posted on February 4, 2004 12:58:38 PM new
Testing students or anyone else - for employment or even for criminal action I have to ask - Do all these starry eyed zealots really believe there is no such thing as a false positive?
posted on February 4, 2004 01:57:22 PM new
I took drugs in high school. Here's what I find ironic about the school drug testing programs: they're aimed at that very portion of the student body least likely to be habitual users; i.e.: the athletes, the band members, the science club. These are kids who generally like school, have a built-in body of friends through their extra-curricular activities, and often shine academically. When I was in high school, there was the "drug crowd", the "rah-rah crowd", and the "geek crowd". The "drug crowd" wouldn't be caught dead playing a band instrument and the "geek crowd" wouldn't take drugs if you paid them. I don't doubt that a majority of high school kids have tried one drug or another, but the ones who try them again and again are seldom the ones who're currently being targeted for testing.
Do you suppose that's so the school administrators can show (false) results about how drug-free their campuses are?
posted on February 4, 2004 03:01:08 PM new
I fully support this type of school program and would like to see it expanded. Believe it should be done in all businesses who should require a pre-employment agreement on drug testing, or not hire these workers. Too many using drugs and endangering others in our society. Time to put a stop to it.
These types of school programs discourage teens from experimenting with drugs. Much less likely to experiment if they know there's a possibility they'll be tested when they least expect it. If they are found to be users they can be offered the help they need. False-positives??? There are many ways to deal with this should it become a problem.
Drug testing in school is a serious waste of money and violation of a student's privacy.
I've never used illegal drugs or even tried them. In my high school, there were three basic groups...1. the drug group, 2.the band, sports and cheerleader types and 3. the more academically oriented kids . Kids in the drug group were on drugs most of the time and were able to function relatively well.
The school administrators, students and teachers already know which kids are on drugs without tests. It's silly to think otherwise. As the article indicates it's not considered an affliction by the students and nobody who uses drugs is ashamed of the fact. It's just a freedom of choice. The school should not be in the drug prevention business. Education about drug use is OK but testing is a violation of a student's privacy.
posted on February 4, 2004 03:16:59 PM new
That was a million years ago, helen. The times have changed since you were in high school. Admit it..... LOL
posted on February 4, 2004 03:25:34 PM new
Not quite a million, linda or as many as you've had. I also have kids who had the same divisions within their high schools.
My neighbor has a kid in high school now. Not much has changed, old pal.
The drug testing program will probably be like Bush's educational testing program...a costly failure.
posted on February 4, 2004 03:44:56 PM new
Testing for drug use is stupid at best unless there's a definate plan to help any that are drug dependant. When are people going to realize the "drug war" isn't working at all?
posted on February 4, 2004 03:54:26 PM newThese types of school programs discourage teens from experimenting with drugs. Much less likely to experiment if they know there's a possibility they'll be tested when they least expect it. If they are found to be users they can be offered the help they need. False-positives??? There are many ways to deal with this should it become a problem.
What kind of help do you believe they will be offered and who will pay for that help???
posted on February 4, 2004 04:03:22 PM new
Come on, Helen, you already know the answer to your question. The kids will be in Christian schools (paid for by the Voucher Program) and they'll be helped with a mixture of prayer and a laying on of hands (the act formerly known as corporal punishment, or spanking.)
Shouldn't children just be taught about drugs instead of using scare tactics on them? Education should be factual. Children want to hear the truth and if they don't believe what they've been told, they'll try things to find out for themselves. So, if you want things to change with the next generation, you have to be truthful about drugs.
posted on February 4, 2004 05:02:21 PM new
Gravid, there should be a system in place to retest positive results, but there usually isn't. The employee is just not hired.
None of these tests has 100% accuracy. There are substances that create false positives, such as poppy seed rolls.
When someone test positive, what then?
Access to drug treatment programs is difficult. The number of programs is shrinking. It is a long process which most insurance companies are unwilling to pay for for a period of over 30 days.
"A study done by the Institute for Social Research revealed that recreational drugs such as marijuana are used as often in testing schools as non-testing schools."
I feel testing when observable behaviour indicates drug use is rational policy.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 4, 2004 05:31:33 PM new
The American Academy of Pediatrics' stated policy on adolescent testing is as follows:
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.
I did some looking around, and all the studies I could find were done by surveying school pricipals on the results of drug testing in schools. They unanimously reported stuff like "98% of principal's reported a decrease in drug use after implementing random testing"....what in the world does that mean, and what in the world did they expect these principals to say???...at our local high school, most of the kids I talk to tell me that they can get whatever dope they want any time in the hallways. Being this is a rural school, I would suspect that the same is true at most urban schools too. The administration at this school has been quoted numerous times in the local papers denying that there is any "drug problem" at the high school....the whole thing would be laughable if it weren't so sad.....Any educator worth his salt should be able to spot a kid who's high across the room. It's part of the job...testing creates an atmosphere of suspicion, alienates kids, and solves nothing....except for making the school administration look like it's "doing something", so the parents can quit worrying and go back to ignoring their kid's lives.
___________________________________
posted on February 4, 2004 05:56:52 PM new
I wouldn't count on the classifications to keep things safe and neat. I was an athlete in school, I was on yearbook staff (I got credit for doing nothing for an hour each day) and I used drugs. If I hung with any crowd it was the drug crowd (they were much less pretenscious and annoying) and believe me, the athletes may have publicly shunned the drug crowd but they privately were using them to find their weekend "part favors". As for the yearbook staff.... our darkroom regularly had a unique odor and it wasn't from the developer.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on February 4, 2004 05:57:49 PM new ...at our local high school, most of the kids I talk to tell me that they can get whatever dope they want any time in the hallways. Being this is a rural school, I would suspect that the same is true at most urban schools too.
That is exactly right. Schools serve as distribution centers -- That means all schools. The problem can't be avoided by changing schools. Private schools, public schools in every neighborhood and religious schools are equal providers of drugs. Drug free zones don't exist in the school system.
posted on February 4, 2004 06:07:53 PM new
I know a twelve-year-old boy who'll be delivering (tomorrow) his award-winning speech about the value of the D.A.R.E. Program -- what he's learned from it and why he, personally, will never take drugs.
The D.A.R.E. Program wasn't around when I was in grade school, in fact, there were no anti-drug or drug-awareness programs when I was in grade school because drugs didn't become pervasive 'til I hit junior high. ( -Heh, those of us who took drugs regularly found that name particularly funny.)
This little boy I know, he's not a "geek" -- he's one of the most normal kids I've ever met... plays Little League, hates doing homework and chores, lives in a secure two-parent home and both his parents are active participants in his life. It might never have occurred to them that their son would need to be educated about drug abuse, but after having read his speech, they realized that he was just as vulnerable -- despite all their love and attention -- as any other kid, and they, too, now praise the D.A.R.E. Program for consistently, year-after-year, coming into his school and spelling out the dangers of drugs.
So, I agree with Krafty and others; drug-prevention is best achieved through education, not the random threat of testing...
posted on February 4, 2004 06:50:28 PM new
Well I'm glad someone addressed the question of false positives.
I don't think you can expect too much of educational programs to deter drug use because the school system and law enforcement will always exagerate and lie about what drugs do to you. The kids are no fools and if you lie to them you soon lose any credibility and even the part you say that is true gets rejected.
Kids see friends that use drugs and some have problems from it but few immediatly dissolve into the sort of crazed babbling idiots obsessed with sex and attacking strangers on the street that that the fried egg campaigns suggest. Most keep plugging along functioning just fine. So what is a kid to believe but they are being lied to? In a way it is useful because it prepares them early for a lifetime of irrational behavior and prejudice from the authorities they live under.
Of course all you adults that tried drugs and are middle aged now and normal working adults are just the lucky exception. Most of your friends who toked with you are dead or in mental institutions right?
posted on February 4, 2004 06:58:15 PM new
HAHAHA! Pat, my boyfriend in high school played trombone in band. He was the biggest pothead in the school. My first toke on weed was with him..my first LSD trip was with him... my first...well that's as far as I'm going to go. heh!
posted on February 4, 2004 08:24:53 PM new
Gravid, yes, many of the people I got high with are dead, and they died young.
Debbie (age 17) was high on Reds when she strolled out into traffic on a busy four-lane street. She was knocked fifteen feet into the air by the horrified motorist who hit her and she landed -- dead -- sixty feet away.
Henry (age 18) was high on PCP when he thought he could grab onto the tailgate of his buddy's pick-up truck while it was moving. The tailgate flopped down under the weight of Henry's running grab at it and Henry lost the back of his head on the street.
Collise took a bunch of acid and punched out six of his own front teeth. Later that same year, Collise, high on something leapt to his death in a manmade lagoon. He was 18.
Bridget was a vibrant pixie of a girl I always liked. She was really bad at choosing boyfriends, though, and when she hooked up with Lee, I smelled trouble. Bridget began shooting heroin with him and within half a year had hung herself. She was 17.
Joe was a "cool" guy. Always the wittiest of the bunch. He overdosed on heroin at age 18.
"Toads" (Tom) once chased me into a ladies bathroom demanding sex. He choked on his own vomit after too many speedballs. He was 19.
Bob got caught selling drugs to his fellow employees at United Airlines. Bob was a jet mechanic, like his father before him. (Heh, think about that the next time you board a plane.) Bob served ten years in prison.
Danny, who was deaf, and hung out with us "druggies" because no one else would talk to him, hung himself. He was 17.
Jim loved chocolate milk and Superman as a kid. He wound up on heroin and he, too, hung himself -- in his parents' garage. His mother was the librarian in our town and ever after she walked with her head tilted to one side.
Steve got hopped-up on speed one day and decided it would be fun to fly his motorcycle down Hesperian Boulevard, ignoring the stoplights. He was pulverized at the corner of Winton Avenue. He was 19.
I won't go on, but I could. I now know more dead people than live ones. In fact, I could befriend everyone in my neighborhood and still have more dead friends than ones living.
You're absolutely right, Gravid; I am indeed one of the lucky ones. I should've died a dozen times through my stupid use of drugs and the dangerous situations my behavior put me in. And, whether you think so or not, I do believe that programs like D.A.R.E. are making a difference in the choices young people are making today about "toking up" .
posted on February 4, 2004 08:42:04 PM new
A friend of mine had open heart surgery 2 years ago.
Since then he has taken a regiment of 9 different pills daily.
Back around July 2003 he got a new job.
He had to take the company drug test, it was a hair follicle test.
While they were waiting for the results they let him come to work.
In order for him to start work he needed equipment for his new job. So he went out and went in debt to the tune of 3 thousand dollars so he could start.
After working a week the test came back Pos. for drugs.
They new the medication he was on but they still let him go.
He went to his Doctor and told him what happened, the Doctor told him it was common for this to happen with a hair test.
So my friend spent the money to have his Doctor do a complete Blood test.
The test came back Neg for all Drugs.
He took the test results back to his now Ex employer and gave them the paper work.
They told him they were Sorry that they only recognized the results from their Lab.
Now he's afraid to apply anywhere for fear of the same results.
It's not only unfair, But downright Embarrassing.
They have him labeled as a Drug user and they won't take No for an answer,even when the proof comes from a reputable Lab!
posted on February 4, 2004 10:35:43 PM new
Well, Dad, this is one of those rare instances when letters from doctors/family/friends can play a key role.
As his friend, get together a group of people to write testimonials about this fellow. Follow up. If he really wants this job, I guarantee you that pressure will get it for him (especially since he's not a drug addict! )
Give it a shot, good neighbor...
posted on February 5, 2004 06:18:11 AM new
Sorry that was your experience Smith. My school mates they only thing killed them like that was the Vietnam war. But then I honestly never knew anybody at all did those weird chemicals you are talking about. They did pot and an occasional bit of acid. Heroin was something hard core people from the big city did. Meth had not been invented yet I don't think and if you did speed you were just plain stupid. Stuff like ecstasy had not been around either.
I do think it does a disservice to lump them all together. And if you do lump them why leave out cigerettes? Talk about a gateway drug.
