Let's Just Say No To Random Drug Testing

Let's Just Say No To Random Drug Testing
Posted by CN Staff on May 16, 2005 at 09:11:57 PT
By Andy Parker
Source: Oregonian
If your children play soccer or baseball or even chess at school, maybe we should have them urinate into a cup or cut off some of their hair and ship it off to the lab. It's your choice. But drug-testing your kid is a good thing, a reasonable, effective way to show them you care about them, to discourage them from experimenting with drugs.
That was the message President Bush's deputy drug czar delivered last week to about 60 Northwest educators and nonprofit leaders assembled at the Monarch Hotel in Clackamas. As is typical with the Bush administration, there was no push to encourage the public to attend the event. They didn't want a debate; they wanted to get their message out and get out of town. They left behind a bunch of glossy pamphlets filled with charts and glowing testimonials about drug testing. There's the Alabama school district where kids who test negative for drugs get discounts from local businesses. There's the Indiana high school senior congratulating his school's drug-testing program as something that "embraces accountability rather than the gross indulgences of personal freedoms that previous generations have embraced." There's the story of how Chicago's oldest Catholic high school for boys has been drug-testing students for five years. "We pull 10 to 15 kids (at a time) for hair testing," said Joseph Schmidt, the school principal. "We snip an inch and half of hair, which tells us if they have used drugs in the past 90 days." The Bush administration is careful to say drug-testing is best used as part of a broad plan to reduce drug use. And drug-testing, it says, is a local choice. But it emphasizes: If you're interested, the federal tax dollars are there. Snipped:Complete Article: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)Author: Andy ParkerPublished: Monday, May 16, 2005Copyright: 2005 The OregonianContact: letters news.oregonian.comWebsite: Drug Testing Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #14 posted by Max Flowers on May 17, 2005 at 10:14:34 PT
Steve, it's already true, sadly
“Nobody is safe if the police can make up evidence, the prosecutors can lie, and the court covers it up,” Kubby said Monday.He's got that right. It's not theoretical, it's true now. No one is safe,  the police CAN and do make up evidence, prosecutors can and DO lie, and courts DO cover things up.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by FoM on May 16, 2005 at 18:47:24 PT
Here It Is BGreen!
KUB: Placer Court Refuses to Hear Evidence of Fraud, Kubby's Declare Victory For Immediate Release: May 16, 2005PLACER COURT REFUSES TO HEAR EVIDENCE OF FRAUD, KUBBY'S DECLARE VICTORYAUBURN, CALIFORNIA -- Placer County Judge John Cosgrove on Monday refused to hear a motion by medical-marijuana patient Steve Kubby establishing compelling evidence that Placer County authorities committed fraud in 1999 to obtain a search warrant against him.Judge Cosgrove ruled that Kubby cannot seek a new hearing through a writ of error coram nobis in the original jurisdiction, but must seek relief in the state appellate court that affirmed his conviction. Cosgrove also indicated that Kubby’s status as “a fugitive” weighed in his decision."We've done our job, it is the judge who failed to do his," stated Michele Kubby from her home in British Columbia. "We have shown through evidence never refuted or denied by the District Attorneys office nor the court, that a fraud has been committed upon the court. The court's mandate is to look at the evidence presented impartially and render an objective decision.“In addition, the law mandates that when a conviction is obtained through fraud, that conviction is void and in fact never existed. For the judge to declare Steve a fugitive from a fraudulent conviction, is simply a convenient legal fiction to avoid dealing with serious criminal actions by Placer County officials."Steve Kubby, the 1998 Libertarian Party candidate for California governor, blasted the judge’s unwillingness to examine evidence that law-enforcement resorted to fraud in order to arrest and prosecute him.“Nobody is safe if the police can make up evidence, the prosecutors can lie, and the court covers it up,” Kubby said Monday."My legal advisors tell me that today's decision is a victory for several reasons," Kubby added. "First of all, this exonerates me by the failure of the D.A.'s office and the court to refute or deny by affidavit evidence the evidence before them. Second, this provides standing for me to sue Placer County officials civilly. And third, under Canadian Law I am now free to pursue business and travel opportunities."Kubby and his wife, Michele, have lived in Canada following his December 2000 conviction for drug-law violations while living in Placer County’s Olympic Valley. They did not flee, but went to Canada with the permission of the court that now says that they are fugitives.Kubby relies exclusively on cannabis to control the symptoms of adrenal cancer, which he had fought with surgery and conventional medicine before adopting cannabis as a more effective treatment in the 1980s. According to leading cancer specialists in both California and Canada, nothing else will keep him alive. Consequently, Health Canada has licensed Kubby to grow 137 plants and store 13 pounds and travel anywhere in Canada with 2 pounds of medical marijuana.Solely on the basis of one anonymous letter sent to authorities, the North Tahoe Narcotics Task Force launched a 6-month investigation of Kubby and his wife, Michele, during Kubby’s 1998 campaign for governor. A large number of heavily armed police searched their Olympic Valley residence on Jan. 19, 1999, after obtaining a warrant by telling a judge that the DEA had identified a visiting journalist as a Jamaican drug smuggler. The journalist, Pete Brady, later attempted to acquire the DEA N.A.D.I.S. report under the Freedom of Information Act, but was informed no such record existed, according to a brief filed by Auberry attorney Bill McPike.In the brief seeking a writ, McPike claimed Placer County authorities had “willfully and knowingly misled the Magistrate” when they testified about the alleged statements from the DEA."What's going on here?" questions Steve Kubby. "There are three questions that remain from today's hearing in Placer County. One, where's the DEA report? Two, why are the Placer authorites trying to cover this up? And three, how far up does the cover up go?" SEE DEA FORM LETTER AND SIGNED REPLY AS PROOF OF FRAUD AND PERJURY BY PLACER COUNTY OFFICIALS:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by BGreen on May 16, 2005 at 18:31:44 PT
Could you please post the press release?
I'd like to read it.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 16, 2005 at 18:09:20 PT
I just read the Kubby's press release but I didn't understand it. I hope people get the Kubby's list so maybe they can figure it out. It's very legal and lawyer stuff goes right over the top of my head like wooooo!!! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by mayan on May 16, 2005 at 18:05:58 PT
The war on pot:'s good news about the Kubbys! If America was truly a free country they never would have fled!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by mayan on May 16, 2005 at 17:51:06 PT
Researchers at the University of Michigan -- who in 2003 conducted the nation's first large-scale study of the effectiveness of drug testing -- found that 19 percent of public schools engaged in some form of student drug testing. And they found not a shred of evidence that drug testing teens has any impact at all on reducing drug use.Reducing drug use isn't the goal. The goal is conditioning young people to be passive and submissive. Any expectaions of privacy and liberty are being gradually removed so that when these kids grow up they will be used to not having any freedom to lose.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...Philadelphia Lawyer, Who Filed RICO Case Against Bush and Cronies, Embarks on European Speaking Tour to Spread Word About Government Complicity in 9/11: Millionaire Starts Re-Open 9/11 Investigations Campaign: Big Stories Show U.S. Government Planned to Bring Down The Twin Towers Many Years Before 9/11: Professor David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Lecture:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Jose Melendez on May 16, 2005 at 14:11:12 PT
I'll say it: No. I just said no, and feel better!
Apparently, presidents get a pass on piss tests, accompanied it seems by a legion of apologists that think that while kids should be watched while urinating in a cup and be exposed to prison rape for having over a certain amount of cannabis, Doug Wead was no friend for outing him as having admitted he had done the same.Meanwhile, if you are a former Libertarian candididate for Governor of California fed up with the mountain of false claims about your medication, here's my best suggestion to recoup your loses in lieu of restitution:Sue the crap out of them. You should not have to flee to be free in this country, it's time we formed a million marijuana lawsuit.from: The False Claims Act imposes civil liability on any person or
entity who submits a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the United
States government. The False Claims Act also prohibits:making a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid
by the government;conspiring to have a false or fraudulent claim paid by the government;withholding property of the government with the intent to defraud the government
or to willfully conceal it from the government;Making or delivering a receipt for the government's property which is false
or fraudulent;buying property belonging to the government from someone who is not authorized
to sell the property; or,making a false statement to avoid or deceive an obligation to pay money
or property to the government. Causing the Submission
of a False Claim
It is also improper to cause someone else to submit a false claim.For example, if a subcontractor provides false information to a contractor,
who in turn bills the government based on that false information, the subcontractor
is liable for causing the submission of a false claim. Damages Under
the False Claims Act Damages under the False Claims Act are severe. A person
who violates the act must repay three times the amount of damages suffered
by the government plus a mandatory civil penalty of at least $5,500 and
no more than $11,000 per claim, for all claims made after September 29,
 This means that, for example, a person who submits fifty false
claims for fifty dollars each is liable for between $282,500 [($2,500 x
3) + (50 x $5,500)] and $557,500 [($2,500 x 3) + (50 x $11,000)]
in damages under the False Claims Act. The stiff penalties have made the False Claims Act one of the government's favorite tools to combat fraud and abuse in government-funded
programs. Qui Tam Provisions
of the False Claims Act
 The False Claims Act allows an individual, often referred
to as a whistleblower, who knows about a person or entity who is submitting false claims to bring a suit, on behalf of the government, and to share
in the damages recovered as a result of the suit. The whistleblower who
brings the case is called a qui tam relator. In the past thirteen years,
hundreds of qui tam suits have been filed. These suits have resulted in
almost four billion dollars in recoveries for the United States Treasury.
The whistleblowers who filed these suits have received more than one hundred million dollars for their efforts.Also, from: Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project,      202-543-7972 or 415-668-6403
WASHINGTON, April 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -— A new White House ad campaign encourages teen cigarette use by falsely telling parents that tobacco is far less dangerous to kids than marijuana, officials of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) charged today. "By inaccurately portraying cigarettes as relatively harmless, the White House is condemning thousands of young people to a life of addiction and early death from cancer and emphysema," said MPP Director of Government Relations Steve Fox.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by lombar on May 16, 2005 at 13:55:22 PT
Why not start at the top..
Do presidents have to pee in a cup on demand? How about senators? Reps? Governers?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 16, 2005 at 13:39:01 PT
I'm very happy for the Kubbys. I don't think they want to come home though from what I've read. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on May 16, 2005 at 13:36:43 PT
I mean, Google!
KUBBY EXONERATED? Yahoo! Wow, FoM! What great news, maybe he can run for California Governor again!Remember when the Berlin wall fell? Does this not feel the same, with that euphoric electrical feeling that finally, people had had enough corrupt oppression? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 16, 2005 at 13:09:41 PT
News from The Kubbys
Breaking News: KUBBY EXONERATED - details later today   After conferring with attorney Bill McPike, the Kubby's are announcing victory as a result of todays actions in Placer County Superior Court.A press release will be sent out in the next few hours, which will explain the legal and political implications of today's decision.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by BigDawg on May 16, 2005 at 13:02:35 PT
Pre-programmed to accept authoritarianism
There's the Indiana high school senior congratulating his school's drug-testing program as something that "embraces accountability rather than the gross indulgences of personal freedoms that previous generations have embraced."This comment must make the neo-cons happy as a lark. The poor kid is begging the gov't to take his personal freedoms. I hope his classmates are a little more wise.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on May 16, 2005 at 11:36:32 PT
Conscience in press! Next: State?
An obsession with teen sex — among America’s adultsBy KATHLEEN PARKER
Orlando Sentinel"Researchers report following 12,000 students in grades 7 through 12 for six years. They found that when those who had promised sexual abstinence did fall from grace, they were more likely not to use condoms than other kids. Ta-dum. Get it? If you want your kids to practice safe sex, better keep them away from those wacky abstinence programs. "(snip)“Treat a child the way he can and ought to be, and he will become as he can and should be.”Recognizing that there’s nothing new under the sun — and that sex is both pleasurable and a necessary human drive — could we nevertheless stop panting long enough to ask whether any of this is sane? Since when was it decided that children need to be fluent in sex? And why is it government’s job to teach it?There are a hundred different arguments with the latest-breaking stats to match both for and against sex ed in school, but undergirding all the studies, curricula and rhetoric is another assumption that deserves closer scrutiny.That is, that parents can’t do a proper job of teaching their children values, morals and what we used to call the Birds ’n’ the Bees, and that government bureaucrats are the last word on human intimacy.Our children should fire us for dereliction of duty.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on May 16, 2005 at 11:34:38 PT
Bush is the dope pusher
His wagon rolls into town - free samples of tax money! Here, my small-time brothers of the political class, fellow adminsitrators ...have a taste, see if you like it....hire some people, make some friends....soon you'll be addicted and you'll do anything we say to the kids - anything to keep the federal juice flowing! Life on the civil servant mainline.Just ask the churches - he's got a few "faith-based" junkies on his regular route, too.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment