Pubdate: Wed, 02 May 2007
Source: Honolulu Weekly (HI)
Section: Cover story
Copyright: 2007 Honolulu Weekly Inc
Contact:  http://www.honoluluweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/197
Author: Travis Quezon
Note: Additional reporting by Chris Haire
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

TEST SUBJECTS

The Push For Random Student Drug Testing In Hawai'i

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) may want students 
to just say no to drugs, but when it comes to educators, the 
anti-drug agency wants them to just say yes to random student drug testing.

Since the start of 2007, the organization has held four meetings in 
various spots across the United States in an effort to encourage 
schools to adopt random student drug testing (RSDT) programs. The 
anti-drug office made its pitch in Honolulu March 27, offering 
educators tips on how to secure federal grants to pay for random drug 
tests. Some $1.6 million in federal funds will go to pay for testing 
programs targeting only those students who participate in 
extracurricular activities.

Speakers at the summit included U.S. Deputy Drug Czar Bertha Madras 
and Hawai'i's own self-appointed anti-drug G-Man Lt. Gov. Duke Aiona.

Testing advocates say that not only are the tests a cheap way to 
combat student drug use--according to the ONDCP, tests cost anywhere 
from $10 to $50 a pop--some say the threat of random tests alone 
gives students who might otherwise be tempted to use drugs a reason 
to say no to their drug-using peers. Rick James might have said, 
cocaine is a powerful drug, but for RSDT supporters, fear is a 
powerful deterrent.

While the lure of drug testing for students--and the promise of 
federal funding--has been officially dangled in front of Hawai'i's 
educators, whether or not there will be any bites has yet to be determined.

Educators don't have long to decide. The deadline for Hawai'i school 
officials to get a piece of the $1.6 million pie is May 8.

Greg Knudsen of the Hawai'i Board of Education said that there have 
been no official steps made in setting up RSDT programs by Hawai'i's schools.

A Brief History Of Random Tests

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that schools could conduct 
random--and suspicionless--drug testing of students who participate 
in extracurricular activities; conventional wisdom, of course, would 
suggest these are the very students least likely to use drugs.

After the ruling, the Bush administration began handing out federal 
dollars to pay for tests determining whether or not tuba players, 
tailbacks and theater kids use drugs; according to the Mohave Daily 
News, to date $36 million has been used to pay for drug testing programs.

Since the 2002 ruling, at least one state, Pennsylvania, has 
determined that random testing violates its state constitution, while 
the Washington State Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that 
will decide the fate of random student drug testing there.

Closer to home, the Hawai'i State Legislature failed to pass a bill 
that would have implemented a random student drug testing program 
targeting athletes during the 2003 session.

Opposing Local Voices

"I've seen far too many tragedies and stories that could have been 
prevented if we had just been more proactive," Lt. Gov. Aiona said in 
a speech at the summit.

A longtime anti-drug warrior, Aiona led the charge against serving 
alcohol at University of Hawai'i--Manoa football games and on campus. 
He is also co-chair of the Leadership to Keep Children Alcohol Free 
and last year expressed his support of an anti-drug campaign launched 
by controversial Church of Scientology-affiliated organization Narconon.

For Aiona, random drug testing will force parents who ignore their 
children's drug-using ways to do something about it. When a child 
tests positive for drugs at school, turning a blind eye to their 
child's problem will no longer be an option.

Though Aiona believes that schools should get in the habit of drug 
testing students, comedian and parent Andy Bumatai disagrees.

After a very public opposition to the proposal of drug testing at 
Mid-Pacific Institute, Bumatai withdrew two of his children from the 
private school when the decision was made by officials to go through 
with testing last year.

Bumatai told the Weekly that he suspects there are ulterior motives 
behind the federal backing of testing programs. He said that one 
problem with a drug testing program is that it allows a for-profit 
corporation to get a foothold in Hawai'i's educational system. After 
all, with random drug tests, private companies--not the schools 
themselves--are responsible for conducting the tests and then passing 
along the results to parents and educators.

By this measure, if random tests become the norm at America's public 
schools--thanks in part to a combination of federal funding and 
fear-mongering--a lucrative new industry would be born and federal 
funds that could have gone to drug education and awareness programs 
would go to subsidized private business.

For Bumatai, federal funds supporting random tests should go where 
those funds are truly needed. "Money should be pointed at teaching 
children how to make good decisions across the board," Bumatai said, 
"not putting a drug chastity belt on them."

The entertainer also believes random drug testing sends the wrong 
message to our children: It teaches them that they are guilty until 
proven innocent. "Kids can tell their teacher they aren't doing 
drugs," he said, "but unless that kid pisses into a cup they are 
going to be looked upon with suspicion."

By Any Means Necessary?

At the Honolulu drug policy summit, attorney Bill Judge made it clear 
that the issue of testing programs raises many questions that 
communities should asked themselves before implementing RSDT 
programs: Are parents, students and teachers comfortable with a 
program? If a program is set in place, what kind of drugs are 
students known to use and what should they be tested for? Should 
saliva, urine or hair testing be used? Are there measures to limit 
false positives in place? Who collects the samples? And most 
importantly, what happens when a student tests positive?

According to Judge, an advocate of random drug testing who spoke at 
the summit, the decision to drug test should be made by individual 
schools, not the state or the city. "Random drug testing has been 
established as constitutional, but it doesn't mean you should do it. 
It may not be for you," he said. "It's a tool that every community 
has to decide on."

He added, "This isn't workplace testing where the purpose is to 
identify a drug user and eradicate the problem."

Judge said that there are no academic penalties to students in random 
drug tests and the results of a positive test are kept confidential.

According to statements made by Deputy Drug Czar Madras at the 
summit, should a student test positive, test results are only 
available to their parents and administrators; neither teachers nor 
law enforcement are given the information.

When it comes to drug tests, there are a number of different kinds to 
choose from, each with their own pros and cons. Urine tests offer up 
to a 5-day window of detection and flexibility in testing different 
kinds of drugs, including alcohol and nicotine. However, people have 
come up with ways to easily cheat urine tests; some dilute their 
specimens while others simply replace it with someone else's.

Other tests, which take hair, oral fluids or sweat specimens, are 
more expensive than urine tests and have more narrow scopes of the 
kinds of drugs they can detect.

All testing, of course, is susceptible to delivering false positives. 
Codeine can produce a positive result for heroin. Over-the-counter 
decongestants may produce a positive result for amphetamines. Food 
products with poppy seeds can produce a positive result for opiates.

Supporters say students' medical records and lists of prescription 
medication provided beforehand will help limit the chance for false 
positives. However, the opposition to random tests contend that 
forcing students to provide this information further invades their 
privacy and, worse, puts personal information in the hands of private 
companies.

Silver Bullet Or Firing Blanks?

According to the state Department of Health's 2003 Hawai'i Student 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use study, approximately 46 percent 
of kids in the Aloha State have used illicit drugs by the time they 
reach their senior year of high school.

According to New Jersey principal Chris Steffner, who was 
instrumental in creating a RSDT program at Hackettstown High School 
in 2004, there's a stereotype that many have of the typical kid that 
uses drugs--you know, the ones with the piercings and black 
T-shirts--and that stereotype isn't all that accurate. Steffner 
pointed out that so-called good kids use drugs too. She said that 
random tests can identify those students who otherwise appear to be 
doing just fine but who are doing drugs, and get them help before 
they go off to college, where they will be exposed even more to drugs 
and alcohol.

There are also conflicting studies on the actual effectiveness of 
random testing. Advocates will point to a report by Ball State 
education professor Joseph McKinney, which claims that RSDT programs 
are "effective in reducing temptation" and "do not cause reductions 
in sports or extra curricular activities." The report, based on 2003 
and 2005 surveys of 65 Indiana high schools, found that 91 percent of 
those principals polled felt that random testing limits the effect of 
peer pressure to use drugs and that participation in extra curricular 
activities increased 45 percent because of RSDT.

Meanwhile, those opposing random drug tests point to two nationwide 
studies by the University of Michigan released in 2003 that found 
drug testing did not have an impact on illicit drug use among 
students, including athletes. The study found that the percentage of 
drug use by students in schools with drug testing programs was 
actually higher than schools without RSDT.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which along with the Drug Policy 
Forum of Hawai'i led the opposition at ONDCP summit, believes student 
drug testing creates a negative atmosphere for students, breaks down 
relationships of trust between students and adults, and contributes 
to a hostile school environment. The organization points out that 
random testing is opposed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 
National Association of Social Workers and the Association of 
Addiction Professionals.

Pamela Lichty, president of the Drug Policy Forum of Hawai'i, 
believes the federal money going to student drug testing could be 
better used elsewhere. She would like to see government money spent 
on proper drug education and prevention.

"We should be using effective drug education that is realistic," 
Lichty said. "We have to provide students with accurate information, 
not scare tactics."

Casual Users

Forget cautionary tales. The movie industry loves to show the lighter 
side of drugs.

Most movies involving drug use concentrate on the rise and fall of 
some gangster persona (think Scarface or Goodfellas) or updated 
cautionary tales of an almost Reefer Madness-like morality such as 
The Basketball Diaries or Requiem for a Dream. But there's a good 
chance that there's a movie you like out there with casual drug usage 
that didn't end with death, depravity, prison or redemption. Here are 
a few of our favorites.

Cheech & Chong's Up in Smoke (1978)

Marijuana, LSD

The first of the not-so-dynamic duo and their series of stoner 
movies, and probably the best. It's safe to say this was written with 
a lot of green, leafy inspiration. Fun fact: The film's dialogue 
includes the word "man" 295 times.

Drugstore Cowboy (1989)

Variety of legal pharmaceuticals, acquired illegally.

It's ironic that the most linear and straightforward film from 
director Gus Van Sant involves a road movie with a band of addicts. 
Matt Dillon plays Bob, leader of a group that relies on its wits and 
superstitions to stay ahead of the cops and curses while keeping its 
supply full. After one member ODs, Bob decides to go into a methadone 
program. That's where Naked Lunch author William S. Burroughs 
appears, playing--surprise!--a drug user and advocate.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Cocaine, marijuana, heroin

Hit men. Armed robbers. Boxers. Beautiful women with no shoes. 
Ezekiel 25:17. Everything about this movie exudes cool, even when 
dealing with an overdose. Forrest Gump may have won all the Oscars, 
but nobody wants to emulate Forrest Gump.

Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy (1996)

Gleemonex

Not all drug movies have to be about heroin. The Canadian troupe took 
on Xanax, Prozac and the entire anti-depressant pharmaceutical 
industry about a new wonder drug designed to lift depressed people 
out of their funk by allowing them to relive their favorite memory. 
Though a financial failure and split among critics, this series of 
tacked-together comedy sketches had moments of utter brilliance but 
still left KITH fans remembering some of their favorite moments from the show.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Two bags of grass, 75 pellets of Mescaline, five sheets of 
high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine and a 
whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers 
also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint 
of raw ether and two dozen amyls. And that's just in the first two 
minutes of the movie. Near-faithful adaptation from the canon of drug 
literature too filled with excesses for the masses who didn't know 
what they were getting into and completely unapologetic for its bad 
behavior. Johnny Depp made young girls weep in the aisles sporting a 
bald head and bad teeth in his portrayal of legendary gonzo 
journalist Hunter S. Thompson and his search for the American Dream.

Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)

Marijuana, Ecstacy

Throwback to the Cheech and Chong-era with guest cameos, 
hallucinations, inept cops and a whole lot of pot references, this 
small, low budget film could almost serve as a cautionary tale 
against the side effects of drug usage--anybody who really wants 
White Castle has obviously had their judgment clouded.

Honorable mentions:

The Man With the Golden Arm (1980); Strange Brew (1983); Repo Man 
(1984); Withnail and I (1986); Barfly (1987); Naked Lunch (1991); 
True Romance (1993); Dazed and Confused (1993); Friday (1995); SLC 
Punk! (1999); The Beach (2000); Boogie Nights (1997); Half Baked 
(1998); Permanent Midnight (1998); Trainspotting (2001); Ray (2004); 
A Scanner Darkly (2006) --Dean Carrico

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not inhale. OK. Maybe I did.

Nearly half of all students admit to getting high, but few adults 
currently do drugs

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was filmed puffing a joint 
after winning Mr. Olympia in the 1975 documentary Pumping Iron. 
Former New York Mayor Marion Barry was reelected despite being caught 
smoking crack cocaine by FBI surveillance. Presidential candidate 
Barack Obama has been up front about the fact that he snorted cocaine 
and smoked marijuana. (Heck, he just quit smoking cigarettes.) As for 
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, well, you know

Past drug use of course isn't just limited to politicians. Scores of 
musicians (Dylan and the Beatles, Marley and Iz), have used drugs, so 
have famous writers (Stephen King, Hunter S. Thompson), athletes 
(Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Phil Jackson) and business leaders (Bill Gates, 
Steve Jobs).

In a society where drug use is glorified in the media, where our 
country's leaders have admitted to using drugs, where our best and 
brightest have experimented and gone on to succeed (Apple's Jobs said 
that doing LSD was one of the two or three most important things he 
has done in his life), convincing children they need to just say no is tricky.

Not to say that every high school freshman who has a Bob Marley 
poster up in his bedroom and who has watched The Wizard of Oz while 
listening to Dark Side of the Moon will end up on the streets doing 
things behind dumpsters that nobody wants to talk about. Consider 
these figures:

* 49.1 percent of college students have used marijuana during their 
lifetime (2005, Office of National Drug Control Policy) * 57 percent 
of young adults ages 19--28 have used marijuana during their lifetime 
(2005, ONDCP) * 48 percent of all young people have used illicit 
drugs (2006, Monitoring the Future) * 16.6 million adults (an 
estimated 5.3 percent of the population) ages 18 or older currently 
use illegal drugs (2003, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

This last figure is particularly interesting, especially when you 
consider figures from the Monitoring the Future study at the 
University of Michigan. The program has surveyed 50,000 high schools 
across the United States about their drug use annually since 1975. 
According to Monitoring the Future:

* 55 percent of 12th graders surveyed in 1975 had used illegal drugs

* 66 percent of 12th graders surveyed in 1981 had used illegal drugs

* 41 percent of 10th and 12th graders surveyed in 1991 had used illegal drugs

* 48 percent of 10th and 12th graders surveyed in 2006 had used illegal drugs

So what are we to make of these figures, which show that nearly half 
of all high school students over the past 30 years have used drugs, 
but only a measly 5 percent of adults currently use drugs?

Drug use among the young is not only common, it's practically the 
norm. Then again, so is the desire to quit using drugs as those 
youngsters get older. Simply put: Young people use drugs, and then 
they grow up. They get jobs, they get married, they have babies, they 
pay mortgages, they plan for retirement. In essence, life happens. 
And drugs no longer fit in the picture.

- --Travis Quezon, with additional reporting by Chris Haire
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman