Drug Czar Recommends Drug Testing in Schools 

Drug Czar Recommends Drug Testing in Schools 
Posted by CN Staff on October 08, 2003 at 13:10:01 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press 
Boston -- President Bush's drug czar told New England governors Wednesday that drug testing in schools would be an effective way to combat what is a growing problem of drug use among young people, especially in the Northeast.The region's six governors and John Walters, director of the Office of Drug Control Policy, met at Faneuil Hall in an anti-drug summit focusing on New England's heroin epidemic.
New England has more people ages 12 and over dependent on illegal drugs than any other region of the nation, according to Walters.Heroin as cheap as $4 per bag has made it easier for young people to get hooked, he said."This is a tool that will make a difference," Walters said of drug testing of school children. "It's time has come."New England has placed a "national face" on the growing heroin problem, said Karen Tandy, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration."It is a big business," Tandy told the governors and the assembled audience. "You might as well be sitting at the border of Colombia in this Northeast region."High level heroin traffickers are transporting drugs directly to New England bypassing the traditional transport route through New York City, and are marketing heroin directly to children, Tandy said."Colombian traffickers have created what is in effect a franchise marketing system," Tandy said.Tandy and several governors said more federal money is needed to combat the problem.Complete Title: White House Drug Czar Recommends Drug Testing in Schools Source: Associated Press Published: October 08, 2003Copyright: 2003 Associated Press CannabisNews Drug Testing Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on October 09, 2003 at 07:31:07 PT:
Ok, Ok, I admit, it WAS hyperbole
But think about it. If parents are 'leading by example' in surrendering their children to a system that tramples their rights because it claims it HAS a right to, then what are kids to think? This takes 'cognitive dissonance' from mental concept to brutal reality.I used to know a man in the Baltimore area back in the 1980's. He was a non-com in Hitler's Wehrmacht on the Western Front, and had the good luck to be captured by the Americans just after the D-Day breakout. For all I know, Dad may have traded hot lead across those damn 'hedge-rows' with him.He told me what it was like in Hitler's Germany in the 1930's, and you know what? He STILL had some pride at having been a HitlerJugend.I didn't hold his military service against him, as he was PROGRAMMED TO BE A SLAVE FROM THE GIT-GO. He still carried that programming because it was done to him at an early age.You understand *now* why I am so seemingly crazed about the dangers of allowing these nutcases like Walters, Ashcroft, Busch et. al. to get anywhere near kids? To say that this now aged man was STILL f-ed up by that exposure is testimony to the horrific nature of such 'conditioning'.Do we want these sicko creeps teaching our kids to literally urinate on command like one of Pavlov's dogs? Literally, fervently, with everything I am, GOD FORBID!!!!!!! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by OverwhelmSam on October 09, 2003 at 07:18:48 PT:
You Want A War, It'll Cost Y O U!
Go ahead and spend more money. Bleed money until it hurts, and then spend some more!One day you'll see what a waste it all was, but in the mean time, spend yourself into bankruptcy. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by goneposthole on October 09, 2003 at 05:43:40 PT
Hyperbole at its best, Kaptin
Mamma and Pappa Portfoolio can't be that dastardly to allow their children to be trapped by such an evil mindgame... or can they?Seems a bit much to project such circumstances. It's a stretch. Maybe John pee just needs to generate revenue for the urinalysis companies, and he needs to create a venue to do so.Reefer Madness is driving the machine insane. Big Brother has gone nuts.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by kaptinemo on October 09, 2003 at 05:24:31 PT:
Pee, two, three, four! Pee, two, three, four!
God, the Guvmint must be run by fetishists with a yen for 'precious bodily fluids'. I feel lie I've been dropped onto the filmset of "DR. STRANGELOVE".Only this ain't no comedy, my friends. Ever heard of the phrase, 'Sown the dragon's teeth'? It comes from a myth that if you slay a dragon, but plant it's teeth in the ground - guess what? - you get MORE dragons.These antis are just plain bloody fools. They are attempting to cow an entire generation...who will not think kindly of their parents when it's time for reckoning. They think they are slaying a dragon...but they have sown it's teeth.Teaching children that rights are fictions to be overturned at a whim of a nutcase politician is to sow the dragon's teeth of fascism. For those children *will* remember, oh yes, they will. They will remember the ignominy and shame they were put through because their own parents allowed strangers to observe them in one of the most private acts this culture deems (almost) inviolable: relieving one's self.These antis, especially the ones who claim to be Christians, seem to forget the old injunction of "Teach up a child in the way he is to go, and when he is older, he will not devaite from it." Teach a child that fascism is normal...and watch what you get. A great many parents will find themselves in need of their children's help, when they are old and enfeebled by illness or injury, and will look to a generation that they humiliated to take care of them. A generation with a secret hatred burning in their hearts for having been the recipients of that humiliation...and now have the means of exacting a cold, calculating vengeance.Soccer Mom and Daddy Portfolio might never see the inside of a nursing home, because Johnny and Suzy put a pillow over their faces in order to save the money. Or simply denounced them as "druggies", just as Officer Jack Boot told them to way back in elementary school, so they could be carted away, like rubbish, to get them out of their hair. And when those parents look into the eyes of those kids, imploring them for mercy, they will see the slitted pupils of monsters glaring at them. Monsters they created. Created...while trying to kill an imaginary monster, they'll create a generation of real ones.Oh my country, what are you doing to yourself???????????? 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by Virgil on October 08, 2003 at 20:41:33 PT
This article was in the NYT
The New York Times covered the rulings with this article in the International section- largest newspaper circulated in the Carolinas is the Charlotte Observer, a KnightRidder publication. They said nothing on their website about it. Snafu, I guess.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Had Enough on October 08, 2003 at 17:35:14 PT
What they said
Tandy and several governors said more federal money is needed to combat the problem.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 08, 2003 at 17:04:34 PT
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Ron Bennett on October 08, 2003 at 17:02:13 PT
Oh, that reminds me of an unfinished project
This article reminds of me of another unfinished project...I'm working on posting a chart of various substances and how difficult they are to detect in drug tests at (one of many sites I operate)Though many folks, especically young people, already know and choose substances such as meth over cannabis because it's much easier to hide and more difficult to detect in drug tests.In short, all these drug tests will do for the most part is encourage more kids to switch from cannabis to highly addictive methamphetamines or whatnot...oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense ... NOT!Ron
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by mamawillie on October 08, 2003 at 16:54:01 PT
"Drug Testing Fails our Youth":"Teachers Against Prohibition": "Students' Rights":
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by mamawillie on October 08, 2003 at 16:07:18 PT
I snipped
I had to snip a piece of that article to get it to fit, so if anyoneis interested, here's the link to the whole AAP policy:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by mamawillie on October 08, 2003 at 16:04:12 PT
From the AAP
American Academy of Pediatrics ( Statement Pediatrics Volume 98, Number 2 August, 1996, pp.305-307
Testing for Drugs of Abuse in Children and Adolescents (RE9628)AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Committee on Substance Abuse * ABSTRACT. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recognizes the abuse of psychoactive drugs as one of the greatest problems facing children and adolescents and condemns all such use. Diagnostic testing for drugs of abuse is frequently an integral part of the pediatrician's evaluation and management of those suspected of such use. "Voluntary screening" is the term applied to many mass non-suspicion-based screening programs, yet such programs may not be truly voluntary as there are often negative consequences for those who choose not to take part. Participation in such programs should not be a prerequisite to participation in school activities. Involuntary testing is not appropriate in adolescents with decisional capacity--even with parental consent--and should be performed only if there are strong medical or legal reasons to do so. The AAP reaffirms its position that the appropriate response to the suspicion of drug abuse in a young person is the referral to a qualified health care professional for comprehensive evaluation.The widespread abuse of psychoactive drugs has resulted in an increase in laboratory testing to identify abusers. The significant health and social consequences of drug abuse are intensified in the pediatric population because of the added possibilities of long-term effects in a developing person. Furthermore, immature minors are often unable to make informed, autonomous decisions about their health care, creating an impediment to diagnosis and treatment.[1,2] This statement defines the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) on laboratory testing for drugs of abuse. 
    The abuse of psychoactive drugs among children, adolescents, and adults is an issue of national importance.[3] Concerns have focused not only on the physiologic and behavioral impact of drug abuse on the developing child and adolescent but also on the public health hazards that drug abusers pose to others.[4] This statement presents issues relevant to laboratory testing to identify drug users and does not discuss drug abuse in children and adolescents, which the academy strenuously opposes. Proposals for involuntary urine drug screening programs are also discussed. Testing for drugs of abuse in neonates, however, is discussed in another statement by the AAP.[5] Testing student athletes for performance-enhancing drugs not identified by routine urine toxicology tests, such as anabolic steroids and growth hormone, is not addressed. 
The procedure used for both screening and diagnostic testing is commonly known as a urine drug screen. A drug screen ordered from a laboratory should not be confused with a drug screening program. A drug screen is a battery of tests performed on a specimen to identify the presence of one or more drugs. A laboratory report that indicates the presence of drugs should be based on a confirmatory test of high specificity. In addition, the laboratory must be certified, with the clinician being aware of its capabilities and limitations for drug testing, because these vary from facility to facility.[6,7] INVOLUNTARY VERSUS VOLUNTARY TESTING 
 Voluntary testing is an imprecise concept when implemented in a population that is generally considered incompetent to consent. Therefore, testing can only be truly voluntary among young people considered competent, including many older adolescents.[2] (Decisional competency in this statement refers to the patient's ability to understand the relationship between the use of a drug, its consequences, and testing for the presence of the drug in the patient's body. The patient whose cognitive development has reached the stage of formal operational thinking approaches an ability for decisional competency. This developmental achievement reflects an ability to conceptualize cause-and-effect phenomena.)[8] However, it is not clear why such individuals would volunteer to be tested, because those who are using drugs will presumably decline. Those who have not used drugs for several days or longer may consent to testing to obtain a negative test result. Voluntary testing, therefore, is not likely to detect most drug users. 
    Although so-called voluntary programs may have some perceived benefits, such as providing a legitimized reason to reject peer pressure, they also can be used to coerce a person into being screened. If the majority of a group, such as an athletic team, agrees to be screened, those who refuse may be stigmatized to a degree that they feel forced into submitting. Such required voluntary group screening programs are not truly voluntary. For these reasons, the primary focus of this statement is on proposals to screen adolescents involuntarily. REASONS FOR INVOLUNTARY SCREENING     Two reasons are generally advanced for involuntary drug screening to identify drug abuse: health promotion by identifying candidates for treatment and identifying abusers for purposes of punishment. Health Promotion by Identifying Candidates for Treatment     The AAP does not object to diagnostic testing for the purpose of drug abuse treatment. Testing should be approached in a fashion similar to diagnostic testing for other diseases, which includes obtaining informed consent from individuals with decisional capacity. Involuntary testing would be justified only if the adolescent were at risk of serious harm that could be averted only if the specific drug were identified. If the treatment and therapy would not be changed by testing, involuntary testing would not be justified.[9-12] 
    Involuntary drug screening is often a condition of high school sports participation. In June 1995, a US Supreme Court ruling held that random drug testing of high school athletes is constitutional.[13] Screening would be an appropriate school requirement if the purpose were to identify conditions that, when combined with physical activity, may be hazardous to the student's health. Requiring the involuntary screening of athletes for illicit drug use, however, is often not motivated primarily by this consideration.[11,14] If the promotion of good health were the primary purpose of drug screening, the entire adolescent population--not only athletes--would be required to undergo screening because of the prevalence of illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use. The social, personal, and financial costs of such a program would be prohibitive, and the implication of a comprehensive non-suspicion-based screening program would be far reaching. 
    Because serious legal consequences may result from a positive drug screen, it is a minimal requirement that there be candid discussion regarding confidentiality and the need for informed consent from a competent individual.[2] If confidentiality issues are adequately addressed, a competent adolescent may consent to testing and counseling without the knowledge of parents, police, or school administrators. Identification for Purposes of Punishment     Minors should not be immune from the criminal justice system, but physicians should not initiate or participate in a criminal investigation except when required by law, as in the case of court-ordered drug testing or child abuse reporting. Legal requirements for testing include an existing statute or a specific binding order. Physician involvement in police work creates the risk of establishing an adversarial rather than therapeutic relationship with a patient. There also may be constitutional objections to such activities based on privacy considerations, immunities against unwarranted search and seizure, and protection from self-incrimination. If an individual is suspected of criminal behavior, the police should obtain authorization to search for drugs and/or test for drug abuse unless specifically mandated by local statute. 
    Similarly, pediatricians should cautiously regard requests to initiate drug screening programs in schools where results might be used for punitive purposes or where confidentiality may be difficult to maintain. A positive therapeutic relationship with a child or adolescent should always be of paramount concern.[15] Therefore, physicians should avoid involvement with involuntary screening programs or participation in covert drug testing. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS 
 Screening or testing under any circumstances is improper if clinicians cannot be reasonably certain that the laboratory results are valid and that patient confidentiality is assured. This requires careful attention to the collection of specimens; the labeling, storage, and transfer of specimens to the laboratory; the avoidance of errors in recording or communicating results; the protection of the confidentiality of results; and the assurance that the techniques for identification of drugs are reliable, particularly with regard to minimizing false-positive results.[6,7] Because the consequences of inaccurate results can have profound implications, it is especially important that physicians be assured of the reliability, validity, and limitations of the testing system used. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The AAP is opposed to the nontherapeutic use of psychoactive drugs by children and adolescents.
2. The appropriate response to suspicion of drug abuse is referral of the child or adolescent to a qualified health care professional for evaluation, counseling, and treatment as needed.
3. The role of pediatricians is one of prevention, diagnosis, counseling, and treatment or appropriate referral for care.
4. Voluntary screening may be a deceptive term, in that there often are negative consequences for those who decline to volunteer. Parental permission is not sufficient for involuntary screening of the older, competent adolescent, and the AAP opposes such involuntary screening. Consent from the older adolescent may be waived when there is reason to doubt competency or in those circumstances in which information gained by history or physical examination strongly suggests that the young person is at high risk of substance abuse.[16]
5. Diagnostic testing for the purpose of drug abuse treatment is within the ethical tradition of health care, and in the competent patient, it should be conducted noncovertly, confidentially, and with informed consent in the same context as for other medical conditions.
6. Involuntary testing in a minor who lacks the capacity to make informed judgments may be done with parental permission. Parental permission is not sufficient for involuntary testing of the adolescent with decisional capacity, and the AAP opposes such involuntary testing. Suspicion that an adolescent may be using a psychoactive drug does not justify involuntary testing, and it is not sufficient justification to rely solely on parental agreement to test the patient. Testing adolescents requires their consent unless: (1) a patient lacks decision-making capacity; or (2) there are strong medical indications or legal requirements to do so.
7. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling,[13] students and student athletes should not be singled out for involuntary screening for drugs of abuse. Such testing should not be a condition for participation in sports or any school functions except for health-related purposes. Suspicion of drug use warrants a comprehensive evaluation by a qualified health care professional.COMMITTEE ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE, 1995 TO 1996
Richard B. Heyman, MD, Chair
Hoover Adger, Jr, MD
Trina M. Anglin, MD
Paul G. Fuller, Jr, MD
Edward A. Jacobs, MD
Rizwan Z. Shah, MD
Marie Armentano, MD 
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Gayle M. Boyd, PhD 
    National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
Dorynne Czechowicz, MD 
    National Institute on Drug AbuseCONSULTANT
Manuel Schydlower, MD 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on October 08, 2003 at 16:04:06 PT
The main issue here is privacy, not drugs
To me it seems painfully obvious that a far bigger problem than kids doing heroin--which is definitely a problem--is the rapid erosion of the constitutional right of individuals not to have to endure unreasonable search and seizure. A textbook example of an unreasonable search is the state or a school for that matter saying to parents "we suspect your child *might* be doing drugs because others of his/her age have been known to, so we want to examine their bodily fluids." This is a blatant violation of the aforementioned right against wrongful search, and moreover, flies in the face of the presumption of innocence that is allegedly sacrosanct in American jurisprudence.In my opinion, any parents who lay down for this kind of abuse are committing a grave insult to all other Americans by contributing to the general decay of civil liberty. Here's my attitude, for better or worse: I don't have any kids, okay Boston soccer mom, but just because you do, and you might be a lame enough parent not to have any idea if your kid is doing heroin until a school drug test tells you so, that is your problem and I don't want you acquiescing to strange and Draconian measures to make up for that failure on your part. If you want to know whether your kid is doing drugs, spend more time with him/her or test him/her privately.I can't believe I have to say something like that which is just basic common sense!!MF
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by mamawillie on October 08, 2003 at 15:44:58 PT
Drug test, so then what?
If they think the *soultion* is drug testing students, then what happens to the students after they are caught? Rehab? Suspension? Expulsion? Jail?Drug testing isn't part of the solution; it is part of the problem. All drug testing does is imprison students in a vicious cycle of illiteracy and dependence on the system that put them there in the first place.If drug testing was the answer, statistics showing use among teens would show a decline, not an increase as latest trends show.I say if a student can stay in school while taking drugs, then leave that to the family to deal with. At least that student is doing better alone than with the *solution* the school gives them.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on October 08, 2003 at 15:41:25 PT
Ha! I knew I was right!!! Thanks Morgan
"By 1915 Captain Hobson had become the highest-paid speaker on the lecture circuit in America. He helped organize (with financial support from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.) the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), which helped galvanize national support for Prohibition.
" knew that the WCTU must have been backed by a man. It was never at any time a feminist organization representing pro-suffrage women. Anti-suffrage woman like Carrie Nation were just their puppets.The feminists were responsible for helping FDR win in 1932 and they were not responsible for the WCTU.The WCTU was a terrorist organization. They terrorized people, they went into bars with axes and sledge hammers and just started swinging.Alcohol Prohibition was not the fault of women getting the vote. Quite the contrary. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Morgan on October 08, 2003 at 13:27:42 PT
This game is getting old
A good primer that explains the game:
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment