Supreme Court Justice Backs School Drug Testing
Related Topics
Jasbird Jasbird#deleteth...@myrealbox.com
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030516/ap_on_go_s...> Supreme Court Justice Backs Drug Testing Fri May 16, 6:14 PM ET By GINA HOLLAND, ***ociated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told students Friday that school drug testing is a reasonable way to stop children from experimenting with narcotics.
Breyer explained his deciding vote in a case last June that gave school leaders nationwide a free hand to randomly test students who participate in competitive after-school activities or teams.
The court ruled 5-4 that schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs students' right to privacy.
A student at Bell Multicultural Sr. High School in Washington asked the justice what he thought about students who don't want to be forced to take drug tests.
"There are a lot of people who are under pressure from their peers to try the drugs. Sometimes that's hard to resist," said Breyer, a father of three.
He said drug testing for participation in extracurricular activities helps people who don't want to use drugs. A student "can say to his friends `Well I want to go out for sports next year, well I want to join the debate team, well I want to be on the newspaper, so you see I can't.'" Breyer, who frequently votes with the court liberals, joined conservatives in the drug testing case from Oklahoma. The other justices who supported the challenged policy were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
"That was a reasonable thing for the school system to try," Breyer said. "I've seen enough people really ruined by this stuff that I can easily understand how the schools would want to try something like that." The ruling did not authorize random tests for any student, but justices could deal with that issue later.
Breyer was fielding questions as part of an educational series televised by C-SPAN. He also talked about threats to civil liberties in the government's war on terrorism. He told students that everyone should be involved in making sure constitutional rights are not eroded.
"You are part of this democratic process," he said.
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Sat, 17 May 2003 12:36:19 +0100 in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird Study Finds No Sign That Testing Deters Students' Drug Use http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/17/national/17DRUG.html
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
Bri ...@phat.pharm (BrianM's Phat Pharm)
Republican Supreme Court teaches kids bloated intrusive government.
Jasbird Jasbird#deleteth...@myrealbox.com
Here's the news report for those who hate having to login to NY Times: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20030517/ts_nyt/st...> Study Finds No Sign That Testing Deters Students' Drug Use Sat May 17, 8:57 AM ET By GREG WINTER The New York Times Drug testing in schools does not deter student drug use any more than doing no screening at all, the first large-scale national study on the subject has found.
The United States Supreme Court has twice empowered schools to test for drugs first among student athletes in 1995, then for those in other extracurricular activities last year. Both times, it cited the role that screening plays in combating substance abuse as a rationale for impinging on whatever privacy rights students might have.
But the new federally financed study of 76,000 students nationwide, by far the largest to date, found that drug use is just as common in schools with testing as in those without it.
"It suggests that there really isn't an impact from drug testing as practiced," Dr. Lloyd D. Johnston, a study researcher from the University of Michigan, said. "It's 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 ***ociated with using them." The prevalence of drug use in schools that tested for drugs and those that did not was so similar that it surprised the researchers, who have been paid by the government to track student behavior for nearly 30 years and whose data on drug use is considered highly reliable.
The study, published last month in The Journal of School Health, a peer-reviewed publication of the American School Health ***ociation, found that 37 percent of 12th graders in schools that tested for drugs said they had smoked marijuana in the last year, compared with 36 percent in schools that did not. In a universe of tens of thousands of students, such a slight deviation is statistically insignificant, and it means the results are essentially identical, the researchers said.
Similarly, 21 percent of 12th graders in schools with testing said they had used other illicit drugs like cocaine or heroin in the last year, while 19 percent of their counterparts in schools without screening said they had done so.
The same pattern held for every other drug and grade level. Whether looking at marijuana or harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, or middle school pupils compared with high school students, the fact that their schools tested for drugs showed no signs of slowing their drug use.
While it is possible that schools that imposed screening had had even higher rates of use before, the researchers said that was extremely unlikely because they controlled for behavioral factors normally ***ociated with substance abuse like truancy and parental absence.
"Obviously, the justices did not have the benefit of this study," said Graham Boyd, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case against drug testing before the Supreme Court last year. "Now there should be no reason for a school to impose an intrusive or even insulting drug test when it's not going to do anything about student drug use." But other researchers contend that the urinalysis conducted by schools is so faulty, the supervision so lax and the opportunities for cheating so plentiful that the study may prove only that schools do a poor job of testing.
"That's like blaming antibiotics if you didn't take them properly, or blaming the doctor who prescribed them," said Dr. Linn Goldberg, a professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University, who conducted a much more limited study on two Oregon high schools last year. It found that intensive, Olympic-grade testing could reduce drug use.
Still, Dr. Goldberg argued, even his study did not prove that testing limits consumption. "Schools should not implement a drug testing program until they're proven to work," he added. "They're too expensive. It's like having experimental surgery that's never been shown to work." Most schools have shied away from drug testing. The Michigan study found that only 18 percent of the nation's schools did any kind of screening from 1998 to 2001, most of them high schools. While a broad swath of the school population may be screened, from honor students in extracurricular activities to students on probation, most of the testing focuses on those who are suspected of using drugs.
Such tests do not violate the Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court has ruled, because children have limited expectations of privacy, the tests are not overly intrusive and because they are likely to deter substance abuse. Writing for the court in 1995, Justice Antonin Scalia described the "efficacy of this means for addressing the problem" of student drug use as "self-evident." Seven years later, Justice Clarence Thomas restated the court's opinion, ruling that "the need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of childhood drug use provides the necessary immediacy for a school testing policy." Though the study may call those presumptions into question, it does not mean that drug testing is any less constitutional, said the National School Boards ***ociation, which filed legal briefs in support of testing to the court. Given the other constitutional grounds for testing elaborated by the justices, particularly the role of schools as guardians of their students' well-being, the ***ociation maintains that schools should continue to test, if they so choose.
"I'm not saying school districts should ignore that study," Naomi Gittins, an ***ociation lawyer, said. "I think it's a good idea that schools take a look at that study. It's an important decision that they're making." The study would not have swayed Randall Aultman, former principal of tiny Vernonia High School in Oregon whose decision to screen its athletes led to the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling. Drug use was so rampant among his students that he says "we had to do something drastic," without even knowing whether it was legal, much less effective.
"I don't think that drug testing works all the time, in all situations," Mr. Aultman said. "And the truth is there were many kids who said, `Yeah, we quit while we were in season and once the season was over we went back to using drugs.' " Even so, Mr. Aultman added, other students quit for life, and "at that time, it really worked." The Michigan study was financed by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health, as well as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which supports drug testing in schools. It collected data on testing policies at 722 middle and high schools, and drew on anonymous surveys from 30,000 8th graders, 23,000 10th graders and 23,000 12th graders, an enormous statistical undertaking that may not be matched for years. The researchers ***ume that some will lie about their drug use, but say that the effects are insignificant.
There is at least one important limitation of the Michigan study. It does not differentiate between schools that do intensive, regular random screening and those that test only occasionally. As a result, it does not rule out the possibility that the most vigilant schools do a better job of curbing drug use.
"One could imagine situations where drug testing could be effective, if you impose it in a sufficiently draconian manner that is, testing most kids and doing it frequently," Dr. Johnston, the Michigan researcher, said. "We're not in a position to say that wouldn't work." The Supreme Court, however, has not ruled on whether testing all students, even those not in extracurricular activities, is constitutional.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse said it would take several more such studies before any certainty about the efficacy of testing can be established. More research is being explored, it said, but the results are probably years away.
Even so, some took the study as proof that education is the most effective weapon against substance abuse. They said that while screening may give rise to a culture of resistance, in which students take pride in beating the test, the best results come from convincing children that most children do not use drugs, making drugs less appealing.
"At best, testing could be a band-aid, and certainly not an answer," Tom Hedrick, director and founding member of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, said.
Phil Stovell p...@stovell.org.uk
On Sun, 18 May 2003 09:58:58 +0100 in talk.politics.drugs, Jasbird I would have posted it, but it's very long and split into two pages.
--
Phil Stovell South Hampshire, UK
nonsmoki ...@yahoo.com (Steady Eddy)
Good News!!!!! I am in favor of it!!!!!
Jasbird Jasbird#deleteth...@myrealbox.com
Why? Have you read the study below showing that it does not work.
What is the point of testing students if testing doesn't stop them using drugs?
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nyt/20030517/ts_nyt/st...>
youngbe ...@earthlink.net (Karin)
Alcohol seems to do as much or more damage to young people, yet the only test for it is when you are actively under the influence.
Most people prosecuted for drug convictions in this country were arrested for holding or using small quantites of marijuana. This is why we are spending billions on the war on drugs?
You can be an alcoholic and still be elected president, but you can't smoke a pipe and finish your education. ( Unless you are wealthy then you don't need the financial aid, so it doesn't matter if you have an arrest on your record)
nonsmoki ...@yahoo.com (Steady Eddy)
Cram that study up your kiester. If a kid wants to play football or participate in after school activities they are going to have to piss a clean sample. Study that concept you stupid shithead. If the kid turns up dirty we can counsel the kid and inervene so the youngster doesn't end up like you or Hess.
dwild ...@zeno.ucsd.edu (Jake Wildstrom)
So drug users either learn to work around tests, in which case all we have done is teach them deception; or they opt not to take part in school-sponsored activities, therefore isolating them from the healthy mainstream of society.
I fail to see how or why you regard this as a good thing.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+ | D. Jacob Wildstrom -- Math monkey and freelance thinker | | Graduate Student, University of California at San Diego | | "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into | | theorems." -Alfred Renyi | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily endorsed by the University of California or math department thereof.
brian bennett shp...@mindspring.com
measured in terms of emergency room visits, cheerleading is way more dangerous than pot smoking, but basketball really takes the cake: http://www.briancbennett.com/sports-ed-visits.htm the absolute worst thing about drug testing students is that it will push some of them away from pot smoking (can be detected too long) to other less detectable and arguably more dangerous drugs. ****ing brilliant!
b
--
citizen, patriot, stoner Marijuana: it's nowhere near as scary as they want you to think.
visit truth: the Anti-drugwar at http://www.briancbennett.com You can learn a lot from a teacher: http://www.teachersagainstprohibition.org/ Ask these former law enforcement professionals: http://www.leap.cc/main.htm
"Jez" hellw...@NOTSPAMdsl.pipex.com
<>...
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030516/ap_on_go_s... reyer_2> Yip just like they did in the prisons.
So instead of smoking a little hash, they start taking heroin instead.
As you said ****ing brilliant !
Urghhh.
--
Ho hum Jez "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
Reti ...@oldtimer.com (Bad wheels)
On Sun, 18 May 2003 19:47:37 +0100, Jasbird As a parent, you wouldnt want to know if you kid was on meth or coke?
Reti ...@oldtimer.com (Bad wheels)
On Mon, 19 May 2003 20:14:56 +0100, "Jez" The stoner logic continues to be astounding.
"Mike Parrish" mparr...@megapathdsl.net
> >>Jasbird wrote: <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030516/ap_on_go_s... reyer_2> inds_no_sign_that_testing_deters_students__drug_use> If you're a parent and you have to be told by the school that your child is using coke or meth, you're probably not a very involved parent, eh?
On another vein, if I, as a parent, want to know if my kid is using coke or meth, I'll have them tested, however draconian that my be. What I refuse to do is to force everyone else's kids to be tested at the same time.
How is you conservatives are always about prying into other people's lives?
Regards and a clean test, Mike
"Jez" hellw...@NOTSPAMdsl.pipex.com
And you have what to say ?
You don't see the connection between rising use of Heoin in prisons, and the tightening up of drug testing in prisons?
Are you a fuc*ing moron or what?
So lets brake it down for you....
Cannabis is able to be detected in the body for up to around 28 days after it's been used.
Heroin clears the system in round 48 hrs, so prisoners changed from using cannabis to using heroin to avoid detection by drug tests.
And you couldn't figure that out yourself !
As I said earlier your just a fuc*ing moron.
Why don't you just sit in front of your T.V., watch the game, drink your rancid budweiser chomp your fetid-fat-filled burgers and have a heart attack.
Do us all a favour.
--
Ho hum Jez "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
Eric Johnson er...@xs4all.nl
Yes. Drug tests are not a good way to do this, and besides mom and dad are not the testers in this article.
ej
Reti ...@oldtimer.com (Bad wheels)
On Mon, 19 May 2003 21:40:26 +0100, "Jez" I thought something like herion could be detected much longer in the urin that 48 hours. Can one of the experts weigh in here?
And alcohol is measured in hours. So how is testing pushing kids toward harder substances?
Reti ...@oldtimer.com (Bad wheels)
But mom & dad will know the results & at no cost.
"Jez" hellw...@NOTSPAMdsl.pipex.com
Are you really that ****ing thick?
Work it out for yourself twat.
--
Ho hum Jez "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
guidosjunkm ...@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
I'm sure this will be met with the drug-warriors favorite mantra....
"Facts ?!? - we don't need no steeenking facts..." Guido
guidosjunkm ...@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
So - I guess in Justice Breyers view - it is okay to trample on the rights of citizens, you just have to be able to imagine some weird sequence of events in which such trampling might have a beneficial outcome.
Guido
guidosjunkm ...@yahoo.com (Guido Marx)
Yep - alcohol and inhallants spring to mind as good drugs to use if you're worried about being busted by a test ( but not THAT worried about the brain-cells you're going to lose ) ...
Guido
The_ right_w ...@truth.com
Maaybe I'm missing something, whre the logic? I've never met a stoner that made any sense in the long run that had anything to do with the welfare of others.
The_ right_w ...@truth.com
You provide little proof that you're able to answer the question.
| To Top |