Boooo (teen potheads beware)

[Fritz]

Kilgore encourages drug tests in schools
By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS, The Virginian-Pilot
© May 6, 2003
Last updated: 11:20 AM

RICHMOND -- Public school systems in Virginia should seriously consider adopting policies enabling them to test students for drug use, Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore said Monday after meeting with the nation's drug czar.

``We're not forcing it upon anyone, but we're certainly encouraging school districts to look at it, work with us and recognize the problems and the need to intervene in the lives of children,'' Kilgore said in a press conference, where he was joined by John P. Walters, the director of national drug control policy.

Only two school systems in Virginia -- Lynchburg and Salem -- have adopted drug-testing programs, according to state education officials. Both limit the random tests to students participating in athletics. No schools in South Hampton Roads perform drug tests.

In a 2002 survey by The Virginian-Pilot of nearly 1,000 local high school seniors, 42 percent of respondents said they had used marijuana, up from 37 percent the year before.

Kilgore stopped short of calling for testing at all schools. He said drug tests may one day be implemented in a majority of Virginia schools, but added, ``That's years away.'' The General Assembly this year passed a law requiring the State Board of Education to adopt guidelines for voluntary and mandatory drug testing. The new law does not require local school boards to test students for drugs, but it imposes state regulations on all new and existing programs.

The Board of Education is scheduled to consider proposed guidelines this fall.

Walters said the Virginia law is the first of its kind in the country.

The White House drug czar said testing should be used to prevent children from taking illegal drugs and to identify those who need treatment. He said school-testing programs should not be punitive.

``No one makes a career in law enforcement slam dunking 15-year-olds with baggies of marijuana,'' he said.

Lynchburg's testing program, started in 1990, is the oldest in the state. Student athletes and entire teams are chosen at random by a school employee for weekly tests.

School Superintendent James T. McCormick said the district spends about $40,000 annually for the tests, with part of the cost offset through a grant. He said the number of positive tests has ranged from two to 13 annually.

McCormick said students who test positive are suspended from athletics for two weeks while they are assessed to determine whether they need treatment. Although the testing is confidential, he said, suspensions can generate rumors among the student body.

The most extensive drug-testing program in Virginia is at Benedictine High School, a private, parochial school in Richmond, where students, faculty and staff are randomly tested each month.

Civil rights groups have not challenged those programs, but the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said random testing raises a red flag with her organization.

``There are always concerns when school officials undertake to do drug testing without any showing of reasonable suspicion of probable cause,'' said Rebecca Glenberg. ``It's just a gross invasion of privacy.''

[QuikSand]

As I recall, the current state of the constitutional law is that testing of athletes (or others who choose to participate in certain extracurricular activities) has passed judicial muster, but I am unaware of an on point challenge to anyone's global policy of drug testing in the public schools, particularly among those of compulsory attendance age (another factor which may be germane).

Does anyone know if I'm out of date?

Strikes me as a fairly ripe issue for a legal challenge - the government forces my kid to attend school (for practical purposes), and then subjects her to an invasive search in the process, despite lack of any probable cause on an individual level. As much as I'll care about my daughter's well being, I'm not sure this sits well with me, as a matter of policy.

[Qwikshot]

Move to Canada!!! Vancouver here I come!!!

[Fritz]

Quik,

There is more to this story than I posted, but I can't find it in print and I don't want to pass along bad information.

[QuikSand]

Fritz, you're showing uncommon discretion for an internet message board.

[albionmoonlight]

Kick--

My understanding accords with yours. Right now, it is OK to test kids for any extra-curricular involvement, but not generally. Students do not have a right of privacy in their lockers, either.

As far as areas of the law go, this one is moving very fast.

The S.C. has already established that schools are "different" in a 4th Amendment sense (i.e. students in school have less protections against state actions than do typical citizens). From there, ACLU cynics argue that it is only a matter of time before the rights disappear completely. I don't know if I would go quite that far.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
My understanding accords with yours. Right now, it is OK to test kids for any extra-curricular involvement, but not generally. Students do not have a right of privacy in their lockers, either.

Perhaps a subtle difference, but I am unaware of any general testing policy being struck down (suggested by your "not generally" above). I do recall the cases involving student athletes seemingly hinging on the fact that they chose to participate in an optional activity... but I think that testing the general school populace is constitutionally undecided, rather than currently prohibited.

[albionmoonlight]

Link


It is a PDF file, so I could not cut and paste. It is the latest opinion on the subject. I think that more will come.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--by which I mean I think that the court will address the exact question at issue in this thread at some point. A lot of times, the S.C. waits a few years to see how the lower courts handle an issue before they take it up. For example, the "athlete" case was in 1995. Six years later, they took up the case cited above.

Also, as you can see, the case above was a 5-4 case. A change in the court makeup (more likely with each passing year) could affect this issue in a big way.

[Fritz]

more on the supreme court desision regarding testing for extracurricular activities.

This is from a very biased (anti-test) site, but I think it is newer than albionmoonlights.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr06272002.cfm

[QuikSand]

From the Thomas opinion in the Earls case:

"Because this policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional."

That's some pretty broad language... a good deal broader (in my view) than anything in Veronia.

[albionmoonlight]

Your instincts are right. It is broader than Veronia.

[Blackadar]

Friggin' Nazis.

[Ben E Lou]

Ugh. This does NOT sit well with me.

[tucker342]

BOOOOOO I SAY!!! I don't smoke, but whatever happened to our right to privacy? Testing athletes just cause they're athletes in High School is really lame in my opinion

[Eilim]

While I tend to bounce back and forth on this issue.. I'm curently of the mindset that testing student athletes for drugs is a good thing. Especially with the way high school atheletics/pressures seem to be going the past few years. Give me a few more articles to read and I'll probably bounce back and forth another 4 or 5 times.

I would be concerned with the testing procedures though. When I was younger I worked with a guy going to school to be a pharmacist who had a real issue with drug testing because of the standards used. He said someone eating a poppy seed bagel everyday could pop positive on some tests because there were no real uniform "low limits" in testing (This was in regards to the workplace).

Having said that, if this was in effect while I was in high school, myself and 90% of our football team would have been suspended and kicked off the team.

-Eilim

[CAsterling]

Just curious about the possibilities.

What happens if a kid tests positve for drugs, if you expell them, then they just go to a new school.
If you suspend them, then next test same result is probable.
If you ban them from after school/sports activities - guess what - lawsuits follow.

Personally i am against random drug tests in schools, and agree with Quiksand, but hey I'm also against the use of illegal substances, and don't know a good answer as to how to stop it - oh I know a radical concept - enforce the law and Jail everybody everybody who posseses illegal drugs maybe that would help.

[Blackadar]

Remember that it's not just for drugs. It also can apply to alcohol, steroids and pretty much anything else they want to test. I've taken steriods for 20 years now for severe allergies. If they tested when I was in HS, I'd be banned from playing because I would test positive. Even with the doctor's prescription, there's no guarantee that I'd be allowed to play.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm all for school-wide testing ... which is as good a reason as any that I doubt I'll ever see it happen.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I'm all for school-wide testing ... which is as good a reason as any that I doubt I'll ever see it happen.

Exactly why? And why doesn't this constitute "unreasonable search and seizure?"

[Eilim]

I'd definetly be against school-wide testing, but when it comes to athletics, I'm just not sure. Especially with athletic scholarships and such. I know of atleast 5 guys I played HS football with who were taking steroids at the time and went on to get scholarships to decent schools.

[Iceberg]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Kick--

Students do not have a right of privacy in their lockers, either.

This is not entirely true. While school administrators are held to a lower standard than law enforcement officers the still must have a "reasonable suspicion," or at least thats what they have been telling us in my high school law class. To me random drug tests would seem to fall outside of what is allowed as they lack any sort of suspicion.

Personnally I would be opposed to random or school wide testing because i think its an invasion of privacy and it will likely do little good. While it will curb drug use it will not effect teenagers desire to get messed up and kids will just get drunk more often instead. I know that once my friends parents started making him take regular drug tests it got him to quit smoking but now instead he gets drunk twice as often. Does that really accomplish anything?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Exactly why?

I don't know if I'm up to the task of "exactly" but I'll hit the highlights.

1) I've long advocated either getting serious about the "war on drugs" or giving up, because I believe efforts with our existing half measures are doomed to fail. The one area I strongly disagree with the "czar" about is the issue of punishing the offenders. Frankly, I think testing without consequences amounts to little more than a half-hearted effort that would accomplish next to nothing.

2) Attacking the problem at the source simply isn't enough. Controlling supply is one part of the solution certainly, but reducing demand also has to be a part of any effective interdiction effort. IMO. Taking the user off the streets is part of that.

3)If drugs are found in their system (I'm talking about controlled substances here, not whether they're taking Sudafed for a cold), then I really don't consider them students at that point, they're common criminals, no more no less. And I give a rather significant amount of leeway toward efforts that put criminals out of circulation.

4) re: search and seizure -- I see nothing "unreasonable" about it really, IMO it's a very reasonable response IMO to an existing problem. And one of the more productive ideas I've heard in a while, as it identifies offenders pretty quickly. I'm really not prepared to go into specific detail about how to design a program that's most effective at interdiction, I'd need a roomful of legal experts & law enforcement to work that out anyway, but hopefully it'll suffice to say that I believe there's a way to structure a testing program (with multiple tests for positives) etc that would be worthwhile.

Sorry if this seems vague, I'm not being short with you, I'm just draggin' ass after a long day & got some personal worries on my mind tonight.

[sabotai]

This reminds of me of an April's Fool prank.

My high school told us (the senior class) that during gym period, there would be random drug testing of the students the next day. Well, the next day was April 1, and no one thought of it. Needless to say, a lot of people were absent that day.

[Airhog]

Originally posted by CAsterling


Personally i am against random drug tests in schools, and agree with Quiksand, but hey I'm also against the use of illegal substances, and don't know a good answer as to how to stop it - oh I know a radical concept - enforce the law and Jail everybody everybody who posseses illegal drugs maybe that would help.

who would run our country then?


I hate to threadjack, but throwing people in jail and locking them up does not solve the problem. I would imagine that a good majority of long term daily uses have underlying issues at hand that caused them to get addicted to the drugs in the first place. In these cases, rehabilitation might work. Now for people that go through rehab more than a few times should be locked up, because ethier they dont want to come clean, or they are too far gone to come clean. If your going to lock up drug users, then you need to get the drugs out of the prisons too.

[thesloppy]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
I don't know if I'm up to the task of "exactly" but I'll hit the highlights.

1) I've long advocated either getting serious about the "war on drugs" or giving up, because I believe efforts with our existing half measures are doomed to fail. The one area I strongly disagree with the "czar" about is the issue of punishing the offenders. Frankly, I think testing without consequences amounts to little more than a half-hearted effort that would accomplish next to nothing.

2) Attacking the problem at the source simply isn't enough. Controlling supply is one part of the solution certainly, but reducing demand also has to be a part of any effective interdiction effort. IMO. Taking the user off the streets is part of that.

3)If drugs are found in their system (I'm talking about controlled substances here, not whether they're taking Sudafed for a cold), then I really don't consider them students at that point, they're common criminals, no more no less. And I give a rather significant amount of leeway toward efforts that put criminals out of circulation.

Jon,

A couple of counter-points for you. While I think you have valid concerns about the 'war' on drugs, and the half-assed way it is being waged, I don't think it's realistic to ask for mandatory jail time for possession.

The average cost of incarcerating a person for a year in the US is ~$60,000, would you really want to pay the bill (with the rest of the taxpayers) for every kid that gets caught with $10 worth of weed?

Likewise, prison space in this country is at a premium (because of other, already mandatory prison terms). Violent and sexual offenders are released early to make space, and in order to house first-time drug offenders you would have to release even more....or pay additional premiums to build more prisons.

As for your 3rd point, I have several problems. First of all, a drug test is not an infallible science, false positives are common, and prosecuting someone solely on test results would be akin to putting someone away solely because they failed a lie detector test. Secondarily, I question the rationality of naming someone a 'common criminal', and tossing them in jail because they broke a law. Legal infractions are tiered and differentiated for a reason, and I question whether you would advocate the same punishment for someone caught with copyrighted material on their hard-drive, or driving a friends' car uninsured to the corner store. What you're really askling for is a change in the law, because while possession and distribution are illegal, merely having drugs in your system is not.

Finally, it is my personal opinion that pulling someone out of high school and locking them up for any amount of extended time, is certainly not going to lower the amount of criminals on the street. Cutting short someone's education is not exactly the cure for common criminal. I am sure that just as likely as we've all known someone hurt by drugs, we've all also known someone, who used drugs in high-school or college, that went on to be successful....would they have been successful with a rap sheet and a prison term? Who would've run the country for the past 11 years?

EDIT: I hate it when I type so slow that by the time I reply, all of my feeble points have been rendered moot. AKA: YEAH! WHUT HE SED!!!

[sabotai]

"This is not entirely true. While school administrators are held to a lower standard than law enforcement officers the still must have a "reasonable suspicion," or at least thats what they have been telling us in my high school law class. "

What we were taught in high school was that since the locker is the property of the school, they do not need any reason to go through it. But this may vary state to state...

"I'd definetly be against school-wide testing, but when it comes to athletics, I'm just not sure. Especially with athletic scholarships and such. I know of atleast 5 guys I played HS football with who were taking steroids at the time and went on to get scholarships to decent schools."

I think this shows a very good reason to test athletes. Here we have 5 people who cheated and broke the rules, and got away with it.

I personally would be against testing everyone in the school, but for athletics, I support it, mainly because athletics are not required. You don't have to play any sports, and if you choose to, you should have to obey the rules. If one of those rules is a drug screening, then so be it. It's your choice. It's pretty much the only way to test anyone cheating.

[Fritz]

Using the prevailing logic in the school systems, we should just hand out shotglasses and needles in high school.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by Fritz
Using the prevailing logic in the school systems, we should just hand out shotglasses and needles in high school.

Well, that would save kids cash. And besides, high school students don't have much cash to begin with

SI