Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Schoolchildren will be subjected to random drug testing, Tony Blair announced yesterday, under new guidance for headteachers to be published shortly.
The move, routine in some American schools, is designed to reassure parents worried about the increasing availability of drugs in the playground.

But it raises serious questions over the invasion of pupils' civil liberties: random testing has not been introduced in workplaces because to take samples without consent from an adult constitutes assault.

With around a third of 15-year-olds having smoked cannabis, heads could also find themselves rapidly swamped with positive results.

Drug testing will not be compulsory for schools, but the Prime Minister said new guidance for headteachers next month will advise on how to start a programme if they wish.

'If heads believe they have a problem in their school then they should be able to do random drug testing,' he told the News of the World.

'Guidance will be given to headteachers next month which is going to give them specifically the power to do random drug testing within their schools.'

Heads who want to introduce it will have to gain 'appropriate' consent from either the parents or the pupil, probably depending on the child's age. The move will not require a change in law.

Those who test positive are expected to be offered treatment rather than expelled, a Downing Street spokesman said: 'The emphasis will be on helping students, not penalising them.'

The announcement is reminiscent of previous headline-grabbing initiatives generated during times of crisis for Blair's administration, such as the threat to march yobs to cashpoints to pay instant fines, which ended in grief for Downing Street.

But a survey earlier this year suggested almost two- thirds of British parents would support random testing. Several private schools already use it, including Eton.

Buy stock in Golden Seal.

In the US, the work place can test you. It may be "assault" to test you with out your consent, so here they deal with that by saying if you don't consent, you in effect quit your job. (Actually, this newspaper really misses the mark completely here: saying consent to random drug tests as a condition of employment is "assault" is as incorrect and saying a requirement to be at work for 8 hours is "false imprisonment" -- it's a contract of employeement, and you either consent or don't take the job.) Like any job requirement, you must consent to it as a condition of employment. Any federal position in the US includes a drug test. Federal attorney positions include a drug test and a polygraph where your past drug use is investigated.

I am absolutely against the testing, but I can't argue it's illegal.

[ 02-26-2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Now, has there been any indication that random drug testing helps cut down on the dangers of drugs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most drug tests merely test for marijuana. Cocaine and the more dangerous and addictive drugs don't stay in your system, right?
Barbara Ehrenreich, award-winning journalist and author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America (Which is a VERY good book , by the way) has this to say:
"There are many claims for workplace drug testing: supposedly, it results in reduced rates of absenteeism, fewer claims on health insurance plans, and increased productivity. However, none of these claims have been substantiated... Studies show that [testing] does not lower absenteeism, accidents, or turnover and... actually lowered productivity - presumably due to its negative effect on morale. Furthermore, the practice is quite costly. In 1990, the federal government spent 11.7 million to test 29,000 federal employees. Since only 153 tested positive, the cost of detecting a single drug user was $77,000. Why do employers persist in this practice? Probably in part because of advertising by the roughly $2 billion drug-testing industry, but I suspect that the demeaning effect of testing may also hold some attraction for employers."

Replace "Employers" with "administrators" and "employees" with "pupils" or "students" and she makes a fine case, I think.

Well, if they demand that you submit to the testing, say that your right to privacy predicates their privelidge of knowing what drugs you've been using. If they say privacy is some sort of irrational rubbish or nonsense, fire this gem at them. It works every time (especially on males)...

"How many times in the last 90 days have you engaged in anal intercourse? What injuries have you incurred from such intercourse? What medical products or devices have you purchased to facilitate the engaging of anal intercourse? How many partners have you engaged in anal intercourse with? What medical treatments have you received for injuries incurred as a result of anal intercourse? Now, now, your right to privacy is rubbish, so answer my questions!"

I'm quite appalled by these proposals.

Drug testing in workplaces increases absenteeism because people are more likely to stay off work after a fun weekend if they fear testing positive. Weed can be detected in a urine test up to 30 days after use, and in a hair test it will be detectable for months. In other words, long after any effects which may affect performance have worn off! It's a huge intrusion into your personal life by people who have no business doing so.

As far as testing kids goes, sure why not treat all kids like criminals and persecute them instead of looking at reasons for poor performance of schools (which is what this is about primarily) - how about tackling poor diet for example.

You are not going to stop recreational drug use. Live with it. Legalisation and education instead.

Which just shows the utter ignorance behind this proposal. Treatment for what exactly? Enjoying the occassional spliff is not a disease or an addiction that requires treatment. I daresay most people would be up in arms if it was suggested that they require treatment because they enjoyed a beer every so often. Or a cup of coffee. (Caffeine and alcohol are far more dangerous than all soft drugs and some hard drugs - if you don't believe me about caffeine look up the OD symptoms, 3g of caffeine can be fatal, a far lower OD threshold than many illegal drugs yet you can buy it in the supermarket or over the counter at the pharmacy in pill form).

With random testing you are effectively saying that everyone who does drugs has a problem. Maybe the problem is with the legislation and mass hysteria about drugs based on ignorance, rather than the vast majority of recreational drug users. It is fairly easy for schools to work out if a pupil has a drug problem that they need help with, you do not need a test or a degree in rocket science to work it out!

[ 02-26-2004, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: Epona ]

And another thing! People with jobs who get tested can refuse in protest.
These kids can't exactly stay home from school, can they?

Utter nonsense...

As I mentioned, people with jobs who refuse to get tested have repudiated their contract of employment (if it was spelled out in the offer, as it usually is) and lose their jobs. Employment is a bilateral at will contract -- if your position has a requirement you cannot or will not meet, you can be fired.

And, yes, Epona, if I'd had a spliff on Monday night, I would skip school/work Tuesday to get a bottle of Golden Seal or Clear Test and let it do its magic.

I'm terribly sorry, TL... I meant to say "resign in protest" which makes more sense.

That is the legal position. That doesn't make it right imo that some employers include in their contracts clauses that effectively govern your behaviour outside of the workplace, which as long as you turn up and can do your work are none of their business. I worked in the Civil Service for 13 years and there are no contracts if you work for the UK government. As long as you turn up and do your job effectively in an uninhebriated state you are not in breach of staff rules - and I think that's the way it should be. The only times it would be an issue was if you were convicted of any offence (including drug related offences) because that fell under the clause about bringing the government into disrepute; or if you were caught using, in possession, or dealing at work.

That to me seems a fair and unintrusive staff policy.

I agree, Epona. If you can do your job, I don't care what pills you're popping on the weekends, just like I don't care that you have 8 glasses of wine at night.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Timber is correct, if the job says it requires drug testing, and it says so when you are hired or company policy changes and they get you to sign a new contract then they can do this. You are not being forced to you have the option of going home, taking a sick day, find work else where etc.

The reason that this do not find this disturbing is there is quite a few jobs were a hangover, caffeine high can affect the work. Air Traffic controller, Surgeon, pilot etc. Then there are quit a few that it would not bother me as much take a lawyer for example. [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

The same thing applies for SIN numbers, you don't have to give an employer your number but you might as well go home as I doubt you will be paid.</font>

[ 02-27-2004, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

This is what I think.

If you do use drugs and you get caught in a drugs test, its going to cause hell. Your parents would be pissed, all your mates would probably laugh at you and all your teachers would probably find out. Everyone would then know, even if it was just this one time at a party or whatever, I think the Government have no right!

It also puts pressure on kids, if they get asked to take a drugs test and they refuse, as they are worried say that something may show up, even though they havent taken drugs (they may be worried about spiked drinks, about some vitamins or something doing it etc.) then they will be suspected to be a drug user, there parents may find out etc. and then again it will cause hell.

Anyway, what are the Government trying to achieve here. The schools that have bad drug problems often have 100's of kids using drugs, they can just get them all off of them, then there are the occasional users, they dont often need help, it will just antagonize everyone.

I personally am totally against this, and agree completely with Epona. I mean I know people who use drugs, although I wouldn't say any of them are in a bad state, they just use them for a good time.

I would also think that this may cause increased Truency, I mean if you take drugs then like you said Timber, you may just skive the next day so that you wont have the possibility of getting busted.

A real load of nonsense.

Good. *hic* [img]graemlins/drunkass.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/goodmorning.gif[/img]

[ 02-27-2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">
While I agree with you RoSs_bg2_rox that it may be a pile of crap. Schools are run and controlled by ther government. If your kid wants to do drugs go to a school were they tell you thay will not do Random Drug Searches or a private school, as many parents don't want there kids around drugs and not in a learning environment. The problem with the world today is schools are being run by the kids not the teachers, I would bring back the strap as well.

As for getting caught with a hangover, don't party on Sundays to Thursday. They should really be doing homework anyway.</font>

[ 02-27-2004, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Ah, but Pritchke, the tests are mostly for marijuana... It's fat-soluble, and can linger in your system for a month or two.
Heroin and cocaine, on the other hand, wash right through.
It's just STUPID! They talk about the drug 'problem' like marijuana destroys lives. It doesn't. Not as much as alcohol does. Or cocaine, heroin, LSD, club drugs, and an entire slew of other drugs that WON'T show up on the test.
Feh...

Of course, those with jobs are not required by law to remain within that employment - they choose both to accept employment on those terms and to leave rather than to take the test.

However, children have a legal duty to attend school (and their parents have a legal duty to ensure their attendance) - and were these 'guidelines' to be introduced into law, they would be struck down by the EU Court of Human Rights, as the child would effectively be forced to undergo a medical examination without their consent (or that of their parents).

Of course, these new rules are merely guidelines and the school will still need the permission of the parents - and those kids who are on drugs will naturally refuse to consent - making the whole thing an absolute farce.

[ 03-01-2004, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Isn't it nice when the government shows you that they are more able to raise your children that you yourself are? What a lousy parent I am. I should make my government adopt my children since I know nothing of raising them... :rolleyes: Drug tests for all politicians elected I say! Somehow I don't think that law would pass...