Pissing Contest

The ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance have produced a timely report on student drug testing that serves as a rejoinder to President Bush's enthusiasm for examining kids' bodily fluids. Among other things, it notes that

the first large-scale national study on student drug testing found no difference in rates of drug use between schools that have drug testing programs and those that do not. Based on data collected between 1998 and 2001 from 76,000 students nationwide in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades, the study found that drug testing did not have an impact on illicit drug use among students, including athletes.

Dr. Lloyd D. Johnston, an author of the study, directs Monitoring the Future, the leading survey by the federal government of trends in student drug use and attitudes about drugs. According to Dr. Johnston, "[The study] suggests that there really isn't an impact from drug testing as practiced…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."

In his State of the Union speech, you may recall, Bush claimed that "drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part" of "our aggressive community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs." Just like DARE.

Comments

[jon b.]

Right on, Joe.

You know how you can tell Bush is lying?

His lips move.

[Marty]

Junk Science, or Bad Reporting?

"no difference in rates of drug use between schools that have drug testing programs and those that do not"

Doesn't this imply that both sets of students were TESTED? If not, then how do they calculate "rate", and if so, aren't the two samples effectively equalized?

What, did they ask for Volunteers to be tested???

[dhex]

i think they're going by the time honored standard of polling. i.e. students in both groupings reported the same amount of drug useage in a given period.

[Andrew]

It seems kind of counter-intuitive to assume it wouldn't have ANY effect-- drug-testing seemed to effect the behavior of adults in the military and in many employment situations. Is this a case where, mysteriously, behavior isn't influenced by its consequences-- even marginally? All sorts of propositions of Austrian economics will need to be re-visited!

An argument for these "micr-issues" is SENDINBG A MESSAGE-- there is a big difference between searching lockers and piss-testing, and handing out condoms and clean needles.

Almost no advocates of drug leagalization believe drugs will be legal for minors, and a common argument for legalizing drug use for adults is that it will permit a massive resouce shift to a draconian suppression in minors. Inner city schools search lockers and placce metal detectors at entrances to keep guns off campus, even in jurisdictions where guns are fairly available for adults.

[rst]

If that's not a successful program (from the government's point of view), what is?

I'm sure Hitler's administration found concentration camps to be a successful program, and likewise for Mugabe's land redistribution plan. Whether the government finds it successful or not is irrelevant; the government is itself part of the problem.

establishes that the government is _doing something

Playing with my navel is doing something. What is your point?

habituates people to the idea that the government can inspect you in any way at any time.

I have no interest in being habituated to inspection by this miscarriage we call a government. It is a waste of time, and a waste of attention on a long-established aspect of high school - smokin' in the boys room - that is wholly irrelevant to the quality of education. We know full well that the war on drugs is not about public health, it is about appeasing the moral majority. Some of us have better things to worry about than how content the richest members of our society are with our behavior.

[joe]

I don't know if it counts as lying, john b. Is it actually lying if, through an act of will, you come to believe it yourself?

Now "We know where the weapons of mass destruction are." That's lying.

[Robert Hutchinson]

Playing with my navel is doing something. What is your point?

That, lately, lots of H&R readers have been missing very obvious sarcasm?

[thoreau]

A substance abuse counselor who devotes his efforts to people who want to kick a habit can actually be a very valuable person. For many people drug use can cause very serious problems (sorry to burst Jacob Sullum's bubble), and for those people quitting is very beneficial. However, quitting isn't easy, and help from an experienced person can be invaluable.

ON THE OTHER HAND, a substance abuse counselor who devotes his efforts to "prevention" or to helping those who don't want help (they have hit rock bottom yet) is wasting his time and isn't doing anything all that valuable. I'm not aware of many successful "prevention programs." All you can really do is lay out the facts (the facts, not the hyperbole and propaganda) and say "Well, here are the facts, you'll either make good choices or you won't. No point in doing any 'decision skills workshops' where we encourage you to say what we want you to say."

The only half-way effective effort that comes close to prevention is harm reduction. There are people who go to clubs and offer to test ecstasy to make sure it isn't adulterated with things that could make it even worse. They operate in a legal gray area. Things like that could also be good uses for substance abuse counselors, since they actually solve problems.

(And it should go without saying that I am not advocating government spending on substance abuse counselors, but I am suggesting that they provide a valuable service which is perfectly respectable if it's provided via the private sector.)

My qualifications to speak on this subject: 7 years of experience volunteering with the homeless, and a lifetime spent in a family full of addicts.

[JayD]

Well said, RH.

(NOT sarcasm)

[JayD]

...though I do appreciate that "playing with my navel" line.

I'll be using that one shortly.

[dj of raleigh]

> According to Dr. Johnston, ?[The study] suggests that there really isn?t an impact from drug testing as practiced?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.?

[Brendan Perez]

"Almost no advocates of drug leagalization believe drugs will be legal for minors, and a common argument for legalizing drug use for adults is that it will permit a massive resouce shift to a draconian suppression in minors."

I'm heavily in favor of redefining the status of "minor" to more accurately reflect how we hold young people fully accountable (as adults). I think 14 is a good start, considering no state seems to have any problem sentencing a 14 year old life in prison w/o parole.

The last part is why I voted against the ballot inititiave in Nevada.
I am in favor of legalizing all drugs, but refuse to support a group or initiative that seeks to deflect more negative attention towards young people.
Adults shouldn't gain ground/regain freedoms by stepping on young people.

The drug reform movements happy acceptance of even 21 age restrictions is detrimental in the long term, as they are willingly handing their opponent the tools to undo large parts of progress made towards drug policy reform.

Abandonment of scientific studies, pandering to media stereotypes, and exaggerating claims are all things that the drug reform movement accuses prohibitionists of, yet the pro-drug side does just that in whole, or in part, when it comes to young people.

I would support a group that would "strap on a pair" and argue the truth-that teens have the lowest drug death rates, use softer drugs with more moderation than adults, and have a crime rate that is at a 35 year low.
But, this sort of "truth in (regards to) young people" concept is probably too controversial now, even for groups that want to legalize all drugs.

[SteveInClearwater]

DJ: I know for a fact that ACTIONS can and do change when testing is done regularly with consequences for failing

SinC: No school system in America tests 'regularly'.

At most they test a select sample of students (testing ALL students has been ruled unconstitutional) - usually extracurricular participants - once per year.

In very limited circumstances, they will also test individuals, based on if they are demonstrating significant behavior that could be related to being under the influence of drugs.

Drug testing in schools is litle more than an IQ test. Simply abstain for a few weeks prior if you're a marijuana user, or better yet, just a few days, if you preefer most other drugs which are water soluble.

If they somehow could increase needed funding for such tests by eight to ten times, they could test monthly, perhaps even at random times. Under such an arrangement, given zero tolerance consequences currently in place for most such districts, the expulsion rate would be so heavy they wouldn't be able to adequately provide alternative programs and campuses. And by law, they must in public school systems.

[joe]

On this issue, Bush is showing the same respect for the scientific method and objective measurements that he's shown on health care disparities, environmental trends, pregnancy prevention, AIDS programs...

Same shit different day.

[SteveInClearwater]

DJ: Drugs, and the reasons people take them, are NOT a freedom,
but chains that constrain by weakening the individual.

SinC: Drugs, depending on the reasons people take them can be chains that constrain by weakening the individual.

Drugs, depending on other reasons people take them can provide benefits and expand by strengthening the individual.

Depends on the drug and depends on the reasons.

One size does not fit all.

[Jim Henley]

Jacob, why do you bring up this irrelevant stuff? Regardless of whether it actually has an effect on drug use, drug testing in schools still

1) establishes that the government is _doing something_;

2) habituates people to the idea that the government can inspect you in any way at any time.

If that's not a successful program (from the government's point of view), what is?

[Larry]

What progress! Back when I was in high school you'ld get a couple of swats for even saying p**s.

I don't suppose anyone remembers what swats were?

[joe]

"I don't suppose anyone remembers what swats were?"

Guys in body armor pointing weapons at the kids?

[Native NYer]

Can we retroactively OK the Articles of Seccession and let those damn southern states leave the union?

That was Bush can have 6 years as president of the CSA and we can give Gore his 4 as president of the USA.

[Russ D]

Assuming that the price of labor has any meaning, I was somewhat surprised by the $32,000 salary mentioned for a substance abuse counselor.

I thought that figure was kind of low, considering how "valuable" the service is made out to be. Perhaps its a basket-weaving type of college major, or else there is little demand for the service.

But thinking about it some more, $32,000 is a lot of money when you consider that you could probably outsource this function to Southeast Asian companies for ten percent of the cost.

["The Wiggles"]

I swear these kids have to be on drugs to pay what they do for school nowadays.

And for the dopes who mentioned "WMD'S" up top, take your pick:

PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE WEAPON 1: There are WMD's.
PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE WEAPON 2: There aren't WMD's.

See a pattern? You bumlicker?

[Walter Wallis]

With legal drugs, bad trips would bring lawsuits for incorrect labels, etc.

Sales to minors would bring about loss of licenses.

[Blum Valerie]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 06:55:43
Gratitude is merely the secret hope of further favors.