testing - hair tests, particularly - and said he would rather the money the government has set aside for drug testing be spent on after-school programs. Gibbs said a greater emphasis should be placed on curbing the trafficking of drugs into communities.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 cleared the way for public schools to test students in extracirricular activities. But De La Salle, a private school, has randomly tested all students since 1998. Parents pay an extra $50 a year to cover the cost, Hall said.

She attributes the spike in positive results during the second half of the 2005-06 school year to a more transient student population after Katrina and to testing having been suspended as officials focused on getting supplies and otherwise running the school. Numbers have dropped, she said, as testing has become routine again.

The results of the drug tests are kept confidential, are not given to law enforcement and do not stay on a student's record, she said.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

WTF is wrong with these ACLU retards?  Since when is drug testing NOT a good thing to do?  I find that it's not just for the peace of mind for parents but for the kids who were like me who don't want that stuff in their school!  Ms. Hall is doing the right thing by keeping the drug testing going.  It keeps out the bad elements and promotes a healthy learning environment.  Personally, when I was in high school, I didn't want that stuff around me.  I still don't.  When I have kids, they're going to learn to keep away from that stuff too.  The more a school helps, the better, I say!

Opinions?

[Kenji]

I didn't read the thing, too long for my tastes.. but I can say I don't see why a school would get rid of a drug test thing aside from it being too costly.
With such a high rate of so many students doing them, in comparison to such a big deal that the country makes over doing drugs, I couldn't see someone wanting to stop it.

However, if word gets out that a school dropped lots of students due to drug usage, it could make the school look bad, along with the community. And saving face is what the world's about.

[Reese Tora]

I can see the ACLU's reasoning behind thier oposition.

The question is not whether it s effective to have random drug testing; it is a question of whether it is right.

For the school in question, they are a private school, and they can do whatever they want so long as it is clear in the contract that they are charging an extra $50 a year for drug testing, and that your child will be subjected to it.

Personally, though I am not nor have I ever been a drug user, I would object to this, and even refuse, on the grounds that it is an invasion of privacy, and un warranted.  I would take my money elsewhere rather than pay them to do it.

I do not think that a public school should have the same priveleges as a private school, because they comes very close to violating the fourth ammendment reguarding illegal search and seizure.

I also wonder how much of a deterent this really is if the results are confidential and not kept on record.  I do not think being caught is an sort of deterent unless there is a suitable punishment for being caught, or a suitable reward for testing clean.  Since the article did not go in to what sort of action is taken if a student is caught, though, I can only guess.

[superluser]

They didn't sign up for school (that's why it's called compulsory education), so they can't just start testing people.  It would be like if I walked into your home and demanded that you take a drug test.  In the US, you can't search someone without a warrant.

Since the person (or her legal guardian) has no say in the matter...

...oh, wait.  This is a private high school?  Nevermind, they can do whatever they want.

[Valynth]

If you get mad about them testing some of your hairs for drugs, you might as well get mad at everyone who says you smoke because you smell like smoke.

Seriously, if you have nothing to hide, why the heck are you fighiting it?  It's NOT like bargeing into you home, all the people see is you hair, not the dozens of porn mags you have under the bed.

Afterall, whats the point of using our tax dollars to teach people whos brains are going to resemble mush in 15 years?

[Reese Tora]

If you get mad about them testing some of your hairs for drugs, you might as well get mad at everyone who says you smoke because you smell like smoke.

Seriously, if you have nothing to hide, why the heck are you fighitng it?  It's NOT like bargeing into you home, all the people see is you hair, not the dozens of porn mags you have under the bed.

For the same reason I would not want someone following me around while I am shopping or watching me while I sleep or am on the can.  For the same reason I would not want a police officer to pull me over when I am doing nothing wrong.  Invasion of privacy.  Time being wasted.  The money I paid them (taxes or tuition) being spent on this where it would be better spent on something useful to the entire school, like buying books for the library, upgrading the computer lab, or renovating older buildings on campus.

I can think of a million things the time and money can be better spent on.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

A study, released in December by the University of Michigan and National Institute on Drug Abuse, found illegal drug use declined slightly from 2005 to 2006 among eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders surveyed at over 400 schools nationwide. It was a continuation of a trend that began in the mid-'90s, the study said.

... but not 9th or 11th graders?

Hmmm. I wonder if someone is fiddling stats to make it look good. Gee....

[Valynth]

okay, lets think about this, A druggie who is probably destined for a life of il-repute and lack of contribution to society comes to school.  Assuming the child only gets one hour per day with an instructor who is paid $8 an hour and goes to school for the full term, infact, lets just say that the teacher and hour is the only cost for the whole time.  Also, lets say that each school year is only 200 days long.

200 days/hours
X
4  years
------
800 total days/hours
X
$8  teach salary
--------
$6400 dollars wasted.

Now lets say that we caught the druggie in the mid-point of year one.

100 days
X
$8  teacher salary
---------
$800
+
$50 drug test charge
---------
$850 dollars wasted.


Wow, we really saved when we just passed the druggie along didn't we?

Also, if you get mad about them taking hairs, why not watch everything the hair stylists do?  they handle the exact same "incriminating evidence."

[Reese Tora]

that assuming that
1: the kids drug use is at a level where it disrupts his education
2: the random testing picks the kid up
3: the kid is permanently expelled after being caught, or the being caught permanently stops the kid from doing drugs (assuming #1 to be true)
4: each test costs only $50... this is the cost to the parent or gaurdian enrolling a single child, not the cost of the actual testing

There are many factors that are not discussed in the article.  Testing may be effective, it may not, that's not the question.

As a random test, it's possible that the school could pick up a larger number or smaller number of drug using students in it's random sampling; you would need hard drug usage numbers to be able to say that this is actually effective when you're only tst case is a single school.

The school ahs obviously weighed the feasibility of this system and accepts it as being economical, and the parents have consented to the testing.  Their use of this is not what I take Issue with.  I take issue with the idea that government funded schools would begin this practice.

[superluser]

... but not 9th or 11th graders?

Hmmm. I wonder if someone is fiddling stats to make it look good. Gee....

It looks to be a reference to Monitoring the Future.  Looks relatively credible (associated with the U of Michigan, no slouch).  Only 8th, 10th, and 12th graders were surveyed.  I'm looking to see if I can't find a reason for this particular methodology.  Be warned, it' something like 715 pages.  So it might take me another 15 seconds or so.

It appears that they started in `75 with only sampling 12th graders, but expanded it in `91 to include 8th and 10th.  8th was chosen because almost no one drops out before grade 8, and 10th was chosen because it's the grade where most students learn to drive.

As to drug use in 8th grade (I knew that you were wondering), it's declined for all (lifetime, annual, monthly) but daily drug use (for which the statistics aren't quite as clear, and may have actually gone up).

that assuming that
1: the kids drug use is at a level where it disrupts his education
2: the random testing picks the kid up
3: the kid is permanently expelled after being caught, or the being caught permanently stops the kid from doing drugs (assuming #1 to be true)
4: each test costs only $50... this is the cost to the parent or gaurdian enrolling a single child, not the cost of the actual testing

2.  Some drug testing has a very high level of false positives.  Opiates, for example.  Did you see the Mythbusters episode on that?  They were still testing positive for heroin a day after eating a poppy loaf.

4.  The cost is going to be much higher than $50.  You can get a drug test from a convenience store for $20.  But then you have to pull the kid out of class, get the nurse ($12.50/hr, probably) to administer the test, get the principal ($50K/yr) to sign the paperwork, then the insurance to cover the liability if the parents sue, the court costs, the cost to the teachers for having to adjust their grading plans, the cost to the community of helping this kid adjust to life out of school...

I take issue with the idea that government funded schools would begin this practice.

Psst.  It's a private school.  Not government funded.

[Valynth]

And why shouldn't they?  Should we ban all the scissors since a person in the class could cut a few strands of you hair?  Should we gouge everyone's eyes out because they happened to see someone commit a crime when they shouldn't have been able to see this individual?  Or better yet, gouge everyone's eyes out because they can see you and cleary you should only be visible to those you want to se you.

[Reese Tora]

And why shouldn't they?  Should we ban all the scissors since a person in the class could cut a few strands of you hair?  Should we gouge everyone's eyes out because they happened to see someone commit a crime when they shouldn't have been able to see this individual?  Or better yet, gouge everyone's eyes out because they can see you and cleary you should only be visible to those you want to se you.

They are individuals, not the governemnt.  I am saying that, as the government of the united states of America is, by virtue of it having been founded on them, required to obey the constitution and amendments to the constitution.  The government has a duty and responsibility to protect the best interests of all the people within that nation.  Taking money from other, more worth while programs to fund a program that is borderline unconstitutional and of questionable effectiveness is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of the country as a whole.

Psst.  It's a private school.  Not government funded.

reread the article.  While this specific school may not be so funded, it says that the Bush administration provided $8.6 million in grants to fund such programs in public schools.

[Valynth]

I hate to tell ya this, not, but school is NOT private(hence why they aren't PRIVATE schools) and therefore you cannot invoke the rights to privacy in a non-private area.  This is why government sponsored companies CAN issue mandatory drug tests for employees and why you CAN record video in a public square, especially if you are doing so to catch criminals.

What we need to do is let schools be voluntary, would that satisfy your privacy concerns?  They either submit to a drug test or don't go to school, it's as simple as that.

[Ryudo Lee]

I don't understand what the problem is.  The school and the government are taking steps to locate and remove drug users in our schools.  I was there when it first happened, and the ones that got found out, got expelled.  The ones that got expelled were the underachievers, the bullies, and the all around jerks.  How is that a bad thing?

The parents were notified, legal papers were signed, money changed hands, the students were made aware of everything... there's no privacy concern here.

[Amber Williams]

I got railed once over a random drug test.  Luckily I was able to clear name before anything major hit.

Poppyseed muffins a valued part of breakfast my ass.


That said, and this is me just saying off the top of my head and not having read everything, I think this is an issue that both parents and schoolboard should compromise and agree on.  If I was a parent, I admit I'd be somewhat miffed if the school went and started doing tests on my kid without me being aware or giving consent.  Granted if I did have a kid, and I was aware of it, I would sign my kid up.  I guess the key factor for me is involvement.  As much as I respect student freedoms, the parents ultimately get main call until their kid hits independant age.

[Alondro]

Many companies require drug testing these days, and the trend is increasing, so kids might as well get used to it!  I had to get tested for both jobs I've had, neither of which was government-related.  One was simply data base production, the current one is in a hospital lab (which makes more sense that you don't want a drug-user in a place where he could get drugs and ingredients to manufacture drugs).

The privacy issue is moot because, as was said, the school is not a private personal place.   A stronger privacy argument about the luggage searches on airline flights could be made, but would be doomed to failure because the security concerns override the individual privacy.  I believe cases were in fact held when X-ray machines were first used by airlines to screen baggage.  But they were thrown out because the safety of innocent passengers comes first over the minor privacy concerns.

Simply put, if you're doing drugs and don't want to get caught, don't go to school.  it's not like it's doing any good anyway, since you'll end up shot, stabbed, on the streets from not being able to hold a job, or OD'd to death in a few years anyway.

And now for the social Darwinist approach...  We could save LOTS of money if we just shot all drug dealers and users!  

What's a bullet through the head cost?  $0.50?  Logically, that's the most efficient solution.

It's incredibly easy to twist logic into something horrifically evil!  

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

The privacy issue is moot because, as was said, the school is not a private personal place.

In all fairness, bull puckey.

The privacy or otherwise of the school is irrelevant. The -issue- is that the children are too young, and not nearly world weary enough, to be legally bound by an agreement with -them- to drugs test them.

Agreement and involvement of the parents, no problem. Asking the kids if you can test them is -so- wrong it's criminal. Asking the government to use tax dollars to run tests on children is on the dodgy side, as well, but that's a separate issue, to my mind, and involves some sort of checks and balances somewhere...



At least, that's my 2c - assuming we're talking <12yo's, here, which, since the US has a crazy scheme that doesn't match anyone else's in the world, I can't tell... ;-/ Although, to be fair, nobody else has one that matches anyone else either, so they're not alone....

[King Of Hearts]

O, you went to De La Salle? I went to De La Salle too... De La Salle, Manila. Hail, Hail Alma matter~

I agree with random testing. If you give consent, then you wouldnt really get caught now, would you? Whether or not a person is too young irrelevant in this case as the state is exercising its police power against an inherently dangerous substance.

It may be inefficient or nosey but...

...it is perfectly legal unless the Supreme Court makes a legal opinion.

Im not going to bother to argue whether or not it is "right" or "wrong" there will be enough people from both sides to do that.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I happen to enjoy eating poppy seed coated bread.

Does that make me a heroin addict? According to these tests, yes.

... I'll leave you with that thought.

[King Of Hearts]

Not necessarily heroin, but a prohibited substance nonetheless.

Like Marijuana if used for medicinal reasons.

Tests are but preliminary and is but a tool, it can be overturned by evidence to the contrary.

[Tapewolf]

I happen to enjoy eating poppy seed coated bread.
Does that make me a heroin addict? According to these tests, yes.

Sudafed Plus is supposed to contain a mild form of amphetamines.  (It was under the influence of said medication that the Sequential 'Prophet VS' synthesizer was christened)

[superluser]

Sudafed Plus is supposed to contain a mild form of amphetamines.  (It was under the influence of said medication that the Sequential 'Prophet VS' synthesizer was christened)

Sudafed contains pseudoephedrine (hence the name), which is a principal ingredient in meth.  I was told that in Europe, they used phenylephrine because of drugs laws.  Actually, they just switched to that in the States, calling it Sudafed PE (which is doubly confusing, because both have PE in the names).

The funny thing is that they call it ``non-drowsy,'' despite the fact that pseudoephedrine is the decongestant, and they'd have to *add* chemicals to make a drowsy version.

[Vidar]

I find it sad and worrying, that the situation has gotten do bad, and that schools have so little trust in their students, that they feel drug-testing has become nessacery.

[Ryudo Lee]

Unfortunately the situation HAS gotten that bad.  The school had gotten a black mark because of the fact that around other high schools, De La Salle was known as "Deal-a-drug".  The situation warranted the testing.  But we're not dealing with little kids here.  We're dealing with teenagers who are regularly outside of the home, most of which have families where both parents are working.  It is a bad situation, but I felt comfortable knowing that the local and federal governments AND the school are all working towards fixing a bad situation.

And no, the students weren't asked.  The parents were.  The students were informed that they would be tested.

[Amber Williams]

If the parents were asked, then I have less an issue. I figure if parents have to sign permission slips to let their kids go on a field trip, they should have to sign papers allowing their kids to be subject to drug tests.   Though I do think the parents (and possibly school assembly) should talk to their children in advance over the situation.  Then it really does fall into the students hands to be responsible.

However, I will say there is always times when there might be an exception to the rule and special care should be given that it isn't always just a blanket situation of "oh hey. +.  Out you go!"  People who go around thinking this is the only solution to the problem are just asking for trouble.

...and dangit! Poppyseed muffins are tasty!

[thegayhare]

I was suprised thepoppy seed thing was on mythbusters just yesterday

they tested bagels and cake and the false positives lasted for about a day.

there are lots of harmless products that can set these things off

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

And no, the students weren't asked.  The parents were.  The students were informed that they would be tested.

Well, in that case, it's fine. *shrug* Although I'm still of a mind to query the method of testing, and the way the results are dealt with. OTOH, there's nothing stopping you wandering around dealing drugs, as long as you're not taking them...


Maybe I'm just paranoid. That could be it... :-)

[Ryudo Lee]

Well if I remember correctly, they would ask you questions like "is there anything that might show up".  They give you a chance to come clean or tell anything that might give a false positive.  They're doing this the right way.  My original issue is with the ACLU saying that the whole thing is a bad idea.

[Amber Williams]

Reading the article, I dont think it really says that drug testing as a whole is a bad idea, just that there are flaws that some people are overlooking...and that some people are hailing drug tests as the snake-oil elixer to the drug problem.  And that there hasnt been enough level research to give a solid indicator if it is the case or if the program is beefing its stats to make it look good.

I can see the logic behind the debate with the hair because quite truthfully, we might not all be masters of our lives and who we are with growing up.  I speak from the personal experience of having friends who have either smoked pot or have had relatives who did.  What is the solution to that? Stop being friends, shun your family? Turn them in?  And really...if you are an unpopular kid in school, the last thing you do is rat out your friends and family.  So it's a bad situation, even if you don't smoke it yourself.

And I can see the logic in how it might make some kids, the ones who are fence-sitting, view the school as an adversary who doesnt trust them or feel they have substance as an individual person.  In a way, it does give a vibe that they themselves are being dismissed and only matter if they Confoooorm...coonfoooooooorm...but they might have nothing of interest because all the money that could be spent on programs or projects they would have interest in is being spent on drug testing.

[thegayhare]

Well if I remember correctly, they would ask you questions like "is there anything that might show up".  They give you a chance to come clean or tell anything that might give a false positive.  They're doing this the right way.  My original issue is with the ACLU saying that the whole thing is a bad idea.

Yeah and I'm sure every student knows of all thing things that might cause those false positives.

I mean I hadn't even heard of the poppy seed one till yesterday,  I'd heard coughsyrupe before though

Also I don't think it's fair to harp on the ACLU over this they generaly only step in if there has been a complaint.  Hell the lawyers they have workoing on this might even feel like you do (I mean they've had jewish lawyers defending neo nazi's on freedom of speach grounds) So more then likely they are persuing a legitimte complaint about the testing system. 

there are thousands of documented cases a year of people being fired or refused a job because of false positives,  and there are probably thousands more who don't know exactly since the employer doesn't have to say you failed a drug tet.  Some of these tests have horrible accuracy ratings  I mean it was mentioned that some have a 50% failure rate