Pubdate: Tue, 17 Jun 2008
Source: Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO)
Copyright: 2008 Denver Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/371
Author: Mason Tvert
Note: Mason Tvert is the executive director of Safer  Alternative For 
Enjoyable Recreation.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

DRUG-TESTING FOLLY

Government officials from Washington, D.C., gathered  for a press 
conference last week in a small, crowded  classroom at the ACE 
Community Challenge Charter School  in Denver. In front of a 
carefully coordinated backdrop  of books and computers, they 
announced that Denver  School District 1 would be the first in 
Colorado to  institute a random student drug-testing program.

Television news cameras rolled as deputy drug czarina  Bertha Madras 
of the Office of National Drug Control  Policy and Deborah Price, 
assistant deputy secretary of  the Department of Education, issued a 
$150,000 federal  grant to the charter school's principal in the form 
of  an oversized cardboard check.

You've heard of blood money; this was urine money.

The two political appointees hailed random urinalysis  of students as 
a sure-fire approach to deterring drug  use in schools, and in true 
Bush administration fashion  they dismissed all evidence that 
suggested otherwise.

In 2003, the National Institute on Drug Abuse funded  the largest 
study to date on such programs. Researchers  examined 94,000 students 
at 900 schools around the  country and found that there was no 
difference between  levels of drug use at schools that test their 
students  and those that do not. The study concluded, "school  drug 
testing was not associated with either the  prevalence or frequency 
of student marijuana use, or of  other illicit drug use."

According to one of the researchers, Dr. Lloyd Johnston  of the 
University of Michigan, "[Drug testing is] the  kind of intervention 
that doesn't win the hearts and  minds of children. I don't think it 
brings about any  constructive changes in their attitudes about drugs 
or  their belief in the dangers associated with using  them."

Nevertheless, Madras repeatedly defended the federal  pee-pee peeking 
program as a "public health response"  despite the fact that the 
American Public Health  Association has taken a formal position 
against random  student drug testing. Other major organizations that 
have spoken out in opposition include the National  Education 
Association, the American Academy of  Pediatrics, the Association for 
Addiction Professionals  and the National Council on Alcoholism and 
Drug  Dependence, among others.

Some also fear there are harmful unintended  consequences associated 
with such programs. Students  for Sensible Drug Policy, a national 
student-based  advocacy organization, has expressed concern that 
students might turn to using more dangerous but less  detectable 
drugs. For example, traces of marijuana in  someone's body can be 
found up to 30 or more days after  use, whereas alcohol, 
methamphetamine, inhalants and  prescription drugs leave the system 
within just one to  four days. They also worry that random drug 
testing is  an unwarranted invasion of students' privacy and breaks 
down the bonds of trust between them and their parents,  teachers and 
school officials.

Despite all of the questions raised about the  effectiveness of these 
programs and the potential harm  they present, the drug czar's office 
continues to  travel the country and recruit school officials to 
apply for these grants from the Department of  Education. More than 
$40 million has been doled out for  random student drug-testing 
programs since 2003, and  more cash-strapped school districts than 
ever before  are applying to the program in hopes of getting 
at  least some form of financial relief.

Some schools that have tried drug testing no longer  bother applying 
because their experience has  demonstrated a more efficient and 
effective way to  address student drug use.

Take the Dublin, Ohio, school district for example. It  was spending 
$35,000 per year randomly drug testing  about 1,500 of its 
approximately 3,600 students, during  which time only 11 tested 
positive for drug use (that's  about $3,200 per "positive" student). 
The district  canceled the program and used the savings to hire a 
full-time drug abuse counselor who could provide  prevention programs 
that reached all of the students  rather than just a random sample, 
and in a much more  cost-effective way.

Unfortunately, the ACE Charter School and Denver School  District 1 
will not have such flexibility. They will be  required to use grant 
funds solely for drug testing  students, regardless of its 
effectiveness, over the  next three years. In other words, they are 
officially  stuck in the business of collecting our students' urine 
and flushing our money down the toilet.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom