• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: The Age - 27/03/08 'Drug tests make no sense'

hoptis

Bluelight Crew
Joined
May 1, 2002
Messages
11,083
Drug tests make no sense

rg_spooner_wideweb__470x368,2.jpg

Illustration: John Spooner

Gino Vumbaca
March 27, 2008

YOU will often hear people talk about an issue being a question of common sense. In the area of drug policy, many people in the community think that drug testing of school students is such an issue. Surely we should do all we can to stop young people using drugs and so testing them to make sure they don't is common sense?

The truth is that some things are not as sensible as they may seem, and drug testing school students is one of those things.

The new report from the Australian National Council on Drugs, prepared by the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction, clearly exposes school drug testing for the inefficient program it is.

Apart from costing between $100 million and $1 billion to introduce, depending on whether the program would cover all students or a random sample tested weekly or yearly, the evidence is clear that it would be ineffective and potentially harmful.

So how can such a sensible-sounding program be so wrong? First, let's think about the cost. When education became part of the centre stage of the recent federal election, would anyone have seriously accepted that the Government should spend an additional $1 billion of education money on collecting urine samples or mouth swabs from students? Or that turning teachers, in their chosen profession as educators of children, into quasi drug testers would be the "education revolution" the community was looking for?

Second, its substantive lack of effectiveness has to be considered. The independent, but limited, research available on this issue from the US shows us that when schools that have testing programs are compared with nearby schools that do not, very little difference in levels of drug use by students is found.

What needs to be remembered is that self-promotional reports from US schools that have introduced drug testing without any real information either on the level of drug use before testing or in surrounding schools that have not introduced testing, do not constitute independent evidence. Adherence to a belief or ideology they may be, but evidence they are not.

Third, there are several problems school drug testing can cause. Drug testing is by no means infallible and a percentage of false positive results will be returned. Thus we would be allowing a system to be put in place that we know will result in a proportion of students being falsely accused of using illegal drugs. This would be traumatic for such students and their families. Drug testing also undermines the critical area of trust between the school, its teachers and its students.

Teachers need to focus on their students' education and on teaching the skills they will need to make the difficult transition from adolescence to adulthood. The positive results from developing a nurturing relationship between schools, teachers and students should never be underestimated.

Also, school drug testing can create a range of harmful, if unintended, consequences. The most dangerous of these is that students could start to adjust any drug-taking behaviour to avoid detection, such as by using different drugs that have shorter detection periods, bingeing on drugs on Friday night to have the system cleared by Monday and any possible test, or consuming more alcohol as it is not tested. Creating a system that will inevitably lead to some students focusing on learning how to avoid detection rather than making responsible decisions is not a step forward.

It is the role of the Australian National Council on Drugs to advise federal, state and territory governments on drug and alcohol policy. This is not a role any of its members takes lightly or for granted. Members determine the best policy responses for governments based on the available evidence and results. As such, there is indisputable evidence that illicit drug use has been declining among secondary school students for a number of years, and that we already have some of the most effective, school-based programs in place that aim to prepare students for the challenges presented by drugs, now and in the future.

Importing a school-based, drug-testing policy that is not backed up by any evidence that it works, and may even be harmful, defies common sense.

Gino Vumbaca is executive director of the Australian National Council on Drugs.

The Age
 
I think they missed a major disadvantage, imo, many students, instead of completing there hsc, will drop out as soon as they can to prevent there parents knowing/any other repercussions. Even though many of these students would of probably done very well.
 
Our children deserve and need a safe school environment

Jo Baxter
March 27, 2008
Advertisement

AT FIRST glance, the idea of drug-testing our school students may not seem palatable. But when we look more closely at the position we are now in, Australians may need to rethink how we can prevent illicit drug use among our young.

The fact is that rates of illicit drug use in Australia are higher than other countries in the developed world. For example, the US has lower per capita rates of amphetamine and cannabis use than we do. Its binge-drinking rates are also lower than those of Australian teenagers. Indeed, a recent international comparison of under-age alcohol use, conducted by Australian and US researchers and involving 6000 children, found levels of binge drinking are up to three times higher among Australian year 9 students compared with equivalent American teenagers.

Given that the US is making better headway than Australia, in both binge drinking and illicit drug use among its young people, we should be looking more closely at what is working there. One strategy that we have not yet tried as a preventive measure is drug-testing students. Unfortunately, this week's Australian National Council on Drugs report on drug testing in schools fails to mention the many successful drug-testing programs being carried out across the US. These programs are now carried out in more than 1200 schools with documented high success rates in reducing drug use among students.

After implementing a student drug-testing program, Hunterdon Central Regional High School in New Jersey saw a reduction in cocaine use by seniors from 13% to 4% after two years. Schools in Autauga County in Alabama experienced decreases in marijuana use from 19% to 12%. In Indiana, 85% of schools saw an increase in drug use when testing was suspended; drug use fell when testing resumed.

In addition, Columbia University's National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse: Teens and Parents found that 67% of teenagers and 60% of parents agreed that drug tests are effective in preventing teenagers from using illegal drugs.

It should also be kept in mind that successful school drug-testing models never punish students. On the contrary, they enlist the support of both parents and students. They are also only one part of a comprehensive drug and alcohol prevention, intervention and treatment strategy for schools.

We may well ask what are the benefits. They are many, but one significant benefit is the fact that successful models of school drug testing have provided valid reasons for students to legitimately say "no" when pressured to use drugs. In addition to decreased drug use, schools recorded increased student retention rates and higher academic achievement.

Some people may be concerned that any introduction of drug testing may break down the trust between teachers and students. In the models researched by Drug Free Australia, teachers are not directly involved in school drug-testing programs. Rather, the programs are carried out by external clinical specialists, in much the same way as how schools arrange for the administering of flu vaccinations.

Drug Free Australia's research also indicates that testing is now highly accurate. Internationally acclaimed drug specialist Dr Robert DuPont, director of the Institute for Behaviour and Health in Washington, DC, fully supports the accuracy of the types of tests carried out in US schools. The US Government, through the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is now funding schools to participate, based on successful trials. It is also establishing a research institute devoted to this prevention initiative.

Drug Free Australia is concerned that the ANCD report has not included the latest information from these sources. The ANCD has missed out on important evidence and research from specialists who have carried out drug testing in a range of contexts for more than 20 years. We are also concerned that the costs of tests quoted in the ANCD report seem somewhat inflated, given the experience in the US and those of the latest scientific research in Australia. It is interesting that we can find the funding for random breath testing, roadside drug testing and testing in workplaces to ensure a safe environments for adults. Should we not be exploring similar possibilities for our children?

All the available evidence suggests that drug testing should be an option for any school community that demonstrates the need to take steps to prevent early drug use.

Jo Baxter is executive officer of Drug Free Australia.

Drug Free Australia trying to appear evidence based! Pretty funny shit right there.
 
Also, school drug testing can create a range of harmful, if unintended, consequences. The most dangerous of these is that students could start to adjust any drug-taking behaviour to avoid detection, such as by using different drugs that have shorter detection periods, bingeing on drugs on Friday night to have the system cleared by Monday and any possible test, or consuming more alcohol as it is not tested. Creating a system that will inevitably lead to some students focusing on learning how to avoid detection rather than making responsible decisions is not a step forward.

I completely agree with what's said. I know, if I was a kid in that position, I'd spend every waking minute working out how to beat those tests, as I'm sure those kids who like a challenge and their drugs would ;) The statements regarding binge drinking or using drugs that have short detection periods indicate that at least someone on the Australian National Council on Drugs committee for this project is being realistic.


Drug Free Australia's research also indicates that testing is now highly accurate. Internationally acclaimed drug specialist Dr Robert DuPont, director of the Institute for Behaviour and Health in Washington, DC, fully supports the accuracy of the types of tests carried out in US schools. The US Government, through the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is now funding schools to participate, based on successful trials. It is also establishing a research institute devoted to this prevention initiative.

Robert DuPont also makes a living out of selling drug testing kits, so is he someone that should be consulted and trusted on this issue? These remarks from Jo Baxter are typical, and only serve to further demonstrate how Drug Free Australia, as an organisation, are out of touch with the bigger picture. And the tests are not effective at all if people learn how to beat them by taking drugs that can't be detected with these systems.
 
Where did they get the figures that America has lower rates of amphetamine use? I really doubt thats true. I can handle we toke n drink more though.... We love the green n beer :p
 
Careful! You can't always get what you want with drug tests
John Fitzgerald
March 31, 2008

The rush to test could be more damaging than beneficial.

IN SCHOOL, work, travel, even in sport, drug testing has changed the co-ordinates of what we know about the private lives of citizens. Drug and alcohol use, when not detrimental to work, health or family, has traditionally been thought of as a private matter, a recreational issue, a choice. However, as we increasingly monitor and test more aspects of life, drug and alcohol use becomes less of a private matter and more of an issue of public accountability.

Drug testing is fast becoming a part of Australian culture, but what does a positive test actually tell us? More often than not, drug tests are moral tests rather than tests of performance, intoxication or risk of harm. There is very little evidence that drug testing works, either to deter drug use or to reduce harm. Perversely, the widespread adoption of drug testing into more areas of life may actually cause more damage than we set out to reduce. The reasons for this are bound up in what a positive test actually means.

A positive test tells you that there is a certain amount of drug in your body, nothing more. The threshold for a positive drug test result is set through an Australian standards process and balances out the sensitivity of the testing method with a consideration of what body fluid concentration may indicate a risk of harm.

Few would know, however, that there is uncertainty around the relationship between the blood concentration of a drug and what harms might result. As was noted in the recent Australian National Council on Drugs report Drug testing in schools: evidence, impacts and alternatives, drug tests do not provide a measure of intoxication or impairment, nor do they determine the quantity, frequency or context of drug use or distinguish between experimental and occasional use and those with problematic drug use. Positive drug tests simply indicate that someone consumed a drug.

The relationship is clearer with roadside alcohol testing. We know that there is a reliable and quantifiable risk of harm when someone drives a car over .05. But the same cannot be said about positive drug tests. For example, a recent Swinburne University study into amphetamine use and driving performance showed ambiguous results: day-time driving was detrimentally affected by amphetamine use, while night-time driving was not. The relationship between harm more generally and blood concentration is similarly unclear with other illicit substances such as heroin and ecstasy.

The determination of what threshold concentration indicates a risk of harm is useful when the harm is related to a particular activity, such as driving. However, when drug testing is used in schools, workplaces where safety is not critical and in sport (especially in non-playing periods), there is little evidence that testing where safety is not critical actually tells you anything about performance or even the risk of harm.

This is not to say that these drugs are harmless. More correctly, the harmful effects of a drug are determined not by the drug alone but by a raft of factors such as the physical context, levels of social support, socio-economic circumstances and what people themselves bring to the drug experience. A drug test does not tell you about harm, or even the risk of harm.

A positive drug test result tells us that someone has broken the law. It does not tell anything about their work, sporting, educational or scholarly performance. In a sense drug tests are really moral tests. I am not against moral tests. In fact, I believe we should have more moral tests; they would tell us some interesting things about what we value. However, we should not dress up drug tests as something they are not.

Drug testing is meant to deter drug use, but there is little evidence that it works. As the council's report noted, there is little credible evidence that drug detection programs stop children from starting to use drugs or encourage them to stop. But there is credible evidence that drug testing may have detrimental effects in school, industrial and other contexts.

At a public policy level we should ask some serious questions about what we do with people who are excluded from activities on the basis of failing drug tests. At present, we send people off for drug treatment. But drug tests do not differentiate between hazardous drug use and occasional or experimental use. Shuffling people off for drug treatment is not an appropriate one-size-fits-all response to a positive test.

As Avital Ronell noted in her recent book The Test Drive, our "drive to test" structures our social institutions and our very capacity to know the reality around us. How we test the world in a sense makes the world around us. If our world is structured around whether we pass drug tests or not, we run the risk that the world will then become split between those who fail and those who pass tests.

Our openness to testing establishes selfhood and citizenship. We are excluded in many ways if we both fail tests and if we are unwilling to take tests. In the 1977 Senate report on alcohol and drug use in society, then senator Peter Baume suggested that Australia was an "intoxicated society". We still are an intoxicated society; however, drug testing won't change this reality.

We should think seriously about the place of testing and should plan for the consequences of testing. If testing is to be used as a deterrent, we should think again. We could end up sending the right message but we could exclude and marginalise those we are trying to protect and support.

Associate Professor John Fitzgerald is associate dean of knowledge transfer, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, and principal research fellow at the Centre for Health and Society at the University of Melbourne.

The Age
 
personally i fail to see how drug testing students is going to help anyone

throughout my vce
i was using speed on a daily basis, not in very high quantities but was definitely under the influence while at school.
also used to go and pick psilocybe mushies from down near the lake and eat them on my lunch break, used to wash it down with cask wine aswell..
yes.. yes i was classy lol

this is not to mention the multiple times i got stoned and came into class.
and a couple of times i'd been tripping on acid aswell?

and from all of this drug use, how did i perform?
TER of 86.4 after being scaled down.

which is a great deal higher than my friend who has only been drunk about 5 times, and never touched an illicit substance in his life (he's now 24) he got a score in the mid 40s.

so what is drug screening supposed to acheive exactly?

maybe teach the kids about harm minimisation instead?
hrrmmm.. wait a second, i'm just drug fucked, as if anyone would listen to my uneducated, messed up opinion.

pfft :p
 
Drug tests giving Melbourne students 'more positive life path'
By Simon Lauder
Posted Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:31pm AEDT
Updated Mon Mar 24, 2008 4:00pm AEDT

For more than a year the Australian National Council on Drugs has been considering the proposal to conduct saliva or urine tests on school students to detect illicit drugs.

Introducing a national scheme would be a very radical step, but some private schools have been drug-testing students for almost a decade.

Since the late 1990s, students at Melbourne Grammar suspected of drug use have been subjected to a urine test.

But the school's headmaster, Paul Sheahan, says there are no random tests.

"Our testing arises purely on the basis of young students who have come to attention almost patently obvious as users," he said.

"Then we will test them and part of their staying in the school is their willingness to undergo counselling and periodic testing with an independent outside paediatrician.

"We will give them a second chance provided they are prepared to undertake the regime that we specify."

Mr Sheahan says there were initial concerns about the invasion of privacy, but is confident the school has the support of parents.

"I think our parents understand the viewpoint," he said.

"They know that we are not trying to cut young people off at the knees, they know that we are trying to resurrect them.

"They know that we are trying to set them on a more positive life path."

Mr Sheahan says the usage of drugs at school is cyclical but thinks the testing process is proving to be a successful deterrent.

"It waxes and wanes. It goes through periods where supply is obviously plentiful and there seems to be pretty fair usage and then there is obviously a crackdown or a shortage of supply and it seems to diminish," he said.

"I'd have to say at the moment, and I may be saying something that makes me hopelessly unaware of what is really going on, but I just detect that there is not the level of usage now that there used to be."

But he knows the school faces other challenges, like recreational drug usage at weekend parties.

"It is also fair to say, I think, that students have moved on to other substances that aren't quite so easy to detect or that are flushed out of the system much more quickly," he said.

"Like ecstasy... a few of those party drugs so they can return to school after a party weekend and we're none the wiser."

ABC Online
 
It will mean less students are smoking pot and more will eat pills because of how long it stays in the users system.

It will also mean the people who use are less likely to attend during the first days of the week.

Bad bad bad idea.
 
Someone needs to cash in on all this and make GHB the new 'in drug' for highschool kids.
 
GHB use on the rise then I would suggest....
 
Top