ACLU will sue to halt teacher drug testing

Good news from Hawaii. Last year, the teachers were pressured into signing a contract that made drug-testing mandatory. Now the ACLU is suing to show their opposition to the teacher drug-testing proposal. I just wish they would or could do the same for students. Why should anybody be subjected to the pee police?

Drug-testing is one of those ideas that looks great on paper but is fraught with difficulty in practice. Most people don't realize that drug-testing is expensive, inaccurate, does not test for impairment or job performance and is an invasion of privacy. Luckily, we Canadians don't yet have to worry about this issue but who knows when we will be next. I always thought we were free of nut-job pro-lifers until I read this. If Americans do it, you can guarantee we will do it eventually.

And like I always say, if the only way you can identify drug users is by subjecting their pee to analysis in a lab, how bad can their drug problem really be?

Dividing and Conquering the Working Class with Drug Testing

An Angry Teacher from Hawaii has written a great analysis of the recent vote in favor of drug testing. You simply must go and read the whole thing. This is my favorite part:

This contract should not have been put to the workers for a vote. Asking workers to choose between either a raise, or retaining basic rights is like asking them to choose between sawing off a limb or shooting themselves in the face, with a nice raise for the face shooters. This move by the Union leadership was dressed up as a “democratic” vote, but should be identified as what it is: union collaboration with the state to impose more control over workers’ lives. Presenting a dilemma, and calling it a choice is a devils’ bargain, bourgeois democracy at its worst, but far from an anomaly.
This contract is an effective tool to drive a wedge between more “socially conservative” and “socially liberal” employees. Sixty one percent of the teachers who voted chose to ratify the contract. For some teachers, while they did not like the idea of drug testing, they felt the raise itself made the contract acceptable. For other teachers, the idea of criminalizing any type of recreational drug use not sanctioned by the state creates a better society: "I'm all for it," said math teacher John Furukawa. "As an educator, we need to promote an example to which kids can follow."

I wish I had written this post. That is absolutely brilliant and it's true. The teachers were very divided by this contract, with the teachers that oppose drug testing being branded as having something to hide or not caring enough about the children. Divide and conquer works because only drug-using communists oppose drug testing.

Just go and read the whole thing. I am thinking of printing it out and hanging it on my wall.

A powerful ally in the fight against the Pee Po-lice

San Francisco – The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in the March 2007 issue of their journal, Pediatrics, reaffirmed and expanded their opposition to random student drug testing. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has ignored and dismissed the criticisms of AAP and other leading experts in adolescent health as they roll out their continuing series of regional summits. These summits are aimed at convincing local educators to implement across-the-board random, suspicionless student drug testing. A contingency from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) travels to almost every summit to provide educators with the vital information missing from these one-sided presentations. The third summit of 2007 will be held on March 27 in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Despite four years of ONDCP-sponsored tours around the country promoting student drug testing, the American Academy of Pediatrics emphasizes there is little peer-reviewed evidence indicating the policy is at all effective. The AAP statement notes the only peer-reviewed study supporting testing also found that, “athletes who were drug tested experienced an increase in known risk factors for drug use, including an increase in normative views of use, belief in lower risk of use, and poorer attitudes toward school.” In contrast, the largest national study conducted to date, “found no association between school-based drug testing and student’s reported drug use.”

Told you so. Told you so. Na na na na na na! Drug-testing is an expensive, pointless feel-good measure that accomplishes nothing. A false-positive test can ruin your life. The reefer madness is ridiculous.

I've got nothing today. Sometimes blogging is such a chore.

UPDATE: Forgot to link the news stories.

Drug Testing Kids a Bad Idea, Doctors Say

I hope the Pee-Police are listening.

CHICAGO - Subjecting children to drug testing is usually a bad idea for a host of reasons, including often inaccurate results and loss of the child’s trust, a leading pediatricians’ group said on Monday.

Increasingly, schools are embarking on drug testing, particularly of student-athletes, following a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared the practice legal.

It was a great article, bringing up the same points that Educators for Sensible Drug Policy bring up about drug-testing. They mentioned the false positives, the climate of distrust and the fact that drug tests miss a lot of substances. Marijuana is the only drug that can be detected many days after ingestion. There are also many ways to beat a drug test. I will forgive them for failing to mention the high cost of drug-testing. But just this once.

There is also a poll. Nobody on the series of tubes can resist a poll!

When Drug-Testing Goes Wrong

We have the sordid tale of Kiana Crayton, a young single mother and a student on the road to becoming a certified nursing assistant. At least she was until she tested positive for cocaine after submitting to a drug test administered by the nursing home where she was receiving her training. After being booted out of the program after her positive test for cocaine, she immediately went to a clinic to retake the test. After two drug tests tested negative for cocaine, Ms. Crayton reasonably expected that the school would recognize that a false positive had occurred and she would be re-admitted into the program. Unfortunately, she was wrong. The school refused to listen to her when she insisted that she is not a drug user and the test was wrong.

Drug policy reformers weighed in with their views about the follies of drug-testing. Between two to four percent of all drug tests return false positives. The tests are far from infallible and without the appropriate measures in place, negative consequences can and do occur.

You would think that the officials responsible for this horrendous snafu would rectify this situation by apologizing to Ms. Crayton and allowing her to resume her training. Instead, the powers that be chose to shut down the program and leave 15 students in the lurch. Which prompted this concerned citizen to weigh in with the following letter to the editor, which illustrates quite nicely everything that is wrong with American society:

Bethany Home is getting negative press ("Nursing home cancels training," Feb. 7, Page A-1) that isn't deserved. Kiana Crayton is acting like a spoiled child who didn't get her way, claiming racism. Bethany Home is doing an admirable thing by drug testing anyone who comes in contact with their patients. Bethany Home has to go by the test results they did in their lab. They aren't affiliated with other labs and have no control over their tests.

Now, Bethany Home has canceled its program. Crayton should have thought about her fellow students before she blew this up in the media. I don't work for Bethany Home or the school.

LISA HAVEN

Ripon

We have victim-blaming and racism all wrapped up in less than 120 words. Why do you suppose the paper would choose to publish this letter? Does this reflect the sentiments of the newspaper and its' readers? Are there no people sentimental to the plight of a railroaded single mother? The gulf between Canada and our neighbors to the south continues to widen. I left the following comment to this story:

It is inexcusable that the nursing home is not being criticized for its' unfair railroading of Kiana Crayton. She did nothing wrong and was only trying to stay in school. She had every right to try to clear her name and she made a very valiant attempt. Calling her a spoiled child and blaming her for her plight is unbelievably bad form.

The editors of this newspaper should be ashamed of themselves for the bad judgment they showed in publishing this example of small-minded, racist, finger-pointing. Now I understand why African Americans are so over-represented in the criminal justice system. Even with all the overwhelming evidence that Kiana Crayton is not a drug user, we still have people willing to send judgmental letters to the editor.

First-Ever "Enlightened" Employee Marijuana Policy

I thought this was wonderful.

In the last few years, more and more companies, large and small, have contacted NORML wanting to implement a more tolerant and enlightened workplace drug policy, especially for those employees who may use cannabis for medicinal and/or recreational purposes.

In response to this growing trend, a major business software company named Jian recently contacted NORML and requested us to provide them with a new and updated 'Substance Abuse' policy for their best-selling 'Employee Manual Builder' software. They requested NORML to draft a HR policy that treats employees who responsibly consume cannabis the same as responsible alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical-consuming employees.

It's great to see that members of the business community see through the government lies and propaganda and are able to implement sensible policies about drug use and testing in the work place. There are many drug testing companies out there and it's nice to see that they won't get any business from Jian or the companies that use their human resources software. It's always nice to see something positive, especially in these dark days of inflicting the pee po-lice on American kids. I am so glad I am Canadian.

No Child Left Untested

A very interesting look at drug testing in American schools. MSNBC features the views from the pro-drug-testing and the anti-drug testing sides of the debate. There are concerns about privacy:

Dr. Bertha Madras: Under ideal conditions the testing is random, which is critical. If it's a urine test, the child is asked to come down to the nurse's office. They walk in solo, they deposit a sample as they would in any doctor's office, they give the sample to the nurse who puts a little dip stick in, and the dip stick will say positive or negative.

Jennifer Kern: They are removed from their classrooms and are escorted to take a drug test, and if they end up with a positive test result they are removed from their extracurricular activity. And because this is a very public removal from the classroom and often a public removal from the extracurricular activity, the testing is not as confidential as promised.

Is there a risk that kids who test positive for drugs will be stigmatized?

Madras: The thing that I have heard is that everyone knows who's using drugs; there are no surprises amongst the kids. Kids know who are the users, their friends know, so when a kid is not engaged in sports for one game, nobody is surprised. I've been a parent all my life, and I knew which one of the kids I didn't want my kids near. I think the far greater risk is using the drug that can have adverse consequences on brain, body and behavior.

Translation: We already know who the drug users are and their feelings don't matter so it's no big deal if they get singled out.

Kern: What is the point of removing the kids from extracurricular activities when they are most in need of that support and there is the question of confidentiality and those students being labeled as the 'bad kid' and how that effects them?

Why didn't MSNBC ask about the costs of drug testing? These programs are expensive and are not proven to reduce student drug use. Why didn't they bother to bring that up? Read the whole thing. I especially like how the prohibitionist used the "successes" of drug testing in the military to justify intrusive drug testing of adolescents in a high school setting. Nice.

The Best Test for "Booze Clues"

In fact it works so well that if your kid uses the following common household items, they could test positive for alcohol:

--Hand Sanitizer (62 percent alcohol)
--Cough Medicine (10 percent alcohol)
--Mouthwash (27 percent alcohol)
--Vanilla Extract (35 percent alcohol)
--Disinfectant spray (at least 79 percent alcohol)

It's only going to cost the Pequannock Towship $120,000 of federal money to impliment the program. It's nice to know that the quality of American education is so wonderful and top-notch that they have the luxury of wasting $120,000 on ineffective testing. Every American kid has a band instrument, adequate support, tutoring and a lunch, right?

The Pee Po-lice are Touring America

In response to growing interest among schools in random student drug testing, ONDCP took to the road in 2004 with regional drug-testing summits to inform community leaders and school officials about student drug testing and to promote discussion of this issue at the local level. To date, the agency has hosted 12 summits across the country and more are being planned.

Better not tell the Pee Po-lice about the school boards that have rejected federal funding for drug testing programs. We wouldn't want the public or the schools to know that some people have very good reasons to object to the Pee Po-lice in the schools.

Hat tip to the EFSDP mailing list.

Matthew Yglesias: I hate the Drug War but what is the alternative?

Matthew Yglesias has a pretty weak post defending prohibition.

I mean, I'm not even clear on what question's being asked here. Do I think the status quo is preferable to total deregulation of currently prohibited drugs? I would say so. But considering how heavily regulated the use of alcohol and tobacco is, one hardly imagines that a heroin free-for-all (ads after school cartoons, for sale out of ice cream trucks) is a likely alternative policy. So, I don't know. What is the "war on drugs" exactly? Does it do more harm than good compared to what?

I have spent a lot of time railing against drug propoganda taught to children, costly drug testing in schools, the spraying of toxic chemicals in the environment and the expense associated with drug busts and imprisoning non-violent offenders. Yet I don't think that I have ever written a post about what I think would be a good alternative to the War on Some Drugs.

First of all, the war on drugs is mainly fought against marijuana. 44.2% of all drug arrests were for marijuana use, despite the fact that marijuana is by far the safest recreational drug. Marijuana has never caused an overdose death in the thousands of years of its' use for both recreational and medicinal use, is not addictive and does not lead to the use of hard drugs. There is no good reason to continue to punish marijuana users for using a drug that is far safer than tobacco, alcohol and caffeine.

In a Drug War-Free world, people would be free to grow and sell their own marijuana. I would also like to see marijuana offered for sale in the same places that currently sell tobacco with the same age restrictions. It is unrealistic to expect age restrictions to prevent teenagers from using marijuana, since age regulations hardly stop teenagers from drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. But all the worry about teenage marijuana use is overstated anyway. I believe if most people were aware of the safety of marijuana, they would not over-react to teenage drug use. After all, if you know the gateway theory is bullshit, why freak out because your kids are smoking a bit of weed? If they are at no risk of overdose and are not at an increased risk of using hard drugs, why all the fuss about marijuana?

In a Drug War-Free world we would hopefully see reality based drug education. We would no longer try to scare kids into staying drug-free. Schools in the United States would not be compelled to use costly and ineffective drug testing. We would teach kids the truth about drugs. This would probably mean that there might be more marijuana-smoking kids but since this is not a highly addictive substance and is relatively safe, parents would not be too upset about it. It would be very difficult to know if an end to prohibition would actually mean that more people would use marijuana, since I doubt that people answer surveys honestly. We would continue to teach the dangers of meth and other hard drugs and kids would take what adults say more seriously because they haven't been lied to about marijuana.

Tomorrow (or later if I'm bored) I will post about what I think about the legalization of harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth. Feel free to comment and make suggestions and bring up any missed points that I can address later.

Medical Marijuana makes it hard to discriminate against potheads

A man suspended from work after testing positive for pot has filed a human rights complaint, claiming his boss refused to let him see the company drug-testing policy.

Stephen Shorten, 46, says he suffers from chronic pain and smokes a nightly joint - paired with ibuprofen - to ease the discomfort.

His arms were broken after they got caught in a machine at the Layfield textile plant in April, and he only returned to full-time status in October.

Shorten said he and eight other staffers were told to provide urine samples for marijuana testing on Dec. 6. He tested positive and was immediately suspended.

Over the nearly five years Shorten has worked at Layfield he said the company has turned a blind eye to recreational pot use, so long as staffers showed up for work sober. Link

The company has to drug test its' employess otherwise they might mistake potheads for productive workers. The thing is these potheads act just like regular people and you can't tell by the way they look, act or perform their jobs whether they are, in fact, drug-using losers. It is necessary to take samples of pee and blood and subject it to analysis in a lab to know whether discrimination based on the ingestion of the wrong plants is warranted. We certainly know that it is necessary.

Due to the labor shortage, some very wise companies have decided that they should judge their employees by their on-the-job performance and do away with this costly drug-testing nonsense altogether.

Judge employees by their performance? Why that's just crazy talk!

Anyway, I just have a couple of things to say to this unfortunate young man, who is facing being canned from the same company that broke his arms. First of all, get the physician that recommended marijuana to write you a legal prescription. Even if you end up getting your weed on the black market, because legal weed sucks noodles, there is no way they can fire you for treating a medical condition. Second of all, realize that there is nothing wrong with being a pothead. It's like being gay. Pretty soon, we will get to the point where people will say, "Hi I would love you to meet my friend Tanya, the pothead, not that there is anything wrong with that." People will know that they can categorize me based on just one of my many wicked habits. That will be awesome.

16-year-old mother charged after murder after tests reveal drug overdose killed baby

A 16-year-old gives birth to a dead baby because of her drug use. She is threatened with life in prison. There are a few questions that I wish I knew the answer to:

What kind of prenatal care did this woman have access to? Was she treated for drug addiction? Where is the father of her baby and what role does he play? Did she know that an unborn child may die from her drug use? And most important of all:

If a "woman" of 16 years old can be charged for the accidental death of her unborn child, what does this have to say about a woman's right to choose?

Drug Users Urged to turn themselves in.

This is some seriously scary shit. Reefer madness is completely out of control in Taiwan. On Sunday bloviating moralists also known as government officials were up in arms because a few celebrities use drugs. They are upset because they promised during the last election to make war on crime. Unfortunately, nobody told them that calling for war on a cause is the best way to doom it. The war on terror has resulted in everybody being scared of brown people. The war on drugs has insured that drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever. Declare war on crime and crime becomes rampant. All you have to do is look at the crime and prison rates for America to know that a war on crime increases prison rates.

Prison Rates

"The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 714 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Belarus, Bermuda and Russia (all 532), Palau (523), U.S. Virgin Islands (490), Turkmenistan (489), Cuba (487),
Suriname (437), Cayman Islands (429), Belize (420), Ukraine (417), Maldive Islands (416), St Kitts and Nevis (415), South Africa (413) and Bahamas (410).

"However, almost three fifths of countries (58%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The rate in England and Wales - 142 per 100,000 of the national population - is above the mid-point in the World List.)" Link

Crime Rates

It is important to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000. Link

Anyway, it seems to me that actress and TV hostess Hsiao Shu-sheng has become another celebrity to become famous due to failing to be drug-free. Celebrities still use drugs despite the fact that the trafficking of cocaine is a class 1 offense which is penalized by death or life imprisonment. Taiwan is home to some of the most repressive drug laws in the world. It simply won’t do to have celebrities testing positive for cocaine. What of the children?

But just like in America, where intoxicated starlets like Britney Spears have pics of their nether regions splashed across the internet, Taiwan goes easy on its’ celebrities. The Taiwanese actress and the other entertainers will be required to undergo mandatory drug treatment whether they need it or not. I guess treatment is better than jail. Any celebrity that wishes to turn themselves in and undergo voluntary drug treatment will escape incarceration.

Too bad they can’t extend similar amnesty to the rest of Taiwanese society.

Drug-Driving: Scouge on Society

*If the Tory gov't gets its' way, we will never have to see THIS again.

One of my favorite things to do is to read the drug war news that I get from MAP in my email. I can see all the tactics that the wingnuts use to scare people into fearing drugs and I can also learn all the positive moves that activists are making in support of ending prohibition. It is quite enlightening when you realize how much time, money and energy is wasted on some really pointless measures.

Take the Tories Drug-Driving legislation. Some of the highlights are:

Under the new bill, the minimum fine for a first offence of either drug-or alcohol-impaired driving would be $1,000 rather than the current $600. A second offence would bring a mandatory 30 days in jail rather than 14, a third offence 120 days rather than 90.

In the worst cases, the maximum sentence would be life in prison for impaired driving causing death and 10 years for causing bodily harm.

The Tory bill also creates a new offence of being in care and control of a vehicle while in possession of an illicit dug - something like driving with an open bottle of beer.

The penalty would be a mandatory six-month prohibition on driving, in addition to jail time that could run up to five years. Link

There have been numerous stories about the proposed bill, some in favor and some opposed. My favorite argument in favor of the drug-driving bill reads as follows:

The Prime Minister is striving to make driving while high as unacceptable as driving drunk. This new legislation will not only help to prevent drug IMPARIED driving related crimes, but it will also help to raise awareness about the issue. Link

You mean the Prime Minister wishes to stop me from careening down the highway with beer bong in hand? Years of drinking and driving propoganda have failed to impress upon people the foolishness of driving while impaired? I find that hard to believe. If education is what is required, I fail to see why a new law is needed. Let MADD hand out some more red ribbons and give it a rest. Impaired driving is already illegal. What this really is is an excuse to infringe upon our civil liberties via drug testing that does not detect impairment.

It seems to me that there are far more important issues than trying to pass a bill that Vic Toews' admits was basically identical to the bill written by the liberals:

But Toews admitted, when pressed by reporters, that the core of his legislation - setting out the legal steps police must follow to prove drug impairment - is taken straight from a bill proposed by the previous Liberal government.

"In that respect, it's essentially the same," said the minister.

He went on, however, to point to areas where the Tories had "enhanced" the Liberal approach - mainly by boosting the penalties upon conviction.

The liberals failed, why do the Tories think that the same bill with increased penalties will be successful?

Bah, humbug!

School Board rejects drug test grant

It said no Tuesday to a four-year federal grant that would have paid for random drug testing of some high school athletes. It said no to a national study that would have let the federal government evaluate drug use among Citrus students.

They made the right choice.

Mom punches teacher

What was the biggest mistake made in this video? Allowing the drug-testing to take place? The teacher revealing the results in such a public and unprofessional manner? Or the parent for punching the teacher in the face?

It's kind of a toss up.

POLICE SUPPORT DRUGGED DRIVERS' CRACKDOWN

Big freaking surprise.

I am just wondering about the practical matters. How is a cop going to get a blood sample at a roadside stop? Are they going to be required to get medical training in order to take blood samples? How are the blood samples going to be taken? Will it be a pin-prick or a needle? YIKES! As if roadside stops weren't bad enough.

More on the Drug-Driving Bill

The Tories have opened themselves up to a lot of criticism by the Liberal party and by teh internetz!!111 I am happy to say that I have not run into many bloggers and arm-chair pundits that think this legislation is a good thing. Except for this guy. Don't waste your time reading his post. The pic at the top of this post pretty much sums it up.

It is going to be hard to oppose this legislation without being seen as soft on drug-impaired driving. But there are some very valid criticisms of this bill and some important questions that need to be asked.

1. Is drugged driving a problem that needs additional legislation? Aaron Jacklin of Understanding Crime has suggested that perhaps this could be a step towards decriminilizing or even legalizing some drugs. It is true that the problem of how to deal with an alleged increase of drugged drivers on the roads is used by prohibitionists to oppose drug law reform. While I do hope this is true and it would definitely turn at least one opinionated school marm mom into a diehard Tory, I am not feeling very optimistic. The Tory government has given no indication of being supportive to the drug legalization cause. I have always believed that the drugged driving angle has always been used as a red herring. The idea that repealing prohibition would lead to an increase in drug-impaired drivers is based on the false assumption that legalization would lead to an increase in drug users. There is no reason to believe that would be he case. I believe that drug prohibition encourages drug use. The black market is the most effective example of viral marketing that I can think of.

2. Have the problems with current drug testing been addressed? We know that blood and urine testing is fraught with difficulties. In the case of marijuana we know that traces of THC metabolites show up in the blood long after the psycho-active effects of the drug are gone. The last thing we want is another law that marginilizes people that smoke the wrong plants and does nothing to make our streets safer. The Liberals mentioned that $4 million worth of funding was cut by the Tories from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Elimination of Drug Impaired Driving Program's training budget. That does seem a little fishy doesn't it? They want to give the police increased powers but they don't want to give them the training to use their power appropriately. Very, very fishy.

PM to unwrap drug-driving bill today

Police officers have been asking for this type of power for many years but scientific tests have not been available for roadside use to accurately determine what substances a drugged driver has smoked, ingested or injected.

Mr. Murie said the introduction in the United States of what is known as a drug recognition evaluation has eliminated that roadblock in recent years.

"It is a series of tests that look for families of drugs," he said. As the driver performs the tests, a skilled officer will usually be able to tell what kind of drug is causing the impairment. Then a bodily fluid is demanded to confirm the result.

Does this mean that they haven't overcome the problems related to drug testing? "Failing" a drug test does not mean you are actually impaired at the time of the test. It is possible for THC metabolites to be detected up to 90 days after ingesting marijuana. There are still no roadside tests that accurately determine if a person is impaired by drug use. They have decided to address this problem by having a "skilled officer" determine which drugs are causing the impairment. Is this going to be a truly objective way to determine whether a driver is actually impaired by drug use? Sounds a little fishy to me.

When the evaluation, plus the officer's assessment and the analysis of the blood or saliva sample, is presented to a court, Mr. Murie said, "it's been proven successful to get a conviction."

But he said he hopes Mr. Harper takes the initiative to be announced today several steps further.

There is speculation that the government will add at least one, and possibly three, new enhancements to existing drunk-driving legislation, he said.

"If it comes through," he said, "it will be the most comprehensive breakthrough [against drunk drivers] in 10 years."

I will be watching to see what will become of this. Drug testing is not an accurate way to judge impairment. Is drug testing combined with the evaluation of a skilled officer going to be any better? What about drivers impaired by sugar, caffeine, or lack of sleep?

JUST NOT RIGHT

It's always nice to see people that are almost as smart as me. The following letter was posted in response to the story about the principal who was implementing drug testing at his school.

JUST NOT RIGHT

Last week the 100 Mile Free Press carried a story indicating that the 100 Mile Junior High has introduced breathalyzers and drug testing kits into its hallways.

"It's a pro-active approach to just saying no to drugs and alcohol in the school," said school principal, Mark Wintjes. "It's not in reaction to a problem at the Junior, but it's more of a pro-active approach saying that drugs and alcohol don't mix with learning."

Wintjes can certainly be commended for caring about his students, for trying to combat what appears to be a growing drug and alcohol problem among youth. Nobody wants to see children become drug addicts or alcoholics.

But the idea of breathalyzers and drug testing seems to be extreme and somewhat offensive. It appears to be addressing a potential problem through the use of intimidation.

Yes, the student can refuse and yes, the parents can interject. But, do we really want our children being subjected to that kind of intimidation? Do you want your child, who may not be doing drugs, to be put through the humiliation of being asked to take a test, of being accused even remotely of being a drug user or of having a drug problem. Wouldn't it make you somewhat angry that someone would do that to your child, even if they have the best of intentions. And wouldn't your child feel angry and resentful that someone would think that about them?

Who is to judge who looks stoned first thing in the morning? Can students ask that their teacher or principal be tested? Defending liberties and freedoms is a difficult balancing act.

The question of collective rights vs individual rights is one that is fought almost every day in our courts. Many excellent laws have been put in place to serve the collective good of society. Some of those laws involved sacrificing personal freedom. For example, as an adult, you are allowed to drink in excess in the privacy of your home. This is your choice. You harm yourself by doing so. However you can't be drunk in a public place and you can't drink and drive because you may harm someone else.

The war against drug and alcohol abuse is a battle that all of society must fight. But hopefully it can be done through education, and caring and counselling. Our children have a right to live with dignity and respect. Our school system should be at the forefront of ensuring that those basic rights are not abused by anyone, including those in authority.