Forced student drug testing

[shanek]

For your perusal, here's a letter to the editor I wrote to a local paper. Our local government schools want to expand compulsory mandatory drug testing beyond student athletics to any student participating in extra-curricular activities.

The proposal to expand random drug testing for students in Lincoln County schools is both expensive and misguided. Not only is it an invasion of privacy, there is no evidence that random drug testing results in lower drug use; in fact, there are indications that it can actually lead to an increase. While it's a solution that may feel good, it can actually backfire.

In Lincoln County, 38% of all school crimes involve illegal drugs, while much fewer involve alcohol or tobacco. Seagrams and Marlboro don't send dealers into schools to hook our children, because their products are legal for adults. Before WWI, an 8-year-old could walk into a drugstore and buy Bayer Heroin, and it wasn't a problem. We need to end the War on Drugs, and get these drugs out of the hands of criminals and back in the hands of responsible private businesses. In the meantime, proven, nonintrusive methods such as peer counseling and performance testing will cut down on drug use.

It will cost $20,000 per year to expand student drug testing, at a time when our schools are scrounging for supplies and don't have enough textbooks to go around. The purpose of our schools is to educate our children, not police them. And that mandate is not served by conditioning them to believe that our inalienable rights are something that can be taken away as long as there's a plausible-sounding reason.

One point that I couldn't fit in because of the word limitation is that the very students they're trying to help with this will simply be discouraged from participating in extracurricular activities, which could help them turn their lives around.

[corplinx]

Keep fighting the good fight Shanek. Was this proposed by an elected school board by chance?

[Tmy]

Why are student athletes held to such a higher standard than everyone else. Look at college, if someone on the football team is arrested for DUI or the like you can rest assured that player will be suspened from play. Would a member of the school paper be disiplined the same way?? At all?

[corplinx]

Student athletes are held to the same standard as Olympic athletes. Let's not forget that student athlete testing has more to do with steroid usage than cracking down on recreational drugs.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Keep fighting the good fight Shanek. Was this proposed by an elected school board by chance?

It was a committee reporting to the school board. The board has yet to vote on it.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek


It was a committee reporting to the school board. The board has yet to vote on it.

Once again we see bureacracy in action. A waste of money all around. Let the mayors appoint people to run the schools and save money all around.

[pgwenthold]

While I cannot argue with your cause, I think your second paragraph does a disservice in this case, and will lead to people dismissing you as a pot-smoking-evil-hippy-freak.

You would have been much better served in this argument by supporting your assertion that random drug testing leads to an increase in drug use, and by including the last argument, that it does not deter drug use, but actually deters participation in those activities where they are tested. That's much more likely to be received than a "Legalize them all!" cry.

[shanek]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
While I cannot argue with your cause, I think your second paragraph does a disservice in this case, and will lead to people dismissing you as a pot-smoking-evil-hippy-freak.

You would have been much better served in this argument by supporting your assertion that random drug testing leads to an increase in drug use, and by including the last argument, that it does not deter drug use, but actually deters participation in those activities where they are tested. That's much more likely to be received than a "Legalize them all!" cry.

It's an argument that's worked well for me in the past. In my experience, the only ones who dismiss that are the very ones who are in favor of the increased drug testing to begin with, and they aren't my target. My target is those who may go along with it because it sounds good but haven't been presented the other side. For those people, this argument gets them thinking.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
For your perusal, here's a letter to the editor I wrote to a local paper. Our local government schools want to expand compulsory mandatory drug testing beyond student athletics to any student participating in extra-curricular activities.

I can understand steroid testing in high school athletic programs, as steroids can seriously screw you up and the pressure to get athletic scholarships can be high. But I don't understand why drug testing would be expanded to other extra-curricular activities. What is the stated reason for this? Why does the school care if the drummer in Band is smoking a little pot on the weekend? Why does the school care less if the same student quits band but still smokes up on the weekend?

I agree with pgwenthold on his notes about your letter. I would think that a better argument would focus on the stated objectives behind the expansion of the policy and how the expansion would not meet those objectives. No school official will want to be swayed (publicly at least) by an argument that the "War on Drugs" be brought to an end.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
My target is those who may go along with it because it sounds good but haven't been presented the other side. For those people, this argument gets them thinking.

The point is that you make an unsupported assertion in the first paragraph - "there are indications that it can actually lead to an increase" = and you'd be better off using your second paragraph to actually back up your assertions in the first paragraph.

I just don't see what the "Bayer Heroin for 8 year olds" reference buys you that some evidence of your point from the first paragraoh wouldn't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
The point is that you make an unsupported assertion in the first paragraph - "there are indications that it can actually lead to an increase" = and you'd be better off using your second paragraph to actually back up your assertions in the first paragraph.

I just don't see what the "Bayer Heroin for 8 year olds" reference buys you that some evidence of your point from the first paragraoh wouldn't.

Good point.

[kittynh]

Good points Shanek!
Schools are for teaching, when did they become cops?

[J3K]

When they had problems, so they start makeing new useless rules to make it "look" like they are fixing things.

[SortingItAllOut]

Hi Shanek,

Cool avatar, BTW. :)

Do you think that, in their capacity as agents of the state and more so as people who are tasked with the responsibility for developing these young individuals, school officials should be concerned with drug and alcohol use by their students?

Just curious.

Take care,
Sort:)

[fishbob]

I thought drug testing for athletes was primarily to prevent unfair advantage in competition. If the goal is to prevent unfair advantage - well I am at a loss to see how steriods or pot or any other drug would give an unfair advantage to the debate team. If the goal is to reduce the use of illegal drugs, why pick on the extra-curricular participants? These students are probably at lower risk than the slackers and poetential drop-outs.

Your points are valid. I suggest leaving out your middle paragraph for space savings, and add your last point.

[Questioninggeller]

Yeah I remeber when the Supreme Court shot down drugs tests for electec officals. They make kids and Walmart employees pass drug tests, but not those who control policy.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by fishbob
I thought drug testing for athletes was primarily to prevent unfair advantage in competition. If the goal is to prevent unfair advantage - well I am at a loss to see how steriods or pot or any other drug would give an unfair advantage to the debate team. If the goal is to reduce the use of illegal drugs, why pick on the extra-curricular participants? These students are probably at lower risk than the slackers and poetential drop-outs.

Your points are valid. I suggest leaving out your middle paragraph for space savings, and add your last point.

Pot is not a performance-enhancing drug... unless you play bass.

Apologies to Norm MacDonald....

[Smalso]

They would go a long way toward selling me on the idea if they would announce that the school board, school administrators and teachers would be randomly tested several times during the school year.

edit: typing uh-oh

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Smalso
They would go a long way toward selling me on the idea if they would announce that the school board, school administrators and teachers would be randomly tested several times during the school year.

I doubt the board and administrators would ever consent, but legislators do try to force the issue on teachers. (http://archive.aclu.org/news/w022497a.html)

Choice quotes:


"I don't understand why a teacher would be against it," the constitutent, Marty Holstein, said. "If you're not doing it, you don't have any reason to fight it."

Under the proposed bill, teachers would pay the cost of the tests and could see the charge taken directly out of their paychecks.


Bolding mine ... I can see right there why teachers would fight it.

edited to fix "quot" where there should have just been a quotation mark...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


I doubt the board and administrators would ever consent, but legislators do try to force the issue on teachers. (http://archive.aclu.org/news/w022497a.html)

Choice quotes:
"I don't understand why a teacher would be against it," the constitutent, Marty Holstein, said. "If you're not doing it, you don't have any reason to fight it."

Under the proposed bill, teachers would pay the cost of the tests and could see the charge taken directly out of their paychecks.



Bolding mine ... I can see right there why teachers would fight it.

So they have to pay for drug tests in order to show that they are clean?

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

[shanek]

Originally posted by SortingItAllOut
Cool avatar, BTW. :)

Thank you. :D

Do you think that, in their capacity as agents of the state and more so as people who are tasked with the responsibility for developing these young individuals, school officials should be concerned with drug and alcohol use by their students?

I think the problem is that they are agents of the state.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Smalso
They would go a long way toward selling me on the idea if they would announce that the school board, school administrators and teachers would be randomly tested several times during the school year.

Actually, they're proposing that, too. That would be an additional $13,000/year.

(edited to fix a typo in the cost)

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, they're proposing that, too. That would be an additional $18,000/year.

School board and administrators too, or just teachers? All the things I can find on the web with a quick search relating to drug testing in schools involve students and/or teachers.

The two groups with the least power over the school system ... imagine that!

[Ladewig]

Does the $20,000 figure include repeat testings to make sure that the false positives on the first round get thrown out?

I imagine that sales of poppyseed bagels and hemp shampoo will go up if the measure is passed.

[J3K]

They should test teachers. Many people in my school are very aware of one such teacher that smokes pot. Everybody always smells in it her classroom. Why nobody has really tooken this to a higher power is most likely because the students dont care, because where I live, drug testing students has not come up as an issue(for all students.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
School board and administrators too, or just teachers?

I think it would include administrators, but this is just for job applicants. No testing for existing employees.

And: Oops, the $18,000 figure was a typo. It was supposed to be $13,000. Sorry 'bout that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Does the $20,000 figure include repeat testings to make sure that the false positives on the first round get thrown out?

I don't know; $20,000 was just the figure that the school officials estimated.

[shanek]

Originally posted by J3K
They should test teachers. Many people in my school are very aware of one such teacher that smokes pot. Everybody always smells in it her classroom. Why nobody has really tooken this to a higher power is most likely because the students dont care, because where I live, drug testing students has not come up as an issue(for all students.)

How's the teacher's performance?