Get exposure from within the Counter Culture Community with Advertising on StonerForums.com
| | 
05-09-2007, 10:14 PM
|
#1 | | District Stoner My Mood: 
Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington D.C. Gender: 
Posts: 1,073
Stoner Buck$$: 325.10       Tournaments Won: 1 |  Norml.Org-RANDOM DRUG TESTING SPREADS, ONE SCHOOL A WEEK
I don't like the idea of random test without me giving it to my kids my government has to much control of my kids as it is.What do you all think? RANDOM DRUG TESTING SPREADS, ONE SCHOOL A WEEK
(Source:USA Today)
writeNewsItems(); Regional News US: Web: Media Hype About Painkillers Shot Down
US CA: Busted: Medical Marijuana Site Closed by Police
US: Editorial: Random Drug Testing Spreads, One School a Week
US MN: Editorial: It's Time to Pass Medical Marijuana
US OH: Training Is Key for Local Officers and K-9 Partners
US MD: Edu: OPED: Leadership Letdown
US MD: Edu: OPED: Popular Pot
US NC: Scores Rally To Legalize Pot
US CA: Student, 13, Arrested for Bringing Pot-Laced Brownies to School
US CA: Activists March to Advocate Legalizing Cannabis 08 May 2007
United States
------- Concerns Can't Be Ignored, but Neither Can the Health of 1 Million Kids.
The scene: A busy high school corridor in Scottsbluff, Neb. Principal Galen Nighswonger, who began a random drug testing program for his students last fall, is standing around the corner from two boys and overhears this conversation:
"You going to the party Saturday night?"
"Since they've been testing I'm not using, so I haven't been going."
"Yeah. I'm gonna go, but I'm not gonna do anything."
It sounds self-justifying, but Nighswonger insists this is the way it happened. His story, and others like it, are worth listening to as the debate over student drug testing continues to rage and an average of one school a week adds a testing program.
In the past, we've supported random drug testing for safety workers and athletes but have been doubtful about the intrusiveness, costs and fairness of broad-based student testing. Those remain valid concerns.
But so do the societal costs of drug use, which -- like smoking -- almost always begins during the teen years. Federal figures show that almost 5% of 12-to-17-year-olds abused or were dependent on an illicit substance in 2005 -- more than 1 million kids.
The most popular illicit drug, marijuana, is more potent and dangerous today than it was a generation ago. Yet months or years can pass before even the most involved parents realize a child is using drugs, by which time treatment is much tougher.
Drug testing in schools might close that gap. White House drug czar John Walters says testing is the single most important step schools can take, and it's becoming increasingly hard to dismiss administrators who say that testing works for them and can be done fairly cost effectively ( Scottsbluff spends about $11,000 a year to randomly test roughly a quarter of the student body ).
By Walters' estimate, more than 1,000 high schools and middle schools conduct random drug testing, less than 5% of the total. But the practice has been around for long enough that many state courts have approved it. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice carved out exceptions to students' privacy rights to enable schools to test within strict limits -- either students for whom there's "reasonable suspicion" of drug use, or random tests of athletes and students who participate in other extracurricular activities.
Students who turn up positive are typically barred from after-school activities briefly and required to get counseling and another test. Only the school, a drug counselor and parents find out; the point is to treat this as a health problem, not a police matter.
Advocates of testing say it gives students a powerful reason to say no to peer pressure -- just as that overheard conversation at Scottsbluff High School suggests. Critics are just as passionate, arguing that the tests are invasive and expensive, and that studies show testing doesn't deter drug use. In truth, data conflict, and both sides can point to studies that back their position.
What's missing is definitive research that would allow schools to make confident decisions balancing costs against benefits. In Scottsbluff, Nighswonger says he acted after the parent of a meth-addicted student stood up at a school board meeting and begged for help. Who hasn't known a parent like that -- frightened, desperate, at wit's end?
Testing -- at the discretion of local districts, with the ability of parents to opt out -- is a tool that might help, if only schools had the facts to make a smart choice.
__________________   Stoner Forums - A Marijuana Friendly Community | 
|  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | |
