http://www.gulfnews.com/world/United_Kingdom/10057087.html
Faversham: A British school has launched a pilot programme where students as young as 11 are subjected to random drug tests.
…Former headmaster Peter Walker, who started the programme, gave up his school job to become Britain’s official ambassador for drug testing and he is now taking his message to the White House.
He recently travelled to Washington to give a presentation to John Walters, the director of the White House drug policy office. Since the programme began in January, 2005, only one out of nearly 600 students has tested positive for cannabis a success Walker attributes to students steering clear of drugs because of the tests."
Walker- dude. You were a bloody Headmaster. Thus, you should know about something called “the scientific method”. :dubious: Thereby, unless you have high postitive tests *before * the programme (which is impossible, as they didn’t test before) then the reason for the low positive tests may just means the kids don’t do a lot of drugs. Of course, Walker may also believe that the fact the there’s a bronze lion in Londons whose nose is very shiny causes the lack of *Panthera Leo * roaming the British Isles. :rolleyes:
I am not saying all random drug testing is evil. For example, DEA agents should likely be subjected to the damn things. But 11yo? :eek:
I see no problem with it. With reports showing marijauna use among 8th graders at 16.5% in 2005, up to 44.8% by 12th grade(Monitoring the Future | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)), I have no problem with random testing given by parental consent as noted in the linked article. If it helps prevent or slow drug use among minors than I would see it as a good thing.
As someone who reports to a ‘C level’ manager who is constantly snuffing her own post-nasal drip and who has extremely erratic mood swings at the office, I fully support random drug testings at work.
Actually, this would seem to be a clear case where non-random drug testing should be employed. Rather than wasting all the money we do chasing phantom drug users, we should concentrate on people whose habits directly affect their work performance.
If Joe Toke gets a buzz on each Friday and Saturday night, but cleans up and performs adequately at work, Monday through Friday, the company ought to leave him alone. If the only way to discover that a person has abused drugs is to test their blood, it would seem to be a fairly persuasive argument that their recreational drug use is not actually interfering with their work performance. On the other hand, if his or her work performance is suffering, companies ought to throw 'em, out (or offer drug rehab) regardless what chemicals are in the blood.
Won’t argue the point. Post withdrawn, as it is an unusual and specific circumstance and not indicitive of the work force of the entire office in question, nor of the work force in general.
(I’m just pissed I have to deal with a coke-fiend in a position of authority)
Considering that it’s a pilot program, it seems that there is not enough evidence one way or another to really say. Comparing the #'s given in the article to the #'s in the governments drug policy report, one would expect to find 93 out of 600 8th graders positive for pot use in a years time, up to 230 out of 600 in 12th. 1 out of 600 certainly is a lot lower than that. These results may or may not actually mean anything.
Of course this could be caused by numerous factors, that school may be a statistical anomaly, the kids may be using methods of masking the use, students that are using are opting out of the testing, the policy may actually be working and probably others I’m not thinking of.
It may show them that authority is not to be trusted, but considering involvement in the pilot program required consent by both the parents and the students involved, I’m inclined to think not.
That study only looked at American schools, though. I don’t know how different marijuana use is over here, but I don’t think you can generalise the results of this study onto a British school like the one here.
Using the same numbers from the article, one would expect to find 72 of the 600 students to be positive for pot use in the one year period. Same disclaimers as in my prior post apply.
Except- the sample isn’t valid. Only kids whose parents wanted them tested were tested, and the kids had long enough warning time to stop use and thus test clean.
Then again, we are comparing Apples and Oranges- your cite shows the % who admitted to pot use- **NOT ** the same at all as the % who tested positive for pot. A person can very well have used pot within the previous year and test clean now.
I have a few problems with that research (it’s a survey, for one thing, and surveys on teenagers are never entirely accurate), but I don’t think you were looking for a debate on this, which is fine. I do have some trouble with drug testing of students, personally, but I can understand why some people would be ok with it.
I totally agree with you that it’s unlikely to be accurate. Other reading I’ve done says that most british schools don’t keep records of drug use or even records of kids being suspended/expelled for drug use. This was the only thing I could find that gave recent actual figures and it seemed as good as anything for comparision to the 1 in 600 figure given in the article in the OP. Of course if this were GD I’d look for something else.
You’re right in that I’m not inclined to debate the topic, people doing illegal drugs or not isn’t a subject that overly interests me. As I said earlier, my main interest here was to say that I don’t have issue with student drug testing.
Ya know, if we keep being nice like this…this thread’ll get tossed out of the pit. So, umm…your opinion isn’t worth a damn you git! You can take it and stuff it up your ass with a jackhammer! (bleh, I can’t even work up a pitworthy slam today…too glad that it’s friday)
Any exclusion due to drug use will have copious records. However, evidence of drug use is not necessarily a reason for exclusion, certainly not permanently. In many cases, it’s a reason for intervention from social services etc.
Actually, I do have a problem with schools (and workplaces) performing random drug tests. Yes, they have a duty to report any criminal activity they become aware of, but should they have the right to go looking for it?
The other problem I have is where will it end? Will students have to bring their home computers in to make sure they are not downloading porn?
Virginity tests to make sure they are not having underage sex?
My point is that the dude doesn’t seem to understand the scientific method, or proper statisictal sampling, either. And, he was a Headmaster. Either he’s lying or ignorant.
He’s like the dude that rubs the nose of the bronze lions in London. When asked why he did that, the dude said it was to keep wild lions away from England. When they replied “but there hasn’t been a wild lion in England within recorded time” the dude replied “see, it works”.
(The ‘deferred success’ thing was just a brain-fart of one ex-teacher)