cannabisnews.com: Subsidized Student Drug Testing Bill 





Subsidized Student Drug Testing Bill 
Posted by CN Staff on July 19, 2002 at 07:42:08 PT
Melanie Hunter, CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
Source: CNSNews.com
A Republican congressman said on Thursday he plans to introduce a bill that would give schools financial and technical assistance to conduct random student drug tests, but critics call the measure "one heck of a slippery slope.""As long as there is a demand for illegal drugs, there will be dealers eager to make a profit selling drugs to our children," said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.). "We must focus on reducing demand, and one of the most effective ways to accomplish this is through random drug testing."
Peterson is a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America, and he supports a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of public schools to require random drug tests of students who participate in extracurricular activities. On June 27, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the schools' interest in combating drug use outweighs an individual's right to privacy.Peterson said that schools get some funding through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, but he added, "This funding is limited and many schools lack the technical expertise to start up these programs."While schools have access to some funding, my legislation will give schools additional resources to develop and implement random drug testing programs," he said.Peterson's bill would authorize $100 million in grants and technical assistance to help schools develop and implement student drug-testing programs, and it would help school districts tap into funds available for drug testing through the No Child Left Behind Act.It would also provide drug and alcohol prevention programs for students, parents and teachers, as well as offer assistance programs for students in need of counseling or treatment.The measure would include guidelines to ensure the accuracy of drug-testing methods, the confidentiality of student test results, and parental control. Local communities, however, would be responsible for implementing their own drug testing policy. Critics objectBut allowing the federal government to subsidize student drug testing angers critics.The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which filed a brief before the Supreme Court arguing against random drug testing in schools, said the measure is "one heck of a slippery slope.""There's a term that's oft used in Washington, D.C., and in legal circles...but in this case it seems awfully applicable to describe this [situation], said Allan St. Pierre, executive director of NORML. "If it's not a slippery slope, it at least would be a pretty steep angle of repose," he said.According to St. Pierre, over a 10-year period, the courts have broadened drug testing "from a very narrow group of students to, in the latest court decision, any of those which would seek any extracurricular activity - from the chess club to Future Farmers of America to student athletics."St. Pierre said the lure of federal money might prompt states and municipalities to "move in a direction that they might not otherwise go."In addition, St. Pierre said, the bill encourages the "abdication of parents' and children's responsibility.""Parents, any parent in America, can go into any drug store or a WalMart and buy a drug test, and it is completely within their purview and prerogative to drug test their children in the morning and in the afternoon," he said. "That is absolutely not a function of the federal government. And taxpayer dollars should not be used in such a situation."The National Education Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief against student drug testing in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, also opposes to the measure, although the NEA said the anticipated bill "does seem to be addressing one of the concerns that we have over the cost of doing such tests."However, "our opposition to this blanket drug testing goes far beyond that," Lyons said."Extracurricular activity students, for example, are least likely to be involved in such things, and just because this now may be legal under the ruling from the Supreme Court, does not mean it's a good idea," she said. "We would hope that there would be more effective ways of dealing with drug problems that may exist."Lyons believes that educators ought to spend their time educating.Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge, applauded Peterson's efforts."I wholeheartedly support Congressman Peterson. We would be so lucky if everyone stood as tall as he has on this issue," she said.Her organization first began pushing for student drug testing in 1986 when First Lady Nancy Reagan was honorary chairman of Drug Free Kids, Nalepka said. Mrs. Reagan passed a resolution in support of drug testing, "and it has virtually taken all this time to get the legislation passed," Nalepka added.Her organization has been working on drug prevention since 1977, with the goal of ridding schools of drugs.She pointed out that drug testing is working in the military, with drug use reduced to less than one percent. "And of all places we should have a drug-free environment is in our schools," Nalepka said, adding that her organization considers drug testing to be "prevention intervention.""It is not for punishment. It's to help the kids get off drugs and give non-using kids an even stronger reason to say 'no,'" she concluded.Peterson's bill will be introduced in the coming weeks, according his spokesman.Complete Title: Subsidized Student Drug Testing Bill 'One Heck of a Slippery Slope'Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II - http://www.norml.orgSource: CNSNews.comAuthor: Melanie Hunter, CNSNews.com Deputy Managing EditorPublished: July 19, 2002Copyright: 1998-2002 Cybercast News ServiceWebsite: http://www.cnsnews.com/Contact: shogenson cnsnews.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Drug Free Kidshttp://www.ourdrugfreekids.com/Supreme Court Okays Random Drug Testing http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13239.shtmlUS Pupils Face Random Drug Testing http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13030.shtmlThe Supreme Court Vs Teens http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12885.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #17 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 19, 2002 at 23:39:20 PT
You are right, Kap...
 having done 12 years "hard time" in Catholic schools[college prep HS no less] I agree, a Catholic school education is superior to anything in the public sector. Acting out in class was not tolerated, complete attention was expected to be given to the teacher and was. The major drawback to being in Catholic school seemed to be the difficulty in attaining social skills at that age. We were segregated alot, boy, girl, boy girl, if we were lucky! But I knew who Copernicus was when I was 11, if I was in public school I probably would have thought it meant something about copper.Far be it for me to condone their methods, but Catholic School provides a superior education as compared to public.But is the delayed acquisition of social skills worth the price?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Prime on July 19, 2002 at 12:41:02 PT
Fiddling...
Wall Street burns while this a**hole brings up nonsense like this. EVERY CONGRESSMAN, SENATOR, CABINET MEMBER, and FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICAL NEEDS TO GO!! START WITH THE SUPREME COURT!!This nightmare has gone on too long. This country is on the verge of collapse, and these pukes are worried about drug testing kids. Send em all home. Its time to take this country back!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2002 at 11:54:54 PT:
IS, "I call's 'em as I sees 'em"
And I saw entirely too much garbage being fronted as education. I work in a field where at least a quarter of my team hails from foreign countries. The reason for that is because those critical technical skills needed to ensure an economic edge...aren't being taught in American public schools. But they most definitely are being taught in public schools elsewhere. Hence all those H-1B visa people running the networks of American business...and driving down the real wage earning capability of those Americans who have those skills.Any American graduate of public school who curses a lack of employment opportunities available to them for not having a technical education have their public school system largely to blame. Because their time was spent on various incarnations of 'social studies' when they should have been learning something more useful. And American parents who bemoan their children's dwindling chances of finding a decent job on graduation have only themselves to blame for allowing neo-con religious nut-cases to demand equal time for Creationism as a curriculum issue when their kids should have been learning how to use a soldering iron or a Bunsen burner.Maybe I am being too judgmental...but I see every day, first-hand, why so few Americans have entered technical fields. It's not that there isn't any money in it; on the contrary. It's simply that many just don't have the background necessary. And the reason for a lot of that can be summed up in two words: public school.And now they want to chase away the very kids who are the most motivated to make a difference in their lives? This cannot possibly get any dumber...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by dddd on July 19, 2002 at 11:47:37 PT
....but....
...please dont confuse me with Kaptinemo....I'm afraid I may have suggested that I was answering for Kaps use of "I'm afraid".......
 
..I'm afraid all I meant to say,,is that; "I'm afraid",,,.is also one of my favored colloquialisms...I fear I may have said too much,and I'm afraid I gotta go...dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by dddd on July 19, 2002 at 11:39:05 PT
...yes Indy....
..I'm afraid it's a wonderful figure of speech at that!...dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Industrial Strength on July 19, 2002 at 10:55:34 PT
I hope
that "I'm afraid I have to agree with IS" was merely a figure of speech.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2002 at 10:47:42 PT:
'Education'
I am afraid I have to agree with IS...but because I was in the belly of the beast for 6 months. For 6 months, I worked at one of the richest Boards of Education in the US...and marvelled at their ability to squander money while simultaneously wrecking their children's futures.BoE's have become so politicized by conflicts between clueless liberals and Bible-thumping, witch-hunting neo-conservatives that little attention is being payed to the daily battles teachers have with students and their own organizations to impart a curriculum that is markedly deficient in providing kids the tools they need to make it in today's economy.When I attended Catholic school in the 1960's, there was no doubt who was in charge (the teacher) and no doubt as to why we were there (to receive a solid education). If you thought differently, you soon learned that those noise-makers they used to warn you your volume level had risen too high would be liberally appllied to your skull. Their business was education, and they meant business.Although I don't hold with cramming theology down an impressionable child's throat with his or her lunch, I have no doubt at all that the education I received in those 4 years I went there was vastly superior to the one I ostensibly received in public school)So, to use IS's phrase, I did 'learn on my own time' by spending a lot of time in the school libarary...rather than listen to boring, watered down lectures delivered with dreadful monotony by instructors who were dependent upon their special manuals that had the answers in them. They would have been shocked that a 5th grade subject in public school was actually covered in 3rd grade in the school I attended. You have to wonder how many smart kids - the kind targeted by this incredibly stupid legislation - are doing the exact same thing...and are probably reading these words, right now.And thinking the exact same thing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by krutch on July 19, 2002 at 10:33:12 PT:
A Harmful Policy
I find it miraculous that a search without suspicion can be constitutional. But even if I accept that I can't understand who this will help. Studies have shown that children often get into trouble in the late afternoon when they are done school. Why would we want to make it hard for troubled kids to get into after school programs that fill this critical time of the day with productive activites.The kids who would benefit most from after school activities and clubs will be dissuaded from participating by this policy. By forcing a kid to pass a drug test, the option of joining a school club is eliminated for kids who got high(on pot) in the last few weeks. What are these people thinking? This is harmful policy. It helps nobody. This is the kind of crap that makes kids hate authority. It is brainless. The only beneficiaries are the companies who sell drug tests.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Industrial Strength on July 19, 2002 at 09:45:26 PT
four day school week?
Really? That's atrocious. As if America isn't far enough behind the rest of the world in education. Maybe that extra day off will encourage children to learn on their own time, but most likely will be spent watching television, playing video games and eating processed cheese. Good move, America!Oh, and as for kids involved in extracurricular activites not doing drugs...I would disagree. The chess club not so much perhaps, but I was involved with some activites (well, two) myself and I associated with alot of jockish people in highschool and 95% of them smoked pot. I don't think this random drug testing is a good idea, but I thought I would put that out there. Oh, and there's not much wrong with alot of psychedellics.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by null on July 19, 2002 at 09:29:40 PT
4 day school week
unbelievable... in a time where rural schools are facing budget underruns and turning to 4-day school weeks, we have Congressional members who would rather spend $100 million on insuring kids can be forced to pee rather than learn.As bugs bunny would say "What a maroon..." ;)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on July 19, 2002 at 09:29:02 PT
Infinite supply of tax dollars?
""I wholeheartedly support Congressman Peterson. We would be so lucky if everyone stood as tall as he has on this issue," she said"Is that what constitutes strong leadership these days? Spending $100 million of someone else's money? What brilliant and original thinking - let's blow some more tax money! No one's ever tried that before! What a bold stroke!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on July 19, 2002 at 09:28:52 PT:
Another angle, entirely
Namely, why sould people with no children pay for the drug testing of someone else's kids?This isn't about education, per se. This about something else, and Mr. St. Pierre has struck the nail on the head so hard it's flown off.In addition, St. Pierre said, the bill encourages the "abdication of parents' and children's responsibility."Right there, in a nutshell, is it. Cowardly Baby Boomers want to be able to buy their way out of performing the (for them, given their happily toking past) odious chore of either being honest about their own chemically-augmented escapades...or lying about them. So they hire what amounts to mercenaries to do their 'dirty' work for them. Mercenaries who have a vested interest in lying...and handing out piss-tests. DARE, test kits, this kind of lame-brained legislation...all symptoms of Boomer cowardice.Boomers with kids. So why should the rest of the population pay for this insanity?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by John Tyler on July 19, 2002 at 08:58:31 PT
Funding
If the kids are so important, why not make the school better in the first place. There doesn't seem to be enough money for that though, but there seems to be plenty of money ($100 million) for drug testing. Politicans like this guy have turned government schools into mini-prisons. No wonder kids hate school so much.
Do you think that the anti groups are funded by the drug testing industry?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Restless on July 19, 2002 at 08:49:05 PT:
action.....
it really is time for all potsmokers and supporters to let their voice be heard. Too few number of people know about these issues. Our first step i believe is to come out to those who dont know we are smokers.the issue can then be disscused and the general public can finally know the truths about THC.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on July 19, 2002 at 08:32:41 PT
DRUG TEST CONGRESS
>>"As long as there is a demand for illegal drugs, there will be dealers eager to make a profit selling drugs to our children," said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.). "We must focus on reducing demand, and one of the most effective ways to accomplish this is through random drug testing."The first half is true, under prohibition anyways. When children demand alcohol, they have to find an intermediary adult, because very few alcohol dealers find selling to minors worth the risk. The second half, as most of us here already know, is untrue. All it does is force the intelligent teenager to give up cannabis for alcohol, psychedelics, cocaine or opiates... and it gets the less intelligent drug-using kids in trouble. Not the education we want to give them, is it?Would it be possible to circulate petitions to force congress and the supreme court to undergo drug testing? I think there are enough mad school-kids who would love to collect signiatures for such a plan...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 19, 2002 at 08:15:27 PT
Subsidizing Drug Testing AND Drug Trafficking
"As long as there is a demand for inconstitutional pee testing, there will be privately owned companies there eager to make a profit selling drug tests to our schools," said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.). "As we believe the Bill of Rights is a bad thing that prevents widespread subsidization of many political pet projects, we must get rid of this relic of antiquity, and one way to accomplish this is through random drug testing. We might as well encourage the private sector to go after profits where we are forbidden for the time being" Applauding this man's efforts to circumvent people's right to to be free from unreasonable search, Joyce "Napalm" Nalepka gushes:
"I wholeheartedly support Congressman Peterson. We would be so lucky if everyone stood as tall as he has on this issue," she said.Her organization first began pushing forelinination of the 1st and 4th Amendments via student drug testing in 1986 when First Lady Nancy Reagan was honorary chairman of Death to American Freedoms, Nalepka said. Mrs. Reagan passed a resolution in support of the drug testing scheme, "and it has virtually taken all this time to get the legislation passed," Nalepka added.Can't you see how these damn old constitutional rules stop us from saving lives and preventing the scourge of children developing value systems different from what the State had told their parents to instill.[okay..I cant take it anymore. what NAZI's!This further makes money for people associated with the Reagans who developed and pateneted the tests.Prevention intervention...hmmmmmm PRE-CRIME! Nalepka will be in the front row when they convene a conference as to whether we should "innoculate" all babies at birth with chemicals that prevent then from ever enjoying a buzz. Total mind control and furtherance of a White Supremacist Agenda, thats what these people stand for. God and Jesus tell them its OK. Z]
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by pppp on July 19, 2002 at 08:10:18 PT
...supply and demand...
...""As long as there is a demand for illegal drugs, there will be dealers eager to make a profit selling
      drugs to our children," said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.). "
 ..this guy is a SH*THEAD!.. ..As long as there are illegal drugs,there will be political and corporate assholes eager to make a profit selling prohibition..A drug test company will make alot more profit than a drug dealer! 
 
...Now..we are going to have to pay for the violation of our Constitutional rights!..Your taxes will pay for your kids pee test!...Does this bother anyone?...Does anyone have a problem with funding drug tests,,when many fuckin' schools cant even afford textbooks!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment