Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Blowing Smoke
Why random drug testing doesn't reduce student drug use.
Ryan Grim | Slate | 03/21/06

Drug testing of the American public has been steadily broadening over the past 20 years, from soldiers to grocery baggers to high-school and middle-school students. In its 2007 budget, the Bush administration asks for $15 million to fund random drug testing of students—if approved, a 50 percent increase over 2006. Officials from the federal drug czar's office are crisscrossing the country to sell the testing to school districts.

Yet, according to the two major studies that have been conducted on student testing, it doesn't actually reduce drug use. "Of most importance, drug testing still is found not to be associated with students' reported illicit drug use—even random testing that potentially subjects the entire student body," determined the authors of the most recent study.

It seems like common sense that if students are warned they could be caught getting high any day in school, they'd be less likely to risk it. And principals and the drug czar's office argue that this random chance "gives kids a reason to say no." But teens are notorious for assuming that nothing bad will happen to them. Sure, some people get caught, but not me. In addition, a student who chooses to do drugs already has more than a random chance of getting caught—adults are everywhere in this world. Someone could see her, smell smoke , see her bloodshot eyes, or wonder what the hell is so funny. And since most schools test only students who do something more than just show up for class—like join an after-school club, park on campus, or play a sport—kids can avoid the activities rather than quit puffing. Testing may not change much more of the equation than that.

Such are the findings of two major studies. The first study, published in early 2003, looked at 76,000 students in eighth, 10th, and 12th grades in hundreds of schools, between the years 1998 and 2001. It was conducted by Ryoko Yamaguchi, Lloyd Johnston, and Patrick O'Malley out of the University of Michigan, which also produces Monitoring the Future, the university's highly regarded annual survey of student drug use, which is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and whose numbers the White House regularly cites.

The early 2003 Michigan study compared the rates of drug use, as measured by Monitoring the Future, in schools that did some type of drug testing to schools that did not. The researchers controlled for various demographic differences and found across the board that drug testing was ineffective; there was no statistically significant difference in the number of users at a school that tested for drugs and a similar school that didn't.

The White House criticized the Michigan study for failing to look at the efficacy of random testing. So, Yamaguchi, Johnston, and O'Malley added the random element and ran their study again, this time adding data for the year 2002. The follow-up study, published later in 2003, tracked 94,000 middle- and high-school students. It reached the same results as its precursor. Even if drug testing is done randomly and without suspicion, it's not associated with a change in the number of students who use drugs in any category. The Michigan follow-up found one exception: In schools that randomly tested students, 12th-graders were more likely to smoke marijuana.

Results like these would mean budget cuts or death for some government programs. The White House has devised its own rating system, known as the Program Assessment Rating Tool, to help it cull failed initiatives. (These generally turn out to be the type of programs you wouldn't expect a Republican administration to like, but that's another story) In 2002, PART deemed "ineffective" the Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants program, the umbrella for school drug testing. The Office of Management and Budget, which runs the PART evaluations, writes on its website, "The program has failed to demonstrate effectiveness in reducing youth drug use, violence, and crime." The PART evaluation did not single out drug testing, which is a small part of the overall state grants program. Still, combined with the Michigan studies, what we have here is a bureaucratic pounding. That hasn't stopped President Bush from sounding an upbeat note. In his 2004 State of the Union, he said, "I proposed new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs. Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort."

Pressed for evidence to support the administration's bid to increase funds for testing, drug officials challenge the Michigan study's methodology. Drug czar John Walters has called for "detailed pre- and post-random testing data"—that is, a study of the rate of drug use at a school before a random testing program was initiated and then again afterward. Such a study is currently under way with federal funds, but it comes with a built-in flaw. Drug-use rates are obtained in questionnaires that school administrators give to students. If the administrators are asking students about their drug-use habits while they have the power to randomly test them, how honest can we expect the students to be, no matter what anonymity they're promised?

Like Walters, the $766 million drug-testing industry isn't ready to give up on testing students, for which it charges between $14 and $30 a cupful of pee. Melissa Moskal, executive director of the 1,300-member Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association, pointed me to a preliminary study that she likes better than Michigan's and that Walters also frequently references. The study is funded by the Department of Education and produced by the Institute for Behavior and Health, and its lead author is Robert DuPont, a former White House drug official. DuPont is also a partner at Bensinger, DuPont & Associates. DuPont says that Bensinger "doesn't have anything to do with drug testing." But the company's Web site states: "BDA offers a range of products designed to help employers establish and manage workplace drug and alcohol testing programs."

DuPont's study, which he calls "descriptive," chose nine schools that met certain criteria, the first of which was, "The student drug testing program's apparent success." The study's methodology appears to add to the slant. Rather than gathering information from students and analyzing it, DuPont relies on a questionnaire that asks how effective administrators think their random drug-testing program is. He doesn't claim neutrality. "I can't quite get the argument that [drug testing] wouldn't work," he says. He's now working on an evaluation of eight schools. The results won't be ready soon, but let's venture a prediction: Random drug testing will come out looking good.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Cassius

Hey, if they drug testing every student in every public school, at least it would encourage parents to take charge of their child's education and send them to a private school or home-school them!

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

delilahpunch420

i honestly don't believe that if the schools drug tested everyone in highschool it would encourage parents to send them to private schools or home schooling. i think once a teen has tried a drug and likes it, i dont think its going to prevent them from doing it anywhere else. also a parent can only do so much from keeping there child from experimenting with drugs once a child or teen reaches a certain age there going to do it no matter what.

i don't consider marijuana to be a hard drug in my eyes its a soft drug. it make a person calm and relaxed, unlike alcohol where now teens and adults are drinking to get drunk and causing accidents on the road and killing others. bottom line people are going to do what they please and i say choosing marijuana over alcohol is a smarter choice.

Cassius

Why do you disagree? Nothing in the rest of your post supports your position, it's all talking about something else. Why don't you think mandatory testing of all public school students would lead to an increase in home-schooling and private-schooling frequency?

delilahpunch420

year sorry if i got a little off the subject there i tend to do that.

but anyway i think if the schools do decide to do mandatory drug testing it would probably only be for those in sports or any after school activities/clubs i dont think they could actually do it on every student who enters the school. also private schools are expensive and so is homeschooling, and not all parents can afford to do that for thier child unless the government is willing to pay then by all means that parent can take their child to private school.

 

Toking Jedi

I agree. Random drug testing would only aggravate parents, and alert them to probably what they already know. It wouldn't even be good; it would creat much more stress for those parents, such as mine, who aren't liking their kids' use of marijuana. This way, there is much more of a chance of a kid getting caught. My mom would flip out.

I really think drug testing goes too far. If I had to be subjected to that, I would refuse. I'd take it to the supreme court, if I had to. It's my body and I can do what ever I want to it. If it's against the law to make myself feel good, so be it. But I'll be damned if I ever am forced to give a random drug test in a school (which i won't; luckily, I go to private school...). It's just another Catholic and Evangelical zero-tolerance-'cause-we-don't-understand-it mechanism. It's crap. Though who am I saying this to? A bunch of people who already share my opinion. Fun, fun.

__________________

Cassius

I wouldn't bank on that if I were you.

dish2004

Well since in school you forfiet alot of your rights. If it were else where, by drug testing everyone or random people is a generalized search, which is illegal under the 4th amendment. By peeing in a cup and being tested would be self-incriminating if you test positive, so under the 5th amendment you have the right not to incriminate yourself. Since in school you forfeit those rights but in a job which requires drug testing somewhere in your contract you forfeit your rights also. In reality the kids have no way to protect themselves other than not smoking, which sucks. I think the money could be used in better ways such as, better books for schools instead of tryin to find out if they enjoy marijuana out of school. With these drug tests it would more than likely lead to more kids being kicked out of school. I find this to be idiotic and only further proves how politically motivated our gov't is and while ignoring the facts about marijuana. thats my little rant so take it how ya want.

Cassius

I tell you what, maybe if they actually ENGAGED the children's capacity for intelligence and CHALLENGED them, they might not be so freaking bored spending 7 hours a day going from class to class, half of which or more are the mental equivalent of "study hall" (meaning do whatever you want but don't bug the teacher), and this lack of boredom might lead them to seek out intoxicants in lesser amounts? Not counting "down time" of, let's see, waiting for the bus, riding the bus (which picks up 30 other children that live in different places -- i spent over an hour round trip on the bus every day while going to public school), at lunch, socializing after lunch, getting stuff out after the begin-bell rings and getting started, putting stuff up and finishing up before the end-bell rings, taking attendance...

I'm not surprised kids are so bored that they're smoking up and drinking before and during school. Today's public education system teaches the children how to "work a system", nothing more. Oh, and get along with large groups of random strangers. Public schools breed sheep, not citizens. Is it so surprising we have so many people on welfare? More to the point is it so surprising we have so many people happily on welfare, content, not desiring change? I have had more than one person tell me, "Why should I get a job? I have welfare, foodstamps, and disability (and sometimes unemployment and/or workers comp to boot!). If I got a job I'd lose all that." I'm sure most of you have heard someone say that before as well.

The American public education system is in desperate need of overhaul. Since that's not going to happen ANYTIME soon, I certainly wouldn't send my kids there. But, what I would choose is not for everyone.

Buzzby

It's obvious that you're not a parent. Most parents don't want to have their kids taking drugs and would be happy for any program that would discourage them from doing so. Inasmuch as parents have the right to drug test their minor children, I doubt that they would object to having that responsibility transferred to the schools.

There would be some civil-libertarian-type parents who would object to it. Parents who support their children's drug use would object to it. Parents who are themselves drug users would probably object to it because they wouldn't want the light shown on their own illegal pastime. As long as it was guaranteed that there would be no involvement with law enforcement I doubt that very many others would object. I don't think that minors should use drugs and I really don't know how I would have reacted if this was proposed when my daughter was in high school.

This is entirely separate from the issue of whether or not school drug testing actually discourages kids from using drugs. The best studies seem to indicate that it does not.

__________________