Random Drug-testing in Schools

28064212

Interview with Enda Kenny in Hotpress:

You have said you would introduce random drug testing in schools.
Yes, we did – where you would get agreement from the board of management, from the parents, teachers, and the pupils. That doesn’t mean taking swabs off everybody. There is a very sophisticated way of doing this now with internationally accepted norms – where they go in and dust desks and computers and find out the scale of drug abuse. It is as much to say, for young people, ‘Look we don’t do drugs in our school'. Where this has happened before – particularly in the States and London – class results have gone up. There is a defence for every pupil in there and it has been extremely successful, but it is purely on a voluntary basis, it wouldn’t be anyway mandatory – it is where they agree to do it.

If random drug testing in schools, why not in universities?
Well, the same could apply to universities, which would probably have a much broader range there. I think it is important to catch this as early as possible, in secondary schools or places where young people are very vulnerable from peer pressure and all the rest of it. As I say, it is a voluntary proposal where there would be agreement to do it. It doesn’t involve taking swabs or urine samples or anything like that.

Pretty worrying stuff. I'm not entirely against the concept of random tests in certain circumstances e.g. random breathlyzer checkpoints. At least there's no discrimination in that situation (in a perfect world anyway). But what possible reasoning does FG have for testing schools and not, for example, TDs? I would have thought that Labour would be completely against it, and wouldn't allow an FG/Labour government to impose such a thing, but Rabbitte's statement on it seemed lukewarm at best

From Pat Rabbitte's interview in the same issue:

Are you in favour of random drugs testing in schools?
I am not amorous with the idea. I am not sure that it is a desirable thing to impose on the school systems.

Judt

Been to an irish secondary school lately? It's political correctness bull to say that we shouldn't be out to catch the people most at risk of doing drugs. Kid gets into drugs at 16, he's an addict by 18, a state burden by 20, a prisoner by 21 and on the dole / rehab / prison cycle for the rest of his/her natural life. I have no problem in randomly testing people for drugs. It's illegal. If you've done nothing illegal, then you have nothing to fear, now do you? Hardly like the government is going to be cloning a more FG-friendly version of you from the swabs.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Judt wrote:

Been to an irish secondary school lately? It's political correctness bull to say that we shouldn't be out to catch the people most at risk of doing drugs. Kid gets into drugs at 16, he's an addict by 18, a state burden by 20, a prisoner by 21 and on the dole / rehab / prison cycle for the rest of his/her natural life. I have no problem in randomly testing people for drugs. It's illegal. If you've done nothing illegal, then you have nothing to fear, now do you? Hardly like the government is going to be cloning a more FG-friendly version of you from the swabs.

Many people experiment with different things as they grow up, and it would hardly be fair of the state to hold them to ransom for their education,whether they do drugs or not.

Fremen

It's illegal. If you've done nothing illegal, then you have nothing to fear

Nothing to fear but a massive invasion of personal privacy. I smoked marijuana in school without any ill effects at all. Judt, I would be very interested in any link you could post to a study linking criminality and soft drug use.

Besides, if they can test for illegal drugs, they can test for legal ones too. Do I really want my teachers knowing about any medical problems I might have?

Ciaran500

Judt wrote:

Been to an irish secondary school lately? It's political correctness bull to say that we shouldn't be out to catch the people most at risk of doing drugs. Kid gets into drugs at 16, he's an addict by 18, a state burden by 20, a prisoner by 21 and on the dole / rehab / prison cycle for the rest of his/her natural life. I have no problem in randomly testing people for drugs. It's illegal. If you've done nothing illegal, then you have nothing to fear, now do you? Hardly like the government is going to be cloning a more FG-friendly version of you from the swabs.

Would you apply the same reasoning for the police to listen into your phone calls, read all your emails, read your post and random searches of your house whenever they felt like?

I know they're a bit more extreme but the argument that if you've done nothing illegal you have nothing to hide is ridiculous.

brianthebard

Fremen wrote:

Nothing to fear but a massive invasion of personal privacy. I smoked marijuana in school without any ill effects at all. Judt, I would be very interested in any link you could post to a study linking criminality and soft drug use.

Its very simple, the soft drugs you refer to are illegal so to buy them you must become involved in criminal activity. Its not an invasion of personal privacy either, because judging from the quote they will be checking the school to see how much or how little drugs are consumed there, not the individual students.

InFront

It's one thing saying adults living away from home, responsible for their own lives should not be subject to a drugs policy like this, but these are teenagers, mostly under the age of eighteen... minors, who aren't even old enough to vote. It is not okay or acceptable for them to be using illegal drugs.
Do you seriously believe this is not a reasonable step in preventing drug habits forming among school students, particularly in schools with a reputation for the problem. It's not about personal freedoms, it's about peeing into a sterile cup.

Imagine you are a fifteen year old, which is a more credible excuse not to do drugs?

"I don't want to, drugs are bad. I am an individual."
or
"I can't. My parents will find out after the urinalysis results come back later in the week".

Garret

InFront wrote:

It's one thing saying adults living away from home, responsible for their own lives should not be subject to a drugs policy like this, but these are teenagers, mostly under the age of eighteen... minors, who aren't even old enough to vote. It is not okay or acceptable for them to be using illegal drugs.
Do you seriously believe this is not a reasonable step in preventing drug habits forming among school students, particularly in schools with a reputation for the problem. It's not about personal freedoms, it's about peeing into a sterile cup.

Imagine you are a fifteen year old, which is a more credible excuse not to do drugs?

"I don't want to, drugs are bad. I am an individual."
or
"I can't. My parents will find out after the urinalysis results come back later in the week".

but they're not going to be doing urinalysis testing or any of that craic

InFront

It doesn't matter if they decide to use urinalysis or other sampling, that's hardy the point. Whatever the method of sampling, my point is that it's a drug test.

Kids will be more responsive to being tested than to that than any 'talk' or plea not to do drugs. That's just doesn't stop drug abuse among school students, and this is the most realistic step to fixing the problem.

CiaranC

Judt wrote:

If you've done nothing illegal, then you have nothing to fear, now do you?

I lol'd

Fremen

Brian, I was going to write "aside from the obvious link", but I figured people would understand that it was implied. What I was looking for was evidence that using soft drugs will lead to non-drug related crime.

While people say that these drugs tests would be anonymous, you have to ask youself what would happen if drug-use was detected in a school. I know for a fact that in the school I went to, there would have been a huge witch-hunt followed by suspensions and possibly worse.

Oh, and while we're at it, maybe we should introduce mandatory testing to check whether our children are sexually active...

Fremen

InFront, why stop at kids in school? Surely we could just wipe the problem out completely by introducing mandatory drug testing in the workplace too...

brianthebard

Fremen wrote:

Brian, I was going to write "aside from the obvious link", but I figured people would understand that it was implied. What I was looking for was evidence that using soft drugs will lead to non-drug related crime.

A crime is a crime, does it really make it better if the only crime a person commits is buying drugs?

CiaranC

brianthebard wrote:

A crime is a crime, does it really make it better if the only crime a person commits is buying drugs?

Are you implying that all crimes are equally bad?

Fremen

Kid gets into drugs at 16, he's an addict by 18, a state burden by 20, a prisoner by 21 and on the dole / rehab / prison cycle for the rest of his/her natural life.

This is the point that I was contesting. I've never heard of any evidence that, say, marijuana use will turn you into a bank robber.

InFront

Fremen wrote:

InFront, why stop at kids in school? Surely we could just wipe the problem out completely by introducing mandatory drug testing in the workplace too...

That's not unheard of. It's really a matter for employers though. If an employer is only taking people on with the condition that they agree to drug tests, that is their choice.

This is about minors using drugs when they shouldn't be, they don't have the 'right' to.
If anyone says that drug testing, even in this very moderate form, won't discourage students from doing drugs, I really think that's completely wrong.

brianthebard

CiaranC wrote:

Are you implying that all crimes are equally bad?

No, just that breaking the law is breaking the law, there's no two ways about that. In this case whether there are additional crimes committed because of drug use, or if drug use is the only crime here, it is still a crime.

CiaranC

InFront wrote:

If anyone says that drug testing, even in this very moderate form, won't discourage students from doing drugs, I really think that's completely wrong.

Have you any actual evidence of that?

Vuk

I haven't read the interview in Hotpress.

But before we take any argument up, shouldn't we ask, what is the proposed solution in a case where, a student was found to be in use of drugs?, or in the case of anonymous 'dusting' of desks, how would the concerned parties handle the situation?
Did Enda Kenny propsose a solution?
Or would we arrive at a situation after spending the public's money, more sure than we are now, that some school kids do use drugs and not know where to go next??

Did he define drugs?
I mean, underage drinking is an illegal use of a drug, with social and personal implications.
Smoking cigarettes in an illegal use of a drug with personal implications.

I like to hear how the situation would be handled before taking any sides!

Fremen

Hmm, I think vuk's post hits the nail on the head

Props for not giving a knee-kerk reaction like everyone else so far (myself included)

Slippery slope imo.........

28064212

Vuk wrote:

Did Enda Kenny propsose a solution?...

No, that was the entire drug-related conversation in the interview.

I said in my first post that I'm not entirely against testing in certain circumstances. But no-one has given any reason why school-children should be tested before, say, Leinster House

brianthebard

Fremen wrote:

Hmm, I think vuk's post hits the nail on the head

Props for not giving a knee-kerk reaction like everyone else so far (myself included)

Please, your reaction that this is an invasion of privacy is more knee-jerk than what most people have said here.

DublinWriter

When I read the title of this topic I thought to myself "sounds like an Enda Kenny idea" and I was right.

This guy will out-McDowell McDowell to get votes.

As much as I destest and dislike FF, most of Enda's promises recently have really been pure pie-in-the-sky stuff.

Everything he's came out with in the last 12 months is pure populist drivel.

For example, remember his whole 'Weekend Warrior' speech about drunks in A&E? He obviously didn't think the idea through, as just throwing people who present drunk into an A&E into some drunk-tank without performing basic triage could cost the state *billions* in legal bills.

So Enda wants to bring drug testing into schools. I presume this won't extend to members of the teaching staff then?

There's a massive issue with Cocaine abuse in Dublin right now. But Enda, being Enda, goes for the soft target - the kids.

lucernarian

Vuk wrote:

I haven't read the interview in Hotpress.

But before we take any argument up, shouldn't we ask, what is the proposed solution in a case where, a student was found to be in use of drugs?, or in the case of anonymous 'dusting' of desks, how would the concerned parties handle the situation?
Did Enda Kenny propsose a solution?
Or would we arrive at a situation after spending the public's money, more sure than we are now, that some school kids do use drugs and not know where to go next??

Did he define drugs?
I mean, underage drinking is an illegal use of a drug, with social and personal implications.
Smoking cigarettes in an illegal use of a drug with personal implications.

I like to hear how the situation would be handled before taking any sides!

Good point. I think he's proposing a knee-jerk response to something they feel they are unable to control. I'd like to see his answers to that. This is the time to ask them. I'll email someone on this list.

InFront

Have you any actual evidence of that?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3510897.stm
Tobacco monitoring levels and tobacco use in schools
Drug testing among athletes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/5030826.stm

And good reasons to adapt an active testing policy:
http://www.ohsu.edu/hpsm/reasons.html

Originally posted by Dublinwriter:
without performing basic triage

He didn't suggest that. After examination, they'll be put in supervised wet rooms, as opposed to unsupervised public areas where people are trying to work.

zepp

The largest study on random drug testing of school children by the university of Michigan found nothing to support the idea. they surveyed of 94,000 children.

more here. http://www.irishelection.com/05/new-door-step-challange-enda-kenny-piss-in-a-cup/

Mick86

Judt wrote:

Been to an irish secondary school lately? It's political correctness bull to say that we shouldn't be out to catch the people most at risk of doing drugs.

The tests are rubbish. Common medicines show up as illegal substances.

JC 2K3

It'd be largely ineffective anyway.

Fremen

Please, your reaction that this is an invasion of privacy is more knee-jerk than what most people have said here.

I thought I acknowledged that in my post

BigTommyBomb

I'm voting for Fine Gael but hte party really annoys me with this crap. Its focus group politics with no real aim or ambition other than to try and differentiate themselves with the govt. and maximise votes. You can bet that Kenny doesn't even believe in this sort of crap.