Random Drug-testing in Schools

simu

Bit blue-shirty for my liking. I would never let a school do a drug test on my child tbh.

cavedave

Random drug tests are a bad idea

Allow me to prove this Mathematically

Say you have a test that is 99% correct. So if it says you did something 99% of the time you have. Drug tests are not this accurate.
Now say you test for something that 1% of people do.
When you test 100 people one person who did it will be found. One person you did not do it will be found.
Half the people found taking drugs will not have.

Judt

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.

Sure, but is it politically incorrect now to say that experimenting with criminal activity is wrong? I suppose kids who get into it are "troubled" nowadays, as opposed to being "badly behaved" (to use a term with no expletives) when I was growing up.

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.

Good for you. I know a bunch of lads, in all age groups now, who could say otherwise. Also, has it not occurred to you that the people selling you the drugs are criminals? That you are funding a criminal enterprise when you buy marijuana? It's not just yourself that you are harming when you get into even "soft" drugs.

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?

I daresay they won't be posting your name and test results on the school noticeboard. If you have a medical problem, or are using medication, you tell the doctor administering the test. Confidentiality still reigns among the medical profession, last I heard.

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?

Completely different.

Its very simple, the soft drugs you refer to are illegal so to buy them you must become involved in criminal activity.

Hit the nail on the head.

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.

Umm, it is a big problem, and there should be a witch hunt because 1. This is criminal activity and 2. It puts kids at risk of f***ing up their entire lives, as well as the lives of others.

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

Whether Lucy and John are riding one another in the toilet is not an illegal activity, nor does it contribute towards crime, etc. It's in a completely different league, and you're drawing the comparison simply as a smoke screen. Apples and oranges.

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...

It exists, depending on your profession or company. How would you feel if soldiers, cops, hell, your insurance claims handler was under the influence whilst doing his or her job?

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?

You tell their parents and refer them to the proper health authorities to get themselves clean.

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

I wouldn't have a problem with the people who look after our children most of the day being submitted for mandatory drug testing.

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

That's why you do a screening Q&A before a drug test.

Half the people found taking drugs will not have.

That's bull math. Plus, drug testing is just the first stage in getting kids clean. You don't kick them out of school for taking drugs, not the first time you get them. That would compound the problem, not solve it. It's a process of keeping kids clean and preventing criminal activity.

JC 2K3

Judt wrote:

Good for you. I know a bunch of lads, in all age groups now, who could say otherwise. Also, has it not occurred to you that the people selling you the drugs are criminals? That you are funding a criminal enterprise when you buy marijuana?

Growing your own = problem of funding organised crime eliminated.

Judt wrote:

Completely different.

How?

There could be illegal activity going on in your home and you could be discussing illegal activity on the phone, but the Gardaí don't randomly search houses or randomly listen to phone calls because it'd be an invasion of privacy. The same goes for what's in your body.

Judt wrote:

Umm, it is a big problem, and there should be a witch hunt because 1. This is criminal activity and 2. It puts kids at risk of f***ing up their entire lives, as well as the lives of others.

Why not educate kids properly about drugs rather than shoving this incredible bs propoganda demonising drugs down their throat.

Judt wrote:

Whether Lucy and John are riding one another in the toilet is not an illegal activity, nor does it contribute towards crime, etc. It's in a completely different league, and you're drawing the comparison simply as a smoke screen. Apples and oranges.

Sex under the age of 17 = illegal.
And I'd say teenage pregnacy and STDs would be on par with the problems drug abuse causes amongst young people. The best course of action is the same as with drugs - proper education, not bs pro-abstinance education, not education that demonises those having sex before marriage, but proper, non-biased sex education.

Judt wrote:

It exists, depending on your profession or company. How would you feel if soldiers, cops, hell, your insurance claims handler was under the influence whilst doing his or her job?

Why would any responsible drug user use drugs while doing their job?
I mean, most of the population drinks, are they all drunk while doing their jobs?

Judt wrote:

That's bull math. Plus, drug testing is just the first stage in getting kids clean. You don't kick them out of school for taking drugs, not the first time you get them. That would compound the problem, not solve it. It's a process of keeping kids clean and preventing criminal activity.

The system is fúcked as it is. More kids are drinking underage(the main drug abused by under 18s) than ever and nothing effective is being done about it.
The problems are:

-Boredom: Teens have nothing better to do on weekend nights and alternatives to going out and getting píssed(/taking drugs) are either very scarce, not interesting enough or not advertised enough.

-Lack of proper education regarding drugs: Mentioned earlier here. When I had drug awareness workshops in primary school and the start of secondary they spoke about drugs as if they were horrible experiences, yet never seemed to explain why so many people would take them if they were so horrible. They told us alcohol impaired judgement and motor skills, damaged the liver etc. without explaining why people used it. If kids had a balanced idea of what drugs were all about they'd be better able to make the decision to wait til they were 18(although I agree with the arguments that teens should perhaps be introduced to small amounts of beer and wine in a safe, supervised environment at 16).

-Lack of strict regulation: How easy is it to get drink when you're 15/16? I mean seriously, it's a joke. And it's even easier to get hash if you find a dealer. Even if all the cannabis psychosis claims are true I think cannabis should be legalised and regulated(as well as some other softer drugs), and alcohol should be much more widely heavily regulated in terms of stopping under 18s drinking than it is now.


I agree that kids(under 18s) should be clean and not doing drugs. But demonising drugs in general and not educating them properly is not the right way to go about it(kids aren't stupid). And there has to be something for them to do. Random drug testing in schools presents no solution to the problem.

cavedave

Originally Posted by Judt
That's bull math.

How can a calculation be bull? What is wrong with the calculation
Here is the sum done again
http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2007/02/22/bayes-rule-and-drug-tests

OK, that’s definitely not good news. Even though our test is 99% accurate, 91% of the people we accuse will be innocent!

Judt

Growing your own = problem of funding organised crime eliminated.

That's a drugs policy debate all of its own, but I take it we can accept that 95% (plus) of the drugs our kids are using are not grown down the back garden?

There could be illegal activity going on in your home and you could be discussing illegal activity on the phone, but the Gardaí don't randomly search houses or randomly listen to phone calls because it'd be an invasion of privacy. The same goes for what's in your body.

There's a difference, in that this leads into other problems. If there's no sign of criminal activity in your home, they won't search it. If the neighbors see and hear you battering your wife around, that's suspicion enough to go take a look. Similarly with kids, if their grades drop off, they start coming into school stoned, they become more involved in anti-social behaviour... Etc... Same principal.

Why not educate kids properly about drugs rather than shoving this incredible bs propoganda demonising drugs down their throat.

Ohh come on. I've seen how the drugs education has progressed. Right now it actually couldn't be any more stark - I've seen a book they read in personal development class in junior cycle, which is a personal account of a guy who went from smoking hash to doing harder drugs, and how it screwed him up. They bring in speakers, survivors of drugs - sometimes not much older than the kids themselves. Short of having US Marine Corps drill instructors administer the lessons, I don't see what more we can do to educate kids about drugs. They're not stupid, but like all youngsters they think that they are bullet proof, that won't happen to me, etc. The education is already just about as good as it can get. They even teach it all to primary school kids nowadays.

What more would you suggest we do there? There comes a point where you have to stop advising them and start taking control. Once they're 18 you have no control, and they become a burden. Again, I don't see what's incorrect in forcing kids away from criminal activity. At least when they're in school the first recourse isn't to send them to prison - we have other sticks, and plenty of carrots as well.

Sex under the age of 17 = illegal.
And I'd say teenage pregnacy and STDs would be on par with the problems drug abuse causes amongst young people. The best course of action is the same as with drugs - proper education, not bs pro-abstinance education, not education that demonises those having sex before marriage, but proper, non-biased sex education.

Sex isn't a major criminal funding business, where Jenny and James (Or Jenny and Orla, if you want), 15, having sex isn't, unless you have a problem with durex.

Why would any responsible drug user use drugs while doing their job?
I mean, most of the population drinks, are they all drunk while doing their jobs?

1. After effects. How many people come to work with hangovers? Drugs have these effects too. Even marijuana... It isn't called "dope" for no good reason, as I've seen first hand.
2. Drugs being addictive..... Follow that to your own conclusion.

Random drug testing in schools presents no solution to the problem.

Yes it does. They currently enforce drug tests on senior cycle students (the ones they can get rid of, unlike junior cycle ones) they suspect of being drug users, on penalty of expulsion if they don't get their problem solved. It works. Ask any principal or teacher in any secondary school with a drug problem (they're not hard to find.)

Lemming

Judt wrote:

That's a drugs policy debate all of its own, but I take it we can accept that 95% (plus) of the drugs our kids are using are not grown down the back garden?

No, that's because that 95% (plus) * is purchased from the local off-license ... manufactered in licensed, legal premises. What's your point?

* may or may not be a random figure pulled out of Judt's ass

There's a difference, in that this leads into other problems. If there's no sign of criminal activity in your home, they won't search it. If the neighbors see and hear you battering your wife around, that's suspicion enough to go take a look. Similarly with kids, if their grades drop off, they start coming into school stoned, they become more involved in anti-social behaviour... Etc... Same principal.

ROFL ... their "grades drop off"? Wtf? Do you even remember being in school? Lets see ... "ah christ I hate this subject and can't be arsed" suddenly equates to "oh noes, lets blood-test this pupil" Do you have any idea how farcical that notion is?

Further, what do you define by anti-social behavior? Swearing? Coming in late? Truancy? Telling adults to p*ss off? Writing graffiti? Well I hate to break it to you, we all must have been on drugs even when we didn't know it back on school ...

Oh, and no - there is no difference between unseen and seen crime. It's still crime to use your black or white mantra. Doing drugs does not mean that someone will become a career criminal any less than someone making bootleg copies of a video for their mates will.

Ohh come on. I've seen how the drugs education has progressed. Right now it actually couldn't be any more stark - I've seen a book they read in personal development class in junior cycle, which is a personal account of a guy who went from smoking hash to doing harder drugs, and how it screwed him up. They bring in speakers, survivors of drugs - sometimes not much older than the kids themselves. Short of having US Marine Corps drill instructors administer the lessons, I don't see what more we can do to educate kids about drugs. They're not stupid, but like all youngsters they think that they are bullet proof, that won't happen to me, etc. The education is already just about as good as it can get. They even teach it all to primary school kids nowadays.

There's one fundamental flaw int hat .. and another poster already mentioned it. Demonisation. Kids are being told "don't do that. Don't do that. it's evil. Evil I tell ye, you're going straight to hell if you do". And then some unfortunate who is also probably along the more extreme fringe of possible outcomes is trotted outm, and as real what they are saying is, it's also extreme. And kids see that. Rather than demonising, kids should be presented with facts (good and bad) rather than emotion regarding drug use.

Otherwise you're just creating a big "See this red button? Don't press it" sign. And we all know what happens with big red buttons that shouldn't be pressed ...

Again, I don't see what's incorrect in forcing kids away from criminal activity. At least when they're in school the first recourse isn't to send them to prison - we have other sticks, and plenty of carrots as well.

So you do advocate sending them to prison then since you don't rule it out. But that's besides the point. The problem here is that you are "forcing" kids away from criminal activity rather than encouraging them not to start with it in the first place. Lots of "telling" and "talking down to" rather than entrusting. Kids are perceptive. Far more so than you might think, and to use a cliche, if you treat a kid like a child, you'll get a child.

Sex isn't a major criminal funding business, where Jenny and James (Or Jenny and Orla, if you want), 15, having sex isn't, unless you have a problem with durex.

Eh .... sex is one of the largest (and oldest) businesses in the world, lots of it funded by and funding criminal activity ...

And of course to use your own black or white "it's still crime" mantra, guess what? Under-age sex is still crime because it's illegal.

JC 2K3

Judt wrote:

That's a drugs policy debate all of its own, but I take it we can accept that 95% (plus) of the drugs our kids are using are not grown down the back garden?

Well 95% of the drugs kids are using is alcohol.

Judt wrote:

There's a difference, in that this leads into other problems. If there's no sign of criminal activity in your home, they won't search it. If the neighbors see and hear you battering your wife around, that's suspicion enough to go take a look. Similarly with kids, if their grades drop off, they start coming into school stoned, they become more involved in anti-social behaviour... Etc... Same principal.

The thread is entitled "Random Drug-testing in Schools". Drug tests on suspected students would be fine with the consent of the parents.

Judt wrote:

Ohh come on. I've seen how the drugs education has progressed. Right now it actually couldn't be any more stark - I've seen a book they read in personal development class in junior cycle, which is a personal account of a guy who went from smoking hash to doing harder drugs, and how it screwed him up. They bring in speakers, survivors of drugs - sometimes not much older than the kids themselves. Short of having US Marine Corps drill instructors administer the lessons, I don't see what more we can do to educate kids about drugs. They're not stupid, but like all youngsters they think that they are bullet proof, that won't happen to me, etc. The education is already just about as good as it can get. They even teach it all to primary school kids nowadays.

What more would you suggest we do there? There comes a point where you have to stop advising them and start taking control. Once they're 18 you have no control, and they become a burden. Again, I don't see what's incorrect in forcing kids away from criminal activity. At least when they're in school the first recourse isn't to send them to prison - we have other sticks, and plenty of carrots as well.

It's all exaggerated, negative information about drugs. All about people screwing their lives up with drugs etc. It's not education, it's scaremongering propoganda. There's no section on "why people take drugs" and the message is "Don't do drugs" or "Just say no to drugs" as opposed to one that seeks to educate them on drug use rather than simply telling them not to do them.

Judt wrote:

1. After effects. How many people come to work with hangovers? Drugs have these effects too. Even marijuana... It isn't called "dope" for no good reason, as I've seen first hand.
2. Drugs being addictive..... Follow that to your own conclusion.

Well, to answer your first point, that all comes down to education again. People need to know when it is appropriate to use certain drugs. For example, a lot of alcohol the night before a work day is inadvisable.

As for your second point, not all drugs are addictive, and the addictiveness of even the most addictive drugs is generally exaggerated. Also, addictions could be greatly controlled if there were proper education on how not to get addicted to substances.

Dirk Gently

simu wrote:

Bit blue-shirty for my liking..

A few of their proposals have been a bit blue shirty for my liking too.

I drank alcohol and smoked the odd joint at school age, mostly with other class mates while discussing how disadvantaged the school was in its ability to provide us with subject choices / good teachers and control the chaos of the class room environment which prevented us from learning when we were in class. Ironically I got the highest points in my year and I and my fellow soft drug dabblers were of the very few who went onto 3rd level education. Out of 110 pupils in first year, 24 of us finished 6th year and done our leaving, out of which 4 of us went onto college. All four of us drank and smoked cannabis between the ages of 15 - 18, mostly as an escape from the madness of our school system (the problem being we were actually interested in getting a decent education but the school hadn't got the resources to hire science / building construction / history teachers or essential equiptment, thus making us take up those subjects on our own at home. Also the lack of higher level classes because they only had enough teachers to concentrate on ordinary level so as to get the most pupils a bare pass. I think the focus should be on improving education rather than criminalising young victims of the system.

Judt

No, that's because that 95% (plus) * is purchased from the local off-license ... manufactered in licensed, legal premises. What's your point?

Where did I say that alcoholism among youngsters isn't a problem, or is acceptable? But I tend to treat alcohol in a different light to illegal drugs because kids can, when they're adults, use alcohol. Thus the battle to keep them from becoming binge drinkers is a slightly different, if related one. It's illegal for them to use alcohol under the age of 18. It's illegal to use drugs such as marijuana, period. That's the distinction - saying that, I agree that alcohol use is a far bigger problem in real terms amongst youngsters than drug use. But drug use is still a problem.

ROFL ... their "grades drop off"? Wtf? Do you even remember being in school? Lets see ... "ah christ I hate this subject and can't be arsed" suddenly equates to "oh noes, lets blood-test this pupil" Do you have any idea how farcical that notion is?

Like many people I remain close to the school system by association to people directly in it. Kids, teachers, employers of graduates. I deal with them all.

It's not that hard to spot a kid on drugs. I'll give you an example of a chap I knew personally. Good average if not smart kid area. Got into marijuana around 3rd year or so. Grades dropped. Teachers noticed the fact that the guy was stoned half the time. By 5th year he was doing harder drugs, scraped through the leaving. Works in Spar now on the floor, not in college, spends all of his money on his drugs and for the love of me I think he looks like death warmed up every time I see him. Maybe if you dealt with kids on drugs you'd notice that it's not that difficult to spot somebody on them as off at first sight, let alone if you're dealing with them every day of the working week.

Oh, and no - there is no difference between unseen and seen crime. It's still crime to use your black or white mantra. Doing drugs does not mean that someone will become a career criminal any less than someone making bootleg copies of a video for their mates will.

Sure. But in countenance to this, do you think that a kid on drugs, dealing in that arena, is less, equally or more likely to get into crime, or just screw up his/her life in general (either way, I the taxpayer get the bill), than a kid who isn't on drugs?

Otherwise you're just creating a big "See this red button? Don't press it" sign. And we all know what happens with big red buttons that shouldn't be pressed ...

Ohh yeah, I forgot, they're troubled now, not misbehaved. If it's a big red button with consequences then yep, it works. Saying "Don't push this" doesn't work. Say "Push this and we'll wheel you out in front of mammy, daddy and the HSE and put you on notice for your education and your future" and most kids will get the message. Best way to get a kid off of alcohol, I discovered from personal experience, is to have her get so drunk the ambulance has to be called, or have the gardai drop him home or have the parents come and collect him from the station. Same for drugs and testing.

But that's besides the point. The problem here is that you are "forcing" kids away from criminal activity rather than encouraging them not to start with it in the first place. Lots of "telling" and "talking down to" rather than entrusting. Kids are perceptive. Far more so than you might think, and to use a cliche, if you treat a kid like a child, you'll get a child.

We already talk to them. We shall continue to talk to them. But in isolation it doesn't work. Stick and carrot. Right now we only use the carrot and point to the stick. You have to give them the carrots and have the stick in the other hand ready to beat them into line (not literally, I remember the christian brothers, would rather not repeat that) if they don't get the message. Again, I don't see what's incorrect about raising your children with a firm hand - where and when required, when the soft approach is failing - to ultimately save them from themselves in later years.

Eh .... sex is one of the largest (and oldest) businesses in the world, lots of it funded by and funding criminal activity ...

Right, but two kids having sex isn't part of a criminal enterprise. Again, it's an issue, but less of one (with proper education) than drugs. Namely because it doesn't take Enda Kenny to say "We'll make girls who have unprotected sex pregnant." Nature provided us with that stick, and for a large part - not totally, but for a large part - it seems to work with our youngsters. You'll always have the teenage mothers, but I think it's a lot less of an issue now than it was 5/10 years ago, and I've seen the education get better and it worked there. But as I say, it's that natural stick that does the trick.

Education doesn't work on its own. It's part of a multi faceted approach, including testing.

Fremen

Push this and we'll wheel you out in front of mammy, daddy and the HSE and put you on notice for your education and your future

If the government were to make it so that any student testing positive for drugs puts their education in jeopardy, it is absolutely certain that that policy would ruin at least some student's lives.

If you introduce this as a solution to students ruining their own lives with drugs, it's a bit self defeating, isn't it?

Lemming

Judt wrote:

Where did I say that alcoholism among youngsters isn't a problem, or is acceptable? But I tend to treat alcohol in a different light to illegal drugs because kids can, when they're adults, use alcohol. Thus the battle to keep them from becoming binge drinkers is a slightly different, if related one. It's illegal for them to use alcohol under the age of 18. It's illegal to use drugs such as marijuana, period. That's the distinction - saying that, I agree that alcohol use is a far bigger problem in real terms amongst youngsters than drug use. But drug use is still a problem.

Oh, it may be legal to drink when 18 .. but there are illegal things to do with it too, an easy example being drink driving. So why does it suddenly become acceptable then?

The largest drug abused by children is alcholol, followed by tobacco. And I'd hazard a guess that other drugs used are in a realllll big drop-off statistic next to those two.

So rather than focus on the real problem, you'll focus on a trojan horse election stunt that completely misses what it "claims" to set out to do, which is nothing in the first place.

Wow. Hey guys, one more gullible person for an election vote! Get a flyer through his door. Quick! :rolleyes:

Like many people I remain close to the school system by association to people directly in it. Kids, teachers, employers of graduates. I deal with them all.

Do you work in the school system? If not, then your opinion is about as professional as mine. But do yo know what .. a member of my family is a teacher, so we're about equal on that count then.

It's not that hard to spot a kid on drugs. I'll give you an example of a chap I knew personally. Good average if not smart kid area. Got into marijuana around 3rd year or so. Grades dropped. Teachers noticed the fact that the guy was stoned half the time. By 5th year he was doing harder drugs, scraped through the leaving. Works in Spar now on the floor, not in college, spends all of his money on his drugs and for the love of me I think he looks like death warmed up every time I see him. Maybe if you dealt with kids on drugs you'd notice that it's not that difficult to spot somebody on them as off at first sight, let alone if you're dealing with them every day of the working week.

First off, it's not that difficult to spot anyoen on drugs. Usually they're so drunk they can't stand.

But ok, you mentioned that chap you apparently knew personally. How many others? One person out of how many? I hate to break it to you, but there are idiots in all walks of life at all ages ...

Do you deal with kids on drugs on a professional basis? Yes? No? If it's no, then stop pontificating and see my above point about opinion. I've seen quite a few friends do drugs. Most of them turned out fine. One is dead (suspected suicide or an O.D., nobody knows given previous attempts at suicide), but he had issues before he ever went near drugs in the first place. And I mean *years* before he went near them and was a cliched problem child. So you can appreciate that I have, just as valid an opinion as you allegedly appear to have.

So I'll ask you again - how many kids have you seen with destroyed lives because of drugs alone? 1? 2? Out of how many going through the school system at any one time.

Insert sarcasm: clearly we need immediate measures to combat this scourge. Here little johnny, have another beer.

Sure. But in countenance to this, do you think that a kid on drugs, dealing in that arena, is less, equally or more likely to get into crime, or just screw up his/her life in general (either way, I the taxpayer get the bill), than a kid who isn't on drugs?

Ahh ..... now you're changing the goal-posts from dabbling to dealing. I know a few that dealt - they weren't friends, just kids whom I knew and occassioned across, and in fairness they were not terribly gifted academically to begin with and/or came from not-so-priveleged backgrounds and environments.

Ohh yeah, I forgot, they're troubled now, not misbehaved. If it's a big red button with consequences then yep, it works. Saying "Don't push this" doesn't work. Say "Push this and we'll wheel you out in front of mammy, daddy and the HSE and put you on notice for your education and your future" and most kids will get the message. Best way to get a kid off of alcohol, I discovered from personal experience, is to have her get so drunk the ambulance has to be called, or have the gardai drop him home or have the parents come and collect him from the station. Same for drugs and testing.

Ahh .. now we get to the crux of Judt's obviously well thought out argument. What you are proposing is expanding criminality to include the lesser crime of drug use.

The implication is that once they've been found once, there'll be a record against them. That means employers wont want to know them. That means no job. That means no future. That means greater risk of leading into criminality.

Bra-f*cking-vo you smart, smart man Judt ....

/me claps oh-so-f*cking-slowly

That's shown them, eh? :rolleyes:

We already talk to them. We shall continue to talk to them. But in isolation it doesn't work. Stick and carrot. Right now we only use the carrot and point to the stick. You have to give them the carrots and have the stick in the other hand ready to beat them into line (not literally, I remember the christian brothers, would rather not repeat that) if they don't get the message. Again, I don't see what's incorrect about raising your children with a firm hand - where and when required, when the soft approach is failing - to ultimately save them from themselves in later years.

The point there is "talk", or rather "talk down to". You've consistently failed to recognise that the current approach to the issue of drugs (like most other issues) for kids treats them like children and is as patronising as hell and does nothing more than create taboo subjects which are just begging to be broken by the natural inquisitive nature of kids.

Right, but two kids having sex isn't part of a criminal enterprise. Again, it's an issue, but less of one (with proper education) than drugs.

Oh no you don't. You were so keen to have action on the issue of drugs regardless because it's a crime. Well so is underage sex. So either deal with both. Or don't. Otherwise once more, you show that you are nothing short of a f*cking hypocrite to the kids. And worse, a chicken-hawk, preying on the easy target.

FTA69

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.

I'm only out of an Irish secondary school two years and believe it or not girls are not selling themselves to pay for crack cocaine and there aren't drive-by shootings related to the heroin trade. Youngfellas who may smoke a bit of hash the odd time aren't going to be addicted by the age of 21 and chances are they won't end up blagging the bookies to feed their habit while studying for Pass Biology. Such hyperbole annoys me to death, this is an issue for parents to sort out, not draconian politicians.

cavedave

I'm not sure how constitutional such a measure would be anyway. It could end being very expensive to the state in terms of legal costs. I also really doubt that the benefits of such a scheme would outweigh the costs.

For me Fine Gael still lack vision.

cavedave wrote:

How can a calculation be bull? What is wrong with the calculation
Here is the sum done again
http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2007/02/22/bayes-rule-and-drug-tests

The problem I see it is it assumes the probablity of a type I error is the same as a type II. If drug tests where generally this inaccurate for both types of errors then they'd be next to useless, but they're not........

cavedave

The problem I see it is it assumes the probablity of a type I error is the same as a type II. If drug tests where generally this inaccurate for both types of errors then they'd be next to useless, but they're not........

What are type I and type II errors?
If it is the difference between a random drug test and a targeted drug test for cases where you have probable cause you are right targeted drug tests can effectively tell if someone is taking drugs.
The mathimatics show that randomly drug testing people will result in more false positives then true positves even in highly accurate tests for rarely used substances.

Nevyn

http://www.petitiononline.com/Dailtest/petition.html

To: Dail Eireann

We believe that what is good enough for children should be good enough for politicians. Thus we believe that as Enda Kenny wants to bring in Drug testing for secondary school children, that all politicians in the Dail should also submit themselves to drug testing.

Sincerely,

Judt

Lemming, attacking me doesn't do anything for your argument, IMO. If we all have to be professionally involved in education, health or government to be able to debate these points, well, you get the idea.

Oh, it may be legal to drink when 18 .. but there are illegal things to do with it too, an easy example being drink driving. So why does it suddenly become acceptable then?

I quite clearly said the opposite. Drinking, as I say, is also an issue. A related issue. But not the issue we're discussing. And yes, I do think that alcohol and tobacco abuse by youngsters is a big problem. But illegal drug use feeds crime and murder. So we deal with it somewhat separately.

But ok, you mentioned that chap you apparently knew personally. How many others? One person out of how many? I hate to break it to you, but there are idiots in all walks of life at all ages ...

Yep. But we're here to try and make sure there's a few less. At the end of the day which do you think I'm out to do? 1. Ensure a better future for my kids. Or 2. Be a power freak. Frankly, like most people, I'm the latter, but the "they're troubled, not misbehaved!" political correctness freaks tend to see it as being the latter. I'd tell them to grow up and get with the real world.

So I'll ask you again - how many kids have you seen with destroyed lives because of drugs alone? 1? 2? Out of how many going through the school system at any one time.

Are you saying that one life ruined is fine by you, so long as we don't have to go to the effort of raising our kids properly? Two? Three? How many is acceptable to you? Then multiply that by their kids. And their kids. How many ruined lives are acceptable to you for the sake of taking control of our kids and raising them properly?

Ahh ..... now you're changing the goal-posts from dabbling to dealing. I know a few that dealt - they weren't friends, just kids whom I knew and occassioned across, and in fairness they were not terribly gifted academically to begin with and/or came from not-so-priveleged backgrounds and environments.

One leads to another. Just paying for drugs is feeding crime.

The implication is that once they've been found once, there'll be a record against them. That means employers wont want to know them. That means no job. That means no future. That means greater risk of leading into criminality.

No, that's not what I propose, and if you read the above you'll see that. If a kid is found to be on drugs, you inform their parents and have them go through a proper detox program to ensure that they are off the drugs, followed by work with a councellor to ensure they remain off of them. No need for permanent records, no need for recrimination. If they're found to be on drugs by employers in later years, then they really are screwed.

The point there is "talk", or rather "talk down to". You've consistently failed to recognise that the current approach to the issue of drugs (like most other issues) for kids treats them like children and is as patronising as hell and does nothing more than create taboo subjects which are just begging to be broken by the natural inquisitive nature of kids.

That's why I talk about the stick as well as the carrot.

Oh no you don't. You were so keen to have action on the issue of drugs regardless because it's a crime. Well so is underage sex. So either deal with both. Or don't. Otherwise once more, you show that you are nothing short of a f*cking hypocrite to the kids. And worse, a chicken-hawk, preying on the easy target.

Hands up everyone in the room who puts drug use and sex in the same criminal category?

I'm not sure how constitutional such a measure would be anyway. It could end being very expensive to the state in terms of legal costs. I also really doubt that the benefits of such a scheme would outweigh the costs.

Looking at their manifesto, the random drug testing only comes into play in the school if parents and teachers agree to it.

To: Dail Eireann

We believe that what is good enough for children should be good enough for politicians. Thus we believe that as Enda Kenny wants to bring in Drug testing for secondary school children, that all politicians in the Dail should also submit themselves to drug testing.

Sincerely,

Wouldn't disagree with that at all.

Executive Steve

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...

brilliant idea! how dare a drug addict have the audacity to work, pay taxes and function normally in society!

this bold move will solve our nations ills overnight!

drugs are BAD because people who take them drop out and turn to lives of crime to fund their habits! so lets punish them by forcing them to drop out and turn to lives of crime to pay their rent too! that will stop them wanting to take drugs!

Judt

[cm]tyranny wrote:

brilliant idea! how dare a drug addict have the audacity to work, pay taxes and function normally in society!

this bold move will solve our nations ills overnight!

drugs are BAD because people who take them drop out and turn to lives of crime to fund their habits! so lets punish them by forcing them to drop out and turn to lives of crime to pay their rent too! that will stop them wanting to take drugs!

People who take drugs buy drugs, paying money to drug dealers, who are murdering criminals. If criminals paid tax on their ill-gotten gains, would it be acceptable to you?

JC 2K3

Sigh, would they ever just legalise and regulate drugs for use by responsible over 18 year olds so Judt's arguments no longer hold water and so it'd be harder for kids to get em.

Judt

JC 2K3 wrote:

Sigh, would they ever just legalise and regulate drugs for use by responsible over 18 year olds so Judt's arguments no longer hold water and so it'd be harder for kids to get em.

I'd actually be in favour of legalising marijuana, in principal. I'm not a user, but I do see how legalising it solves a lot of problems. You still have the issue of abuse, but you have it with alcohol as well. The key is that the money to fund it isn't going into the pockets of criminals. But then you still have harder drugs like cocaine.....

Fremen

Personally, I'd be in favour of legalising just about everything. I agree that the drugs trade is a pretty nasty enterprise. A simple (though unlikely) solution to this would be to make the trade unprofitable by having the government sell drugs themselves. It seems fairly clear to me that prohibition doesn't work all that well.

This would have a side effect of making drugs themselves less dangerous. A heroin addict wouldn't run the risk of getting an unusually pure hit and overdosing, and won't be injecting a mixture of 40% heroin, 30% baking soda, 30% fibreglass into himself.
I know it's a fairly radical solution, and given that we're still a country which can't sell alcohol on good friday, it's unlikely ever to happen. It just seems like a decent way to prevent drug-related violence to me.

John_C

Fremen wrote:

Personally, I'd be in favour of legalising just about everything. I agree that the drugs trade is a pretty nasty enterprise. A simple (though unlikely) solution to this would be to make the trade unprofitable by having the government sell drugs themselves. It seems fairly clear to me that prohibition doesn't work all that well.

This would have a side effect of making drugs themselves less dangerous. A heroin addict wouldn't run the risk of getting an unusually pure hit and overdosing, and won't be injecting a mixture of 40% heroin, 30% baking soda, 30% fibreglass into himself.
I know it's a fairly radical solution, and given that we're still a country which can't sell alcohol on good friday, it's unlikely ever to happen. It just seems like a decent way to prevent drug-related violence to me.

The problem is that you'll probably increase the number of heroin addicts overall. It might be better to allow doctors to prescribe heroin only to people who are already addicted. It'd get them away from the dodgy heroin and it would remove the market for the drug meaning that there's no real benefit for a dealer to get soneone hooked.

Fremen

Good point, that makes a lot of sense.
I wonder if you really would see in increase in the number of addicts though. It's not like heroin's tough to get your hands on if you know where to look. I worked on Thomas st. in dublin for a while, where it was the norm to walk down the street and have it offered to you.

Edit: I guess this is getting a bit off-topic though

cavedave

Any not very accurate test of random individuals for a rare event will lead to a majority of false positives.
It does not matter whether it is facial recognition of terrorists, fetal checks for abnormalities, drug testing, alchohol testing whatever. The mathematics say that if the occurrence of the thing you are testing for is less then the reliability of the test you will get more false positives then correct positives.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/03/data_mining_for.html

I am not going to get into the rights and wrongs of drugs or drug testing or even the reaction of the majority of innocent people you "prove" have taken drugs. I just want to show that random tests without probable cause for rare events are a bad idea.

JC 2K3

Judt wrote:

I'd actually be in favour of legalising marijuana, in principal. I'm not a user, but I do see how legalising it solves a lot of problems. You still have the issue of abuse, but you have it with alcohol as well. The key is that the money to fund it isn't going into the pockets of criminals. But then you still have harder drugs like cocaine.....

Cocaine use amongst teenagers is practically non-existant.

John_C wrote:

The problem is that you'll probably increase the number of heroin addicts overall. It might be better to allow doctors to prescribe heroin only to people who are already addicted. It'd get them away from the dodgy heroin and it would remove the market for the drug meaning that there's no real benefit for a dealer to get soneone hooked.

I dunno. You've got to look at what the problem is - the fact they're heroin addicts or the fact that they're disadvantaged, desperate heroin addicts who have no source of heroin except from dealers who cut it with **** and rip them off by up to 100x the price it would cost were it legal.

I mean, there's evidence from the 50s that shows that there were a good few people in England who held respectable jobs(mainly scientists and doctors) yet were addicted to morphine for 50 or 60 years. ie. there's no direct health threat from pure morphine/heroin and essentially no reason a heroin addict couldn't hold down a good job.

I'd support doctors being able to prescribe heroin to those who are already addicts, have no other way to get it and need it to wean themselves off it, but I'd also support something like harder drugs only being available to members of licenced clubs.

Pherekydes

Judt wrote:

That's bull math.

Have you got a better rebuttal? If you don't understand the maths/science don't pass comment.

Have a read:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055092849

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor's_fallacy

Or watch this video:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67

Too many people that haven't a clue about statistics want to use them to beat people over the head.

funktastic

'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.'

There was a survey done a month or two back and was all over the radio/press headlines about the amount/traces of cocaine on banknotes. Therefore if someone touches a banknote with a high trace of cocaine and then uses a school computer they are labelled a 'drug fiend' by Enda Kenny! No wonder Pat Rabbitte is distancing himself from this.

Also Olwyn Enright, Fine Gael spokesperson on Education, was being interviewed on 'The Last Word' by Matt Cooper in relation to random drug testing in schools. This was when they first announced the proposal a few months back. She backed down very quickly when Cooper asked would teachers themselves come under this scheme of random testing. She said that teachers would not be tested.

I have been a secondary school teacher in a disadvantaged area for the past year and have not witnessed or heard of this 'huge drug problem' that Kenny talks about. Yes, alcohol is a problem but there are good structures in place within the system to deal with this. A good drugs initiative helping parents of children who go to school that are heroin addicts/have some sort of substance abuse problem would be a more positive step. No party seems to give a ****e about educational disadvantage or the causes of it for this election. Party's have also said little or nothing about the drugs problem, specifically heroin, and its impacts on students' lives and also services that should be implemented for addicts. Waiting lists to get onto methodone programmes outside of Dublin are shocking and only exacerbate the existing problem.

RedJoker

Dave,

There are two types of possible errors in testing, type I and type II errors. The test could produce a positive result when there was no drug use or could produce a negative result when there was drug use. Either error can be labeled type I or type II, however usually the more serious error would be labeled type I.

For example, when testing for a disease, the type I error would be giving a negative result when the disease was present.

Your values of 50% and 91% that you cited earlier in the thread are meaningless, the actual percentage is entirely dependent on the probability of type I errors, type II errors and the percentage of the sample tested that are taking drugs.

If you have statistics for these than it is possible to work it out using the following formula:

P(D|P) = P(P|D)P(D)/P(P)

Where P(D|P) is the probability of being on drugs given you tested positive, P(P|D) is the probability of testing positive given that you are on drugs, P(D) is the percentage of people who are on drugs and P(P) is the probability that a random person will test positive.

This is when we want to know what proportion will be falsely accused. We could also find out what proportion will be falsely cleared.

These tests could possibly be used as a screen for further investigation.

cavedave

Your values of 50% and 91% that you cited earlier in the thread are meaningless,

True they were the conclusion from the probability piece, i linked to, that explored this statistical reasoning error. I confusingly added them without explanation to show these errors are common.

These tests could possibly be used as a screen for further investigation.

These tests could be used for some proper investigation but then you are not really relying on the random drug tests.

My argument is with the Prosecutor's fallacy that random tests make likely. This fallacy is an important one as you could end up as the defendent at the wrong end of it and with a Jury who are innumerate.