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