Why Drug Tests Flunk

salon.com ^ | 4/22/2002 | Janelle Brown

[Ed_in_NJ]

Why drug tests flunk If the Supreme Court rules in favor of drug testing in public schools, will students come clean? Kids at schools in Indiana, where drug tests rule, say no way. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Janelle Brown April 22, 2002 | RUSHVILLE, Ind. -- According to the students at rural Rushville Consolidated High School, there are a dozen ways to pass a drug test. You can march down to the local video store and buy a packet of "Karma" urine-cleansing powder. You can toss salt in your urine sample or drop in a strand of hair coated with hairspray. More often than not, it's simply a matter of choosing the right kinds of drugs, say the teens -- Ecstasy and alcohol disappear from your system within hours; marijuana can take up to 30 days. Some of these methods -- such as the hairspray and the salt -- sound more mythic than magic, but whatever the kids are doing, it seems to work. The drug testing vans roll up to the Rushville campus every few weeks, and 25 students are randomly asked to produce a urine sample; yet hardly anybody is ever caught with drugs in their system. And it's not because they aren't doing drugs.

SEE THE REST AT: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/04/22/drug_testing/index.html

[Ed_in_NJ]

Some of our 'conservative' leaders got conned by the bureaucratic socialists that run our schools. When we know that these socialists act only in their own interests, can't tell the truth, and never get enough Socialism, why did conservatives buy this boatload of BS about WHY the drug tests were pursued so vehemently - over parental objection ???

Did they "follow the money?" Did they check to see how (un)effective these programs are? Did they not realize this is just more government intrusion? And more government?

The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (datia.org) has done a masterful con-job in selling its product. They have fueled hysteria that has allowed them to 'offer' their solution, unquestioned and unfettered by reason.

[Ed_in_NJ]

FYI

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

...why did conservatives buy this boatload of BS about WHY the drug tests were pursued so vehemently - over parental objection ???

Since when did the liberals suddenly become concerned with "parental objections"? The very foundation of liberalism is getting kids away from their parents so that they can be fed a steady diet of lies to advance liberalism.

I agree somewhat with what was posted, although I haven't read the entire article (and I'm pretty hesitant considering the source), but seeing the liberals decrying policies enacted over parental objection is laughable. That's their M.O.!!

For the record, I object to random drug testing. I think it violates the 4th Amendment. I think drug testing should be carried out only if there is a reasonable suspicion that there is a problem. And, random drug testing implies that you are guilty until proven innocent. On the other hand, the liberals object to drug testing because they think that drug use makes you a better person and improves society. They think that shooting heroin and smoking crack can and should be done recreationally.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I thought salon.com was dead. Are they being kept afloat by Rosie O'Donut money like the MMM?

[steve50]

It's interesting that the only time I remember of testing being declared unconstitutional was when some fools thought judges should be tested. Didn't take them long to get that one off the books.

[Ed_in_NJ]

The drug-testing industry has tried to paint anyone that opposes them as a 'druggie.'

Let me assure you that I am absolutely INTOLERANT about drug use. Not only do I not use drugs, or associate with anyone that I know uses them, I also do not drink alcohol, or smoke (anything!).

If you look at the various court cases of students and parents fighting these programs, almost every one is a "model student" -- one that from all evidence is NOT a druggie.

I believe that it is the MOST DEDICATED parents that are most offended by this attack on their parental role, and therefore will not tolerate it. And I also believe that the most dedicated parents are least likely to produce young drug abusers.

[GBA]

I still don't get how drug testing someone "just because" is legal. How is a random drug test different from an illegal search and seizure? Maybe I'm probably being naive. I don't believe that alcohol checkpoints are legal either.

[Ed_in_NJ]

The 'logic' in the Supremes' decision is stunningly fractured and perverted.

They either got cowed by the 70% 'approval' of the public that was reported by a CNN poll, or were conned by the marketing job done by DATIA.

The drug-testing companies, by the way, are largely held by the large drug makers (Roche having a 50% share of LabCorp, for example), who are the largest lobbying group in DC - some 660 fulltime lobbyists last year - so they wield a lot of influence all over the FedGov.

[ClearCase_guy]

It's interesting that the only time I remember of testing being declared unconstitutional was when some fools thought judges should be tested. Didn't take them long to get that one off the books.

I don't remember that but it reminds me of The Crucible by Arthur Miller. He's leftwing, but the play had one lovely bit:

Everyone in town is fair game for the girls who accuse them of witchcraft. The witchhunt goes on and on and many people suffer -- until the girls accuse the wife of the head judge. He instantly decides that the girls are phony. The witchunt ends and life returns to normal. Not too self-serving, huh?

[DeadManRunning]

I don't believe that alcohol checkpoints are legal either.

There is a bit of legalease that allows for this. It is the same set of "principles" that allow seatbelt laws to remain Constitutional. Has to do with the ownership of the public roads. I don't agree with any of it. I prefer there to be a "crime" before any public action is taken.

[Ed_in_NJ]

Absolutely -- don't look for judges, congressclowns or school administrators to 'qualify' for random drug tests. But the great majority of kids that are 'good' and 'clean' and just trying to go to school to learn -- treat them like garbage so they'll stay off drugs. Great program.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Agreed. By instituting random drug testing, they are judging every kid to be a guilty person who must prove their innocence. When the government decides that every kid in America needs to be drug-tested, they are creating a huge bureaucracy that is ripe for fraud, waste, and abuse.

This type of system can and will be used by the school administration/teachers for blackmail. What's to stop them from telling a kid, "Pay me $10 a week or you will come up positive on the next drug 'test'"? There are drug scandals among teachers and administration all the time. Are they above extortion? Hardly. And a drug testing system gives them a way to extort money, drugs, and sex from kids.

If teachers and administration were subject to the same draconian drug testing programs that the kids are, they would be screaming bloody murder.

[steve50]

It was a state case in Alabama or Georgia, not sure which. With the scandals involving teachers and students lately it seems more important to test the teachers to me. Of course, the NEA would have a hissy fit.

[HELLRAISER II]

As a husband to a wife that's a teacher I must tell you that it is not the teachers that have any control over this. The Administrators do as they please regardless of what the teachers think or say, to many people here at Free Republic want to blame the teachers for everything from drugs to pedophilia. The Administrators are the people in charge and the parents shuck their responsibility for their own children, teachers are not baby sitters but that's what most people think. I think that testing people at random is unconstitutional regardless of their age.

[Basil Duke]

Many Free Republic posters likewise will heave the scarlet 'D' at anyone who suggests that drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment, not to mention that the whole procedure gradually gives young Americans en masse the sense that 'government' can force them to do virtually anything, including stripping naked and performing an intimate bodily function on demand. The pro-pee testers are tried and true members of the "if ya got nothing ta worry about" crowd that does just about as much damage to our civil liberties as the left.

[Ed_in_NJ]

FYI, the NEA has come out AGAINST these programs.

[Wolfie]

Drug Testing Political Candidates Violates Fourth Amendment, Supreme Court Rules

[tacticalogic]

The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (datia.org) has done a masterful con-job in selling its product. They have fueled hysteria that has allowed them to 'offer' their solution, unquestioned and unfettered by reason.

And how long before the kids get tired of it and stop cooperating? All they have to do is figure out what causes false positives (poppy seed dressing, antihistamines, etc) and they can pollute the results so much they're worthless.

[Ed_in_NJ]

I can understand how someone can naively do that -- on the surface, these programs sound like they'd fight drug abuse and help kids. But the decision-makers owe it to the public to do their homework, and keep their heads about them (above the BS) -- this was clearly NOT done in this case.

Once again, those responsible have acted irresponsibly.

[steve50]

I agree most of our problems are from the administrator's, they are the ones with the authority and gameplan. Most of my sons teachers I've come in contact seem like they want to do well by our kids, my major problems are with the material they are required to teach(seems pretty slanted to me) and this zero tolerance policy(way to much blind obediance)
Just out of curiosity, would you and your wife agree to comply with mandatory testing for teachers? I assume most would on the "if you have nothing to hide" premise.