Posted on 10/08/2002 4:35:09 AM PDT by Wolfie
New Frontier in Random Drug Testing: Checking High Schoolers for Tobacco
Breath mints won't cut it anymore for students who have been smoking in the bathroom -- some schools around the country are administering urine tests to teenagers to find out whether they have been using tobacco.
Opponents say such testing violates students' rights and can keep them out of the extracurricular activities they need to stay on track. But some advocates say smoking in the boys' room is a ticket to more serious drug use.
"Some addicted drug users look back to cigarettes as the start of it all," said Jeff McAlpin, director of marketing for EDPM, a Birmingham drug-testing company.
Short of catching them in the act, school officials previously had no way of proving students had been smoking.
Testing students for drugs has spread in recent years and was given a boost in June when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed random testing of those in extracurricular activities. Tobacco can easily be added to the usual battery of tests.
"I agree with it," said 16-year-old Vestavia Hills High School junior Rosemary Stafford, a member of the marching band. "It's illegal, it's addictive. Maybe the punishment shouldn't be as severe, but they should test for it."
In Alabama, where the legal age for purchasing and smoking tobacco products is 19, about a dozen districts, mostly in the Birmingham area, test for nicotine along with alcohol and several illegal drugs, including marijuana.
In most cases, the penalties for testing positive for cotinine -- a metabolic byproduct that remains in the body after smoking or chewing tobacco -- are the same as those for illegal drugs: The student's parents are notified and he or she is usually placed on school probation and briefly suspended from sports or other activities.
Alabama's Hoover school system randomly tested 679 of its 1,500 athletes for drug use this past school year. Fourteen high school students tested positive, 12 of them for tobacco.
Elsewhere around the country, schools in Blackford County, Ind., test for tobacco use in athletes, participants in other extracurricular activities, and students who take driver's education or apply for parking permits.
In Lockney, Texas, a federal judge recently struck down the district's testing of all students for the use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco.
In Columbia County, Fla., the school board will vote Tuesday on a testing policy that would include tobacco. Teenagers who take part in extracurricular activities or apply for permits to drive to school would be screened.
"Tobacco does and will affect a larger majority of the students than alcohol or drugs," said Gloria Spizey, the county's coordinator for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. "Tobacco use can be devastating. We felt it needed to stand with the other drugs."
Screenings can detect cotinine for up to 10 days in regular smokers of about a half a pack, or 10 cigarettes, a day, McAlpin said. Experts say it is unlikely that cotinine would collect in people exposed to secondhand smoke.
"Tobacco is illegal for them to have -- it's also a health and safety issue," said Phil Hastings, supervisor of safety and alternative education for schools in Decatur, which recently adopted a testing program that includes tobacco. "We've got a responsibility to let the kids know the dangers of tobacco use."
While random drug testing overall is being fought by the American Civil Liberties Union and students' rights groups, the addition of nicotine testing has drawn little opposition.
Guidelines published last month by the White House drug office do not specifically address tobacco testing.
"On tobacco, we have the same policy as on testing for drugs -- it may not be right for every school and community," said Jennifer de Vallance, press secretary for the office. "We encourage parents and officials to assess the extent and nature of the tobacco problem."
Shawn Heller, executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy in Washington, said tobacco use by teen-agers is a major problem, but testing for it is just another step in the invasion of students' privacy.
"We're making schools like prisons," he said.
They're (small d) democrats, they're just in denial because they despise their (big d) Democratic brothers.
It would be funny if they weren't so dangerous. My only consolation is that democracy is a two edged sword, and they're going to cut themselves with it.
Equating guns to drugs is one of the oldest and most tired arguments of leftists and their Libertarian cousins.
"Now, to be realistic, I realize that we have varying degrees of reduction of government control in mind. The more Libertarian among us are for more drastic cuts in government than are the more moderate Republican members. But I'd like to remind the Libertarians that there is a huge difference between the Republicans and the liberal Democrats, even if from your vantage point you cannot see it. Republicans are not "statists." That term is just as insulting and degrading to them as the term "druggie" is to Libertarians who are opposed to the drug war. Republicans do want smaller government, more freedom and less taxes than do Democrats. They are not socialists. There is hope for them."
"And Libertarians are not druggies. Libertarians call for an end to the drug war. There is understandable logic behind this. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all."
- Posted on 05/09/2001 17:30:14 PDT by Jim Robinson Personal attacks, petty (and not so petty) bickering, flame wars, feuding, etc.
Like I said, the "pro-dope" contingent on FR usually aren't honest about their agenda.
You're babbling. This no longer comes as any surprise.
Spending tax-payers' money in silly urine tests does not seem the best use of my property taxes.
Since smoking allegedly reduces the oxygen-utilization capacity of the athlete's lungs, smoking itself will be the best punishment for these rule-breaking athletes.
"Would you knock it off with the drug posts. Iam NOT in favor of legalizing drugs. I agree that it's none of the feds business and I'm against no knock raids and asset forfeiture, etc, but at no time did I ever advocate legalizing drugs. I detest dopers and the dope scene. Quit posting this crap." Jim
He's rallying the morons to his cause.
Asked for sources, they always come up empty.
Please also note he does not want you to call us "druggies" or "dopers". And I will refrain from similar invectives towards you. We're supposed to debate the issue with logic and reason.
That was my point.
Quote me.
I don't think that argument is "typical" of FR drug-freedom advocates---although there are a few who hold that it's against the Constitution to prohibit anything. And what is your basis for claiming that their interpretation of the Constitution is insincere?
Quote me.
Jim, how do you feel about Roscoe calling drug-freedom advocates "pro-dope"? Thanks for your input.
You've been told this countless times, but I'll tell you again for the benefit of other readers:
Those powers not enumerated to the fed are prohibited, as per the 10th Amendment. And not all rights are enumerated as per the 9th Amendment. Drugs are a state issue. The federal WoD defies both of those.
Furthermore, several specifically enumerated rights are violated by the WoD, specifically 4th Amendment guarantees against warrantless searches, and 5th Amendment guarantees of Due Process, among many others.
Not enough spelling errors and personal attacks?
although there are a few who hold that it's against the Constitution to prohibit anything.
Find one authority in support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.