|
|
Urine Drug Test |
Hair Drug Test |
|
+

XXtra Clean
Free PreCleanse
($10 Value) |
+

Ready Clean
Free PreCleanse
($10 Value) |

PreCleanse
6 Herbal Capsules |

RU Clean
6 Panel Home Test |

Ultra
Clean
Simple To use |
|
For Heavy Users
 |
For Casual Users
 |
Boost Cleansing
 |
Test Yourself
 |
Hair Shampoo
 |
|
List $59.90
Now $44.95
Save $15 or 25%
|
List $44.90
Now $29.95
Save $15 or 33%
|
List $9.95
Now $9.95
No Discount
|
List $19.95
Now $24.95
Save $5 or 25%
|
List $39.95
Now $29.95
Save $10 or 25%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the Supreme Court ruled in June in
Earls v. Tecumseh that local school districts could constitutionally drug test
students involved in extracurricular activities, the drug testing industry, some
congressional drug warriors, and at least one well-known political hired gun got
excited. But a round of interviews conducted by DRCNet this week suggests that
school districts are not about to embark on a headlong rush into student drug
testing despite the high court's green light.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court expanded its
1995 Vernonia ruling, which allowed districts to test athletes in certain
circumstances, to include students who wish to participate in activities such as
debate society, chess club, and the like
(http://www.drcnet.org/wol/243.html#schooldrugtesting). But while some
anti-drugs groups predicted an avalanche of new drug testing programs in the
schools, a number of factors are conspiring to make such an event likely.
"We did not see a big increase in school
drug testing after Vernonia, and we don't expect to see a big increase now,"
said Ed Darden, senior staff attorney for the National School Board Association.
"This is really a community decision, and there may be cost considerations,
political objections and practical concerns that stop districts from moving in
that direction," he told DRCNet. "There will be a huge number of school
districts who will not move toward drug testing no matter what the Supreme Court
said." "The Supreme Court decision hasn't gotten a lot of play down here," said
Dr. Paul Whitten, Associate Executive Director of the Texas Association of
School Administrators, which includes representatives from all of the state's
more than one thousand school districts. "Those schools that wanted to do
testing are already doing it and those that didn't want to aren't going to
start," he told DRCNet.
The same sentiment echoed in Alabama.
"We've got a handful of districts that have been doing it for awhile and a
couple that are considering it now," said Susan Salter, director of public
relations for the Alabama Association of School Boards. "But we have not seen
much change in the number of boards doing drug testing in the wake of Tecumseh,"
she told DRCNet. In some states, the Supreme Court ruling is not an issue. "This
has absolutely no impact on us," said Mary Gannon, policy services director for
the Iowa Association of School Boards. "The Iowa Constitution forbids
suspicionless searches, even if the US Constitution does not. We do not do
random drug testing of our students."
DRCNet has been unable to find accurate
numbers for the number of school districts currently using drug testing
programs, but estimates ran from 2% to at most 10% of school districts
nationwide. NSBA's Darden said "it's a small number of districts, less than 5%,
I'd guess." And based on anecdotal evidence, it appears that drug testing is
most likely to occur in small, rural districts. Whitten was able to tick off the
names of the Texas districts involved in drug testing -- all were rural and
situated in the Panhandle -- although, as Salter pointed out, in Alabama, at
least, drug testing is ongoing at affluent suburban Birmingham high schools as
well as in rural districts such as Limestone County.
If the Supreme Court has removed an
obstacle to wider drug testing in the schools, why is there no move to implement
such programs? For Kevin Zeese, author of the Drug Testing Legal Manual and
president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (http://www.csdp.org), the answer is
that significant obstacles remain. "I attended the Drug and Alcohol Testing
Industry Association (DATIA) conference here in July, and advocates for drug
testing argued that, with the Supreme Court decision, the law is there, public
support is there, and money for testing is there," Zeese told DRCNet. "They are
wrong on all three counts. The money is the big one," said Zeese. "There is
federal money available, but not very much of it, and it competes with other
programs and services that are now seriously underfunded. State school systems
are struggling and the money that might go to drug testing competes with
programs such as mental health services, after-school programs and prevention
programs," Zeese explained. "Drug testing is so unproven at this point, that it
is hard for it to compete."
The legal status of drug testing remains
problematic, as well, Zeese added. "Districts will have to be very careful to
stick to the confines of the Supreme Court decision and go no further, and they
will have to worry about the state courts. Some state constitutions offer
greater protections than the US Constitution." The school administration
officials DRCNet spoke with all concurred on that count, each warning that
districts faced the specter of costly litigation over drug testing policies.
"This is the beginning of the legal battles, not the end," said Darden.
As for public opinion, said Zeese, that is
a battle to be waged. "There is knee-jerk public support for drug testing, but
when parents look at the details, they can be dissuaded. There will be divisions
in every school district, and this is an important opportunity for reformers to
advance alternative drug prevention and treatment programs for kids," he argued.
"If we as a society really want to address youth drug use, we need a healthy
kids program, preschool and after-school programs, we need mentors -- that's
what works."
If the Earls decision is not creating a
rush to school drug testing, neither is there much sense that even broader
testing is coming down the pike. "This is the end and the outer limits" of
school drug testing parameters said Darden. "If we go beyond testing students in
extracurricular activities to testing all students, as some have suggested, our
answer is no. If you're talking about testing every student and you have
meaningful penalties, you end up taking away core educational rights."
Zeese agreed. "The Supreme Court will not
go further, provided the makeup of the Court remains the same," said Zeese.
"Justice Breyer was the fifth vote, and in his dissent he said one reason he
could support extracurricular activity testing was that it allowed students to
be conscientious objectors. They could opt out of the chess club if they didn't
want to be tested. They would pay a price, but they could still get an
education."
While school administrators seem to have a
firm grip on the realities and practicalities of the issue, at least one
Republican-leaning hired gun smells blood. Dick Morris, who once advised
President Clinton on his "triangulation" strategy of relentlessly hewing to the
center, and who has since evolved into a conservative FOX News TV commentator,
saw the issue as a potential wedge issue for Republicans in this fall's
elections.
"The issue of school drug testing would
put a key morality/crime issue back on the national agenda, a focus that has
been clearly lacking" in recent years, Morris wrote in the congressional insider
Hill News on July 1. "The absence of such an issue haunts Republican prospects
in future elections." The GOP should "latch onto this issue" and "recognize its
political potential," he added.
But aside from a press conference held by
Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) to tout his new bill to provide financial and
technical assistance to districts who want to undertake drug testing programs,
the Republican masses have not risen up. Perhaps they are more leery of the
messenger than the message. Being advised on morality issues by a political
Hessian who lost his job with Clinton after being caught spending his evenings
sucking the toes of a high-priced DC prostitute, as reported in the British
tabloid The Star in 1996.
Pass A Hair Drug Test Information
From Always Test Clean.
How to pass a
drug test is the question more and more people are faced with each and every day. Employee
screenings are on the rise, corporations have
their own rules and
random drug testing is often the condition of employment.
If this is the major concern in your life, you have come to the
right place. ATC products will shield you from detection of
controlled substances, prescription and non-prescription preparations, as well as other
things you might not want people to know about like tobacco usage. For
More Information check out our information to pass drug
test
ing. Return to Articles Menu
|