Drug Testing 2

8/18/2019 Drug Testing 2

1/26

Parents, experts divided on school drug testing

What Maryellen Stratmann heard at her youngest son’s freshman orientation a

few weeks ago was music to the Springeld, Mo., mother’s ears !is "atholic

high school would #e conducting random drug testing on all students.

!er older son also has random drug testing at his pu#lic high school, #ut only for

kids who participate in extracurricular activities. $o Stratmann and her hus#and

% #oth physicians who have worked in &'s and witnessed rsthand the e(ects of

drug overdoses and other drug)related pro#lems % the more testing the #etter.

*+t might help identify a teen who needs help, she reasons. *We also think it

makes the campus a safer place, since drugs can interfere with an individual-s

a#ility to make good decisions.

fter two Supreme "ourt decisions upholding the constitutionality of random

drug testing and an increase in funding #y the /ush dministration to administer

the urine tests, more schools across the nation are starting to consider this a

feasi#le method to convey an anti)drug message. Many private schools are

testing entire student #odies, and numerous pu#lic schools are testing students

involved in extracurricular activities 0e.g., sports, year#ook committees or even

to o#tain a parking pass1.

2ast year, a survey of superintendents #y 3niversity of 4ew !ampshire

researchers pu#lished in the 5ournal &ducation 2aw 'eporter found that a#out 67percent of school districts nationwide now drug test students. n additional 68

percent were considering adopting such policies. Parents can opt out, of course,

#ut that means either their child won’t #e a#le to attend the private school or

won’t #e allowed to participate in the pu#lic)school extracurriculars.

9et, despite the growing popularity, many experts have misgivings.

*+’m a rm #eliever kids shouldn’t #e using drugs, #ut + don’t think drug testing is

giving people the information they think it is, says :r. Sharon 2evy, director of

the dolescent Su#stance #use Program at "hildren’s !ospital /oston. *+ hear

people talk a#out drug testing as if it’s a pregnancy test. People think it’s the

simplest thing % pee in a cup and run the test and it says yes or no.

:rug tests are typically administered #y contracted medical professionals who

randomly select students from a data#ase and come on campus the day of

testing. "hildren are called out of class and asked to give a urine sample. $hey

may #e escorted to the nurse’s o;ce, for example, #ut the students are allowed

privacy while giving the sample. $he parents, students and school o;cials are

notied of the results of the test. +f the sample indicates a child is using, in most


2/26


3/26

garner more information % and more accurate information % than random drug

testing.

*$he people asking the Cuestions need to have training #ut D kids do answer

these Cuestions. $here’s no dou#t. Will everyone tell the truthE Ff course not,

says 2evy. */ut when you sort of give it over to drug testing and say, G4ow, +

want to see a negative test,’ they’ll nd a way to give you a negative test.

2eading experts on adolescent drug use #ring up another disconcerting issue

$here are comprehensive education and outreach programs that have scientic

studies indicating that kids who go through them do fewer drugs, #ut there is no

scientic evidence that suggests random drug testing has a similar impact. +n

fact, the Su#stance #use and Mental !ealth Services dministration maintains

the 4ational 'egistry of &vidence)#ased Programs and Practices, a data#ase of

proven drug)prevention programs. 'andom drug testing is not included in this

data#ase.

:r. 2inn Hold#erg, a researcher at Fregon !ealth and Science 3niversity, likens

testing to a doctor prescri#ing an experimental #lood pressure medication

instead of one that has #een proven e(ective. !e and other drug a#use experts

say that the message that drug prevention is evidence)#ased and certain

programs work has not #een heard. +nstead, #illions of dollars have #een

sCuandered on programs without scientic merit that do not work 0e.g., :..'.&.,

the @ust Say 4o ad campaign and, possi#ly, random drug testing1.

look at how heroin, cocaine and other drugs a(ect the #ody*Why would you

ever say, GWe know something that works, #ut let’s try something that we don’t

know works’E says Hold#erg.

Proponents on #oth sides are undou#tedly well intended, #ut we may soon have

a long awaited piece of evidence to give credence to one group. Hold#erg says

his team is crunching the data collected from a two)year randomiIed controlled

study of schools with and without random drug testing. !e’s now preparing for

pu#lication.

:on Stewart, superintendent of Penn Manor School :istrict in 2ancaster "ounty,

Penn., #elieves there’s no time to waste. *+ like Jdrug testingK #ecause it says we

are willing to do all it can to prevent kids from throwing away their lives with

drug use.

!is district is in its second year of random testing, and for now, anecdotal

evidence is enough for him. 2ast year, with random drug testing in place,Stewart says only a#out one)third the num#er of students were referred for drug)

http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423004/ns/health-addictions/t/interactive-street-drugs/http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423004/ns/health-addictions/t/interactive-street-drugs/


4/26

related 5udicial review compared to the previous year in his district. *+’m not

saying we’ll see the same thing this year or that there’s necessarily a cause and

e(ect relationship, he admits. *+ don’t have empirical data. Still, implementing

drug testing speaks to what our community stands for. We don’t turn our #acks

on a pro#lem.

$he youngest Stratmann #oy agrees. s long as the testing is done with an

emphasis on helping kids and their families, says 6=)year)old @oe, why notE

Lictoria "layton is a freelance writer #ased in "alifornia and co)author of


5/26


6/26

Institute, relays that random drug testing is being considered by schools out of desperation for an alternative solution.

Nothing seems to be workingall the education and >scare tactics> do not seem to have anystatistical affect on the use of drugs among adolescents. This desperation forces schools to

make imperative, and often controversial, choices to combat suspected drug use. Dr.the random testing of all students is unconstitutional, the ?ourtrecently held in a fivetofour decision that a mandatory drugtesting program for studentsinvolved in e"tracurricular activities is permissible.> This has widereaching implications forthe future of random drug testing in schools, and it seems to suggest a shift in the logic

behind the e"istent laws. 0upporters of these laws feel that the benefits that random drugtesting can provide, such as a reduction in drug use as well as early intervention for identifiedsubstance abusers, far outweigh the potential negative litigation surrounding the issue.

?ons

• The main ob+ection to random drug testing in schools continues to be the violation of

constitutional rights@ laws of presumable innocence and laws that free individuals fromunwarranted search and sei/ure. #any students feel that their civil liberties are at risk andthat if random drug searches are allowed, this potentially opens a floodgate for other formsof surveillance and monitoring that infringes upon their rights at citi/ens.

#any school administrators feel the same way8 %uite frankly, many school administrators fear the legal ramifications of even attempting to implement a random drug testing policy. Afirestorm of individual legal battles could result, which would cost the district tremendously,in both time, reputation and finances.

In addition, little to no evidence has been published to actually validate the effectiveness ofmeasures such as random drug testing.

Dr. until recently the constitutionality of random drugtesting was uncertain, there has been little time to implement studies of its effectiveness.>#any e"perts, including Dr. cause or suspicion,> and it is often determined on a referral basis bystudents, teachers, parents or administrators. #ost schools have 0tudent 0upport Teams,which are groups of trained educators, psychologists, guidance counselors and administratorswho can initiate and manage such re%uests. These re%uests often re%uire a parent signature of

permission in order to test the minor.

1"perts agree that the one aspect evidence does support is that early intervention of suspecteddrug abusers and early referral to substance abuse programs helps the student overcomesubstance abuse. :hile the political, legal and moral debate over random drug testing

continues, parents must cooperate and communicate with other teachers, coaches,


7/26

administrators and students to monitor the warning signs of substance abuse and intervenewithout hesitation when a child e"hibits these signs.

Pu#lic Fpinions

• :hen asked about random drug testing in schools, a mi"ture of positive and negative

responses were voicedproving, once again, that the controversy remains as fevered andrelevant as ever.

>0tudents must be tested for drugs, due to increase in the level of addiction among studentsand I think this will help most of the worried parents.>

>0tudents drug testing is very important as it is the students who are addicted at an alarmingrate, and we should first save our younger generations.>

>!andom drug testing is bad, but maybe a random drug test of the whole school or college,not +ust individual students. Although a mammoth task is fairer and less of an invasion of

personal privacy if it is recogni/ed as an official event.>

In an article published by the


8/26


9/26

as ensuring the $privacy$ of all students by not having random drug tests empowers some

students to socially coerce other students into using drugs when they otherwise would not.

!andom drug tests help prevent cultures or norms of drugtaking 2by which it can become the

$cool$ thing to do4 by ensuring that most drug users will be caught and helped to %uit, thus

protecting the choice of others not to be pressured into drug use.

E5F !osenbaum, #arsha. G0afety irst@ A !eality


10/26

!andom drug tests will only catch those who are actively taking drugs, as tests can be used

which are unlikely to make a $positive$ reading from secondary e"posure 2for e"ample, being

near someone else smoking cannabis4.

Those actively taking drugs need help in getting off drugs far more urgently than they need

their right to $privacy$, as addiction at a young age could have a significant negative impactupon the remainder of their time in education. Therefore, nondrug users have nothing to fear

from testing. As a result random checks are in the best interests of drug users.

:iscuss $hisQ

"F34$&'PF+4$

0tudents who do not use illegal drugs do have something to fear the violation of privacy andloss of dignity caused by random drug tests. They may well feel that they are being treated as

under suspicion with no evidence or cause, and resent this imposition upon their privacy.

Indeed, the indignity of drugs testing may compel children who are already in a position of

vulnerability as a result of social marginalisation or personal or family problems to drop out

of school entirely.

:iscuss $hisQ

•

PF+4$S H+4S$

'ight to privacy

PF+4$

1ven if a right to privacy 2which would prevent random drug testing with no reason for

suspicion4 does not e"ist in law in every country, many students being affected by drugs tests

will perceive that the notional right to privacy which they believe they possess is being

violated.


11/26

suspicion, these drugusing students would have to be engaging in their education, not

disrupting the education of others, and not displaying erratic or harmful behaviour. As they

are not actively harming others, these students should be sub+ect only to the same standards

as individuals in other areas of society@ to only have their privacy violated by drugs tests if

their behaviour actively brings them under suspicion.

:iscuss $hisQ

"F34$&'PF+4$

The students in %uestion may not reali/e the longterm harms of drug use or fully understand

the risks of addiction, and as they are not yet fully adult and responsible for themselves, the

state has the right to ensure that they do not e"ercise their $right to privacy$ in a way that

could be harmful to them.

:iscuss $hisQ

Aeeping teenagers in education

PF+4$

0tudies in #ichigan in the 0A have found that random drug tests in schools do not deter

drug use, as schools with and without random tests have similar levels of drug use amongtheir pupils.E5F

It seems unlikely that random drug tests will, in fact, deter students from taking drugs. :hat

such tests will result in, however, is a greater number of e"clusions and disciplinary actions

resulting from catching student drug users, which as the studies have shown has no guarantee

of lowering drug use overall.

aced with a situation of continuing to be caught and reprimanded for drug use in school due

to random drug tests, many older teenagers who reach the age whereby they may choose to

leave school may choose to do so in greater numbers. This may well be compounded by an

adolescent desire to rebel and re+ect authority when it tries to prevent them doing what they

want, and so a greater number of teenage students may drop out of school so as to allow

themselves to continue doing what they want more easily K that is, taking drugs. eaving

school at such an age for no other reason than to pursue a drugusing lifestyle is almost

certainly more harmful than the worstcase alternative, whereby they at least remain in

education even if they continue to use illegal drugs, comparatively improving their future

career and education choices. 0imply driving teenagers out of education with random drug

tests benefits noone.

E5F ;rim, !yan. G


12/26

:iscuss $hisQ

"F34$&'PF+4$

sing random drug tests would mean that a greater number of teenage drug users would be

caught and put into drug rehabilitation programs, which would surely help at least some of

them. The school$s duty of care means that they must at least be given this chance to give up

drugs, even if they refuse it, as opposed to simply allowing them to keep using, which will

most likely disrupt their education severely anyway.

:iscuss $hisQ

Safeguarding the teacher)student relationship

PF+4$

!andom drug tests change the studentteacher relationship from one of trust into one of

suspicion, whereby the teachers and the school establishment become a body which many

students will perceive as being out to catch them, and suspicious of all. The destruction of

this trust makes it far harder for teachers to impart useful information on illegal drugs and the

conse%uences of their use to students, and students may be less willing to seek teachers outon this information. This would lead to students relying increasingly on their peers and the

internet for information on illegal drugs, and this information is far more likely to be of

%uestionable policy or influenced by notions of drug use as $cool$ or glamorous. Thus schools$

antidrugs message may be harmed by random drug tests.

:iscuss $hisQ

"F34$&'PF+4$

!andom drug tests may actually help remove mistrust between teachers and students.

Individual suspicion will no longer be the cause of drug tests for students, but rather these

tests will be something al students will face at one time or another. This means students may

actually feel freer to approach their teachers, and they may feel the need to more keenly, as

they know they may be tested at any time.

:iscuss $hisQ

+n @anuary 788O, a school in Aent #ecome the rst state school in the 3A to report

the introduction of random 0Gsuspicionless’1 drug testing. $esting is alreadywidespread in independent #oarding schools, with three)Cuarters of schools

http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229http://idebate.org/discussthis/new/18229


13/26

reported to #e using some drug testing.6 $here is no dou#t that for governors,

teachers and parents drug testing seems an attractive solution #oth to prevent

and deal with illicit drug use among their pupils. $he Aent initiative, partly funded

#y the 4ews of Worldand supported #y the testing manufacturers ltrix

!ealthcare plc, has #een #roadly welcomed, such that only a small proportion of

parents have opted their children out of the scheme.7 :espite the enthusiasm

from teachers and parents for testing, few empirical studies have examined the

e(ects of drug testing in schools. With adults, an +ndependent +nCuiry into :rug

$esting at Work cautioned against introducing random drug testing in the

workplace, concluding that it was inappropriate to drug test as a means of

policing private #ehaviour of employees or improving productivity, except

perhaps in safety)critical industries. We #elieve that if drug testing is not

appropriate for adult employees then it should also #e unaccepta#le to test

school children.

+llicit drug use is certainly prevalent among the young. +n 7887R788 the /ritish

"rime Survey= found that T of 6ROB)year)olds reported using one or more

illicit drugs in their lifetime, 6T using "lass 0cocaine, heroin1 drugs. "anna#is

is the most freCuently reported drug with around million users per year and 6R

7=)year)olds were the age group most likely to use illicit drugs in the past year

07>T1. $he latest survey of school children #y the :epartment of

!ealthO reported that 76T had used drugs in the past year with 67T admitting

to having used in the past month. s with adults, canna#is was the mostfreCuently used drug.

• Fther SectionsU

&th grade students 06)year)olds1 from O.BT to

7=.=T, alcohol use from B.BT to 8T, and canna#is use from 6>.OT to 66.>T.

+n an attempt to examine the e(ectiveness of drug testing, @ames and Moore

studied 7B adolescents who had esta#lished drug or alcohol pro#lems attending

a treatment centre.? :rug testing was an e(ective tool in helping to prescri#e

appropriate treatment strategies for these young people with pre)existing drug

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b3http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b4http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b5http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b6http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b7http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b1http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b3http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b4http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b5http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b6http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1472793/#b7


14/26

pro#lems. $he authors concluded that strategic and focused testing via urine

tests could #ring a#out #ehavioural change, although it is unwise to generalise

this specic situation to that of a large school where only a small proportion of

the pupils will have pro#lems with drug or alcohol misuse.

P'F/2&MS W+$! $&S$+4H

$he only systematic study of random drug testing in schools failed to nd an

impact.>+n this study of ? 888 >th, 68th and 67th grade students across a

num#er of schools the researchers found that testing was not associated with

either the prevalence or the freCuency of student canna#is use and other illicit

drug use #y male high school athletes. McAeganey,B in an important review of

drug testing in schools pu#lished #y the @oseph 'owntree


15/26

$here are signicant pro#lems associated with testing. $he cheapest form of

testing is the low)cost immunoassay urine test, and costs around 3SX6=R8 per

test66conrmatory tests also add to the cost.


16/26


17/26

ﾧ

$here is a clear correlation #etween drug use and declining academicperformance.

:rug)impaired students undermine our country-s a#ility to compete on the worldstage. 3nfortunately, compared with many of our international competitors, the3.S. is operating at a handicap #ecause too many of our youth, indeed ourcitiIens, are a#using drugs. merica represents four percent of the worldspopulation, yet it consumes two)thirds of the world-s illegal drugs.

Zuoted from a new report documenting the fact that student drug use iscompromising academic success in 3. S. schools. $o read the full report #y @udyAreamer, Hary M.


18/26

supportive of a pro)drugYpro)legaliIation messages. :o not let pro)drugadvocates such as the "23, the :rug Policy lliance, the Mari5uana PolicyPro5ect, the 4ational FrganiIation for the 'eform of Mari5uana 2aws et. al. tellyour communities and schools what is #est for your children or dictate whatschool prevention programs will #e implemented. 2earn a#out what other schoolshave done to successfully reduce drug use%listen to what educators andadministrators have to say a#out decreasing and deterring drug use in theirschools in this new report from the "oalition.

ﾧ

:o student drug)testing programs negatively impact studentsE 788> review and analysis of school report)card data on O7 4ew @ersey schooldistricts examined the Cuestion of how a student random drug)testing programimpacts student culture and morale in school districts where these preventionprograms have #een implemented as compared to non)testing districts. $he

results of the review and analysis are availa#le in a newreport from the Student:rug)$esting "oalition.

ﾧ

nother reason to consider implementing a student random drug)testingprogram

$he foundation for later su#stance use is set for most people #y the time theynish high school, licia ". Merline, M, *Su#stance use is still common at ageO, 3)M study nds, 3niversity of Michigan 4ews Service, 8O @an 788=.

3sing data on respondents to the Monitoring the , 3niversity of Michigan researchersrandomly selected graduates from this group to participate in follow)up surveysevery two years. What they found in this follow)up study was that su#stance usewas surprisingly prevalent at the start of mid)life and that there was a high levelof sta#ility of su#stance use over the 6>)year time period #y those who had useddrugs or drank heavily #y their senior year in high school.

Summary of ndingsR$hose using mari5uana #y their senior year were > times more likely to use it at

age O than those who had not tried it #y the 67th grade.R$hose using any illicit drug other than mari5uana #y their senior year were Otimes more likely to use cocaine and times more likely to misuse prescriptiondrugs at age O compared to students who had not used any illicit drug #y theirsenior year.R$hose who drank heavily were times more likely to drink heavily at O years of age compared to those who did not drink heavily as high school seniors.Source licia ". Merline, M, et al., *Su#stance 3se mong dults O 9ears ofge Prevalence, dulthood Predictors, and +mpact of dolescent Su#stance3se, @anuary 788=, Lol B=, 4o. 6, merican @ournal of Pu#lic !ealth, B)687.

$o read the full study httpYYwww.a5ph.orgYcontentYvolB=Yissue6Y

ﾧ

http://www.studentdrugtesting.org/CE%20Edwards%20SDT%20does%20it%20work.pdfhttp://www.studentdrugtesting.org/is%20there%20a%20negative%20impact%20with%20RSDT%20jul08.pdfhttp://www.ajph.org/content/vol94/issue1/http://www.studentdrugtesting.org/CE%20Edwards%20SDT%20does%20it%20work.pdfhttp://www.studentdrugtesting.org/is%20there%20a%20negative%20impact%20with%20RSDT%20jul08.pdfhttp://www.ajph.org/content/vol94/issue1/


19/26

t their 66=th annual meeting, 6 Fct 788?, the +nternational ssociation of"hiefs of Police have adopted a 'esolution in support of student drug testingprevention programs. $o read the full resolution click here.

ﾧ

. . . and some people are still heard to say *. . . #ut it’s only mari5uana.mong persons aged 6> or older, those who rst used mari5uana#efore age 67 were twice as likely to have serious mental illnessin the past year as those who rst used mari5uana at age 6>or older. 'ecent research points to an association #etweenearly mari5uana use and a heightened risk of developingschiIophrenia or other psychological disorders.

Source *ge at


20/26

Source of data P'+:& Surveys newsletter @anuary 6, 788?httpYYwww.pridesurveys.comYnewslettersYarchiveY86688?.htm

4ew report from ":"

new two)page report from ":" documents the evidence of the link #etween

drug use and violence. $he report is titled $he +nextrica#le 2ink $he

'elationship /etween lcohol, :rug 3se and Liolence mong Students and may

#e found athttpYYcadca.orgY"oalition'esourcesYPP)

documentsY$he+nextrica#le2ink.pdf

Studies a;rm drug use leads to poor academic performance

'esearch on student drug use and academic performance continues to support a

relationship #etween poor academic performance and drug use 0this includes

alcohol use1. $he most recent study using data from the 4ational Survey on :rug

3se and !ealth, 7887)788= continues to a;rm this relationship.

'esearchers found that the freCuency of the use of alcohol and mari5uana during

the past month was related to academic performance. Ff students reporting an

or / average

)?7.7T were students who did not use mari5uana in the past month as compared

with O>T of those who used mari5uana on 6 to = days in the past month and

==.BT of those who used mari5uana on O or more days during the past month.

)?7.OT were students who did not use alcohol during the past month as

compared with ?.6T of those who used 0#ut did not #inge on1 alcohol in the

past month and O?.?T of those who engaged in past month #inge alcohol use.

Source 3. S. :epartment of !ealth and !uman Services, Su#stance #use and

Mental !ealth Services dministration, 4ational Survey on :rug 3se and !ealth,

*cademic Performance and Su#stance 3se among Students ged 67 to 6?

7887, 788, and 788=. $he 4S:3! 'eport, +ssue 6>, May 788.

P'+:& Survey data nds adolescent su#stance use correlates with academicachievement

http://www.pridesurveys.com/newsletters/archive/011007.htmhttp://cadca.org/CoalitionResources/PP-documents/TheInextricableLink.pdfhttp://cadca.org/CoalitionResources/PP-documents/TheInextricableLink.pdfhttp://www.pridesurveys.com/newsletters/archive/011007.htmhttp://cadca.org/CoalitionResources/PP-documents/TheInextricableLink.pdfhttp://cadca.org/CoalitionResources/PP-documents/TheInextricableLink.pdf


21/26

ccording to data analysis of the P'+:& Surveys 4ational Summary 788OY788,

academic performance of students surveyed showed a correlation #etween

student drug use and academic achievement. !igh percentages of students

using mari5uana andYor alcohol on a monthly #asis were shown to rarely make

good grades.

Summary of data analysis

R>T of students who rarely make good grades were also monthly mari5uana

users

RFnly ?T of students claiming monthly mari5uana use freCuently made good

grades

R=BT of students who used alcohol monthly had poor grade performance

RFnly 6>T of students claiming monthly alcohol use were academic achievers

RStudents with low academic performance also were shown to disproportionately

represent those students reporting truancy, discipline pro#lems, gang

mem#ership and #ullying

Source P'+:& 4ewsletter, 4ovem#er 6, 788

httpYYwww.pridesurveys.comYnewslettersYarchiveY6668.htm

ccording to a recent report from P'+:& surveys, parents dramatically

underestimate alcohol and drug use #y adolescents as young as 66 years of age.

Sixth)graders reporting use Parents saying sixth)grader uses

76T reported alcohol use OT said there was alcohol use

>.T reported drug use 8.BT said there was drug use

$welfth)graders reporting use Parents saying twelfth)grader uses

>T report alcohol use =6T said there was alcohol use

T report drug use 6OT said there was drug use

An overview of random drugs testing in schools@ A survey recently published by the News ofthe :orld on 0unday showed that C& of parents and ** of children support school drugtesting.

Drug use amongst young people is on the increase, but fortunately so is the awareness of thewhole issue. Despite this, such testing takes place %uite rarely in the B 2mainly in =ublic 6

http://www.pridesurveys.com/newsletters/archive/111606.htmhttp://www.pridesurveys.com/newsletters/archive/111606.htm


22/26

=rivate 0chools4, although it is a more common practice in the 0A.

The average starting age for heroin abuse in many towns and cities in the B is currently +ust53, and a survey of over &',''' B school children showed that L of 5( year olds and overa %uarter 2&)4 of 53 year olds had used an illegal drug at some stage in their lives. 0o there

is obviously a need for more assertive intervention at an early age.

=arents face the growing concern that their teenager may already be taking drugs, or that theyare in an environment where they are e"posed to those who will offer them drugs, especially?annabis 6 #ari+uana. The frightening reality is that based on the statistics, this environmentmay well be their school.

In order to learn more about drug use 2and in particular ?annabis 6 #ari+uana supply andyoung people4, 5C& young people who were ?annabis 6 #ari+uana users aged between 55 and5L years old were interviewed for a study published in -anuary &''C by the -oseph !owntreeoundation. The sample included both city dwellers and young people living in rural villages.

The study discovered that half of the young people had taken ?annabis 6 #ari+uana intoschool or college and M( per cent admitted that they used ?annabis 6 #ari+uana whilst atschool or college. It is clear from the report that the ma+ority of these young people purchase?annabis from their friends or relatives and in turn supply their friends in a new wave ofsocial and notforprofit drug taking which is a departure from the typical dealeruserscenario. One young interviewee told the researchers that the people who sold her ?annabis 6#ari+uana included friends from school and shows how combining druguse with normalsocial networking is having the effect of normalising the act of taking drugs.

:hilst the institutions we supply school drug test kits to are benefiting from a reduction indrug use amongst their students 6 pupils, not everyone is in favour of random drug testing inschools.

A recent study by Neil #cBeganey, =rofessor of Drug #isuse !esearch at ;lasgowniversity, argues that random drug testing in schools is perhaps a more comple" andcontroversial issue than one would at first consider. uestions arise over matters includingcost, ethical issues 2such as what would happen in the event that a pupil tested positive fordrugs and what punishment or deterrent would be appropriate4, concerns that pupils mayswitch from easily detectable drugs to more harmful drugs in order to avoid detection, and the

probability that a trusting relationship between staff and pupil would be damaged and

encourage a culture of concealment. urthermore, some may argue that it is possible thatenforcing random drug testing of pupils would conflict with the N ?harter on the !ights ofthe ?hild or the 1uropean ?harter on 7uman !ights.

?ertainly, accident 6 incident 6 suspicion based testing is treated differently to random testingas you are only taking action on a case by case basis when there is an apparent need forfurther investigation. ?ombine this with earlier awareness and prevention strategies and weshould be closer to finding a solution to this growing problem.

!esults from an I?# !esearch poll which appeared in the News of the :orld on 0undaydemonstrated that C& of parents and ** of children support drug testing in schools and of

the 5,''' parents surveyed, L* said they would want to know if their son or daughter wastaking drugs, so the public perception is that there is a need for action.


23/26

0o what can be done9

$ypes of School :rug $esting

or 0chools 6 ?olleges 6 niversities, please find more information on drug testing and the products and services we have to offer on our drug testing page.

• Onsite rine Drug Testing

• aboratory rine Drug Testing

• 7air Drug Tests

• Oral 6 0aliva Drug Tests

• 0urface Drug Detection :ipes

:e also offer drug and alcohol policy development / review consultancy services and drugawareness training.

or parents@

In the absence of a random drug screening programme at school or college, an"ious parents,guardians or caregivers who have concerns about teenagers or young people using drugs areable to conduct a drug test in the privacy of the home. These home drug test kits are useddaily by professionals in the healthcare industry and one test can provide easy to read results

in minutes for a variety of different drugs. This includes the most common drugs, such as?annabis 6 #ari+uana, ?ocaine, Amphetamines,


24/26

So why choose Drug-Aware for your Drug Testing requirements

At Drug-Aware, we pride ourselves on providing a comprehensive solution when it comes to drug

testing!

Take a look at all of the additional e"tras we add as standard#

/lowing Smoke

Why random drug testing doesn't reduce

student drug use.Student smoking a 5oint

Drug testing of the American public has been steadily broadening over the past &' years,

from soldiers to grocery baggers to highschool and middleschool students. In its &'')

budget, the


25/26


26/26

of the 5,(''member Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association, pointed me to a

preliminary study that she likes better than #ichigan$s and that :alters also fre%uently

references. The study is funded by the Department of 1ducation and produced by the Institute

for descriptive,> chose nine schools that met certain criteria, the

first of which was, >The student drug testing program$s apparent success.> The study$s

methodology appears to add to the slant. !ather than gathering information from students and

analy/ing it, Du=ont relies on a %uestionnaire that asks how effective administrators think

their random drugtesting program is. 7e doesn$t claim neutrality. >I can$t %uite get the

argument that Edrug testingF wouldn$t work,> he says. 7e$s now working on an evaluation of

eight schools. The results won$t be ready soon, but let$s venture a prediction@ !andom drug

testing will come out looking good.

http://www.datia.org/http://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/bda_main.htmlhttp://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/bda_main.htmlhttp://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/bda_main.htmlhttp://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/bda_services.htmlhttp://www.studentdrugtesting.org/SDT%20DUPONT%20STUDY.pdfhttp://www.datia.org/http://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/bda_main.htmlhttp://www.bensingerdupont.com/main/bda_services.htmlhttp://www.studentdrugtesting.org/SDT%20DUPONT%20STUDY.pdf

Documents

Drug Testing 2