Labour approves random drug tests for pupils

[Dreamer128]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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 ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

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.

[Oblivion437]

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!"

[Epona]

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.

[Epona]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: 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.'

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 ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

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...

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

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

[Epona]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

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.