To be fair...Good news in the drug war.

I know I rail about this subject a lot and have, until now, only presented the bad news. This thread will be a running commentary on the good news in the drug war.

 

California Senate Votes to Bar Random Drug Tests in Schools 5/28/04
In a ground-breaking move, the California Senate voted Tuesday to ban the random drug testing of students in the state's public schools. If the bill is passed in the Assembly and signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly bar suspicionless testing of students. Such a move would be a direct rebuke to efforts by President Bush and drug czar John Walters to expand the use of student drug testing as part of their war on drugs. In his State of the Union speech in January, President Bush called for expanded federal spending to support school districts that want to embark on drug testing programs.

The bill, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), would bar drug testing unless school officials reasonably suspected a student of illegal drug or alcohol use "in the school environment." That suspicion would have to be based on "articulable facts," not gossip, rumor, or social factors, such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or having friends or family members who use drugs.

The bill would also require school authorities to try to obtain written consent from a student's parents before ordering a student to take a drug test. And it would require schools to refer students who test positive to counseling. The bill would not bar school districts from suspending or expelling students who are found to have used drugs.

According to the office of the state's legislative analyst, roughly 15% of California school districts have enacted student drug testing programs. According to a national survey cited by the legislative analysts, 13% of schools nationwide have a drug testing program, with a majority of those limited to testing student athletes or students participating in extracurricular activities.


In separate rulings in recent years, the US Supreme Court has upheld the right of school districts to conduct random, suspicionless drug tests on student athletes and students involved in extracurricular activities. Although the court has not explicitly okayed the random drug testing of all students -- just certain classes of students -- the Bush administration reads those decisions as implying that testing all students would be constitutional.

The bill was largely the brainchild of the Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org), said Glenn Backes, the group's Oakland-based health policy director. "We sponsored the bill in sponsorship with the California state PTA," he told DRCNet. "But we made it happen. We know who the good legislators are and how to bring it to them. We salute Sen. Vasconcellos for being out in front on yet another drug policy issue."

And while the bill passed the Senate on a 26-10 vote, it wasn't exactly a cakewalk, said Backes. "There were bumps along the way. This is a new issue for most legislators, but what we found was that a lot of folks in both parties are adamantly opposed to random drug testing," he explained. "The trick was crafting a bill that respects the needs of schools to promote safety and security while at the same time banning this wasteful and insulting product called random drug testing. One big issue was local control. The legislature had to decide if telling school districts they couldn't do this even if they got money from Bush was an appropriate use of legislative power."

Indeed, the issue of local control prodded the California School Board Association to oppose the bill. The association said it feared the bill would tie the hands of districts that wanted to institute random drug testing of students. Other than a group called Responsible Citizens, Inc., a "family values" organization, which warned that if the bill were passed "it will invite large numbers of pupils to abuse illegal drugs, steroids, inhalant and others by lowering the risk of being caught," the school board association was the only organized opposition to the bill.

Along with the California PTA, the bill was also supported by the Mendocino County Office of Education. "I'm not against drug testing per se, but I supported the bill because of the ban on arbitrary random drug testing," said county education office Superintendent Paul Tichinen. "You just can't do random drug testing; the research shows it is neither productive nor beneficial," he told DRCNet. "We need criteria to establish probable cause, so that we are not randomly testing every single athlete or every single student council member."

Under the bill, said Tichinen, positive test results would be shared with parents and the school, but not with police for punitive enforcement purposes. "The question is what can we do to mitigate the substance abuse problem," he said. "With a positive test, the school would need to refer the student and his parents to a student study team, which is where you bring together students and parents and teachers and counselors to try to find out what is going on."

California has a "zero-tolerance" law that demands expulsion for drug sales, weapons possession, or acts of violence within the schools, but that need not conflict with the bill barring random drug tests, said Tichinen. "Individual schools do have zero-tolerance, but many districts will suspend the suspension or expulsion and instead will attempt to work with the student through a student study team."

While the conventional wisdom is that Democrats are more amenable to such bills than Republicans, opposition to random drug testing crossed the partisan divide. During debate on the bill, rock-ribbed conservatives such as Sen. Sam Aanestad (R-Grass Valley) stood on principle to support the measure. "How many of you folks in this room would submit to random drug testing if that's what this bill did?" asked Aanestad. "I would not. I can't think of anything that would be more repulsive to the conservative philosophy of the Republican Party."

"We reached out to conservatives as well as liberals," said DPA's Backes. That strategy could lay the groundwork for getting the bill through the Assembly, he said. "Having picked up a majority of Democratic votes and a handful of respected conservatives, we have traction to talk about this issue and to work our strategy of conversing across the ideological spectrum. It has been a process of trial and error," he conceded.

But Backes said time and momentum were on the bill's side. "We think we can get this passed this year. The session is not over until August, so we have some time. And while the Assembly can be more difficult to move a bill in than the Senate, we already have leaders from both parties signed on to this in the Assembly. It feels like the momentum is gathering."

Read the drug testing bill, SB1386, online at:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1386&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/339/notests.shtml

 

Absolutely. Kids should not be using drugs under any circumstances, much less on school property.

Still doesn't change the fact that regulating drugs would be far more effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of children.

 

What would make a person want to buy it "on the side" anyway? Presumably, it would also be at a premium price over and above what the person could get it for legally. The only customers for such people would be children, and the people that are willing to sell drugs to kids SHOULD spend the better part of their lives in jail. First offense draws probation (and loss of license to purchase drugs during probation), second offense draws a year in jail, third offense draws ten years. The only thing that keeps the black market in business is the economy of scale. If adults can get them legally, then the main consumer base goes away and we see a reduction in the black market much like we saw after alcohol prohibition ended. We still see moonshiners, but their economy is so limited as to be negligible. The same would apply to drugs.

Presumably, regulating the market would also have the effect of reducing or eliminating illegal trade in prescription narcotics as well. If someone wants to use a drug recreationally, they will have the ability to buy a recreational drug that will be better and safer than some of the stuff people use now. The recreational drug market will probably expand to include some drugs currently allowed only by prescription (valium being hte best example), but for the most part, "scrip factories" will end up closing down as people will be able to get better, safer products from a legitimate source.

You wouldn't and I wouldn't, but that doesn't give either one of us the right to choose for another what they will be allowed to ingest.

No, most people will continue to go to the doctor for their ailments just as they do now. It is just that doctors will have much more latitude as to the drugs they will be allowed to prescribe as the war on prescription pain management will end with the war on drugs. If someone is in intractable pain, they will be able to get their necessary medications and if someone else wants to pop a valium and relax for the evening, they will be allowed to do that.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that the WOD is one of the worst travesties ever foisted on Americans by their government. However, there is good news occasionally and I am just trying to give some equal time.

 

LOL

 

Since I am the one who started the thread, that question would have been more appropriate to ask me.

The good news is that California students will not be subject to random, suspicionless drug testing.

 

Precisely. This is because of the situation that illegal drugs create. With illegal drugs, the black market takes over and drug dealers actively market to kids, hoping and praying that they make a progression from pot to MDMA and from there to heroin and cocaine. The entire system is set up (by the criminals that we have put in charge of distributing these drugs) to ensure that kids begin using as early as possible and move as quickly as possible to harder, more profitable drugs (which also happen to be the more dangerous drugs.

With a regulated system, we can keep drugs from getting into the hands of young people on the massive scale we have now and as such, increase the average age of first use. BTW, age of first use is one of the metrics that is directly related to rates of drug abuse and addiction. The older you are when you try mind altering chemicals, the less likely you are to experience any sort of problem drug use.

If this is truly the case, then why are rates of mar1juana use by adults very similar in Holland, where they have liberalized their drug laws? While you are answering that one, ask yourself why Holland's rates of teen drug usage are HALF what we see in the US.

If we fully educate adults as to the real effects of drug use, they will choose not to use them in droves. Anyone who wants to use drugs in the US today can get them. The people who aren't using them are the ones that figured out, one way or another, that many drugs have horrible consequences. If we are honest and up front with them about the FACTS regarding drugs, adults will avoid the more dangerous ones and will use responsibly, as the VAST majority of drug users today do.

Actually, in places where drug laws have been liberalized, the opposite effect has been found. Specifically, in Switzerland they have a program where heroin junkies can come in and get prescription heroin in a doctor's office. Criminality in the group has dropped dramatically and rehabilitation has increased.

The key is to steer people away from the truly dangerous drugs so that we can reduce addiction rates and deaths due to drugs (most of which happen due to prohibition).

In that case, you have never worked with recovering addicts and alcoholics. I have seen the worst of heroin junkies, the most down and out crack fiends, and the worst pillheads you can imaging recover from addiction and choose not to use those drugs again.

If you truly believe this, then you have probably never experimented with drugs, either. Despite the "Reefer Madness" myths, drugs are not in and of themselves evil, they do not possess a person like a demon, and they do not immediately turn a normal human being into a criminal.

I don't get your point here.

How does the pace of our lives relate to drug use and abuse?

Not if we continue to convict people for DUI. There are already laws against driving while drinking and those same laws would apply to drugs. There is already a breathalyzer for pot, so we are already prepared for it from a technical point of view.

There is almost too much wrong with this sentance for me to know where to start.

First, you assume that the majority of drug users live in "ghetto housing products" when by far the vast majority of drug users live in the middle and upper classes.

Then you assume that it is drugs, as opposed to the inflated prices caused by prohibition, that cause criminal behavior. I would think that crime would go down as our police could arrest people for real crimes and with all the extra jail space, parole could become a thing of the past. "Do the crime, do the time" could be the way things work again.

Then, you assume that everyone would use drugs out in the open for all to see. I would stipulate that these drugs are to be used in the privacy of your home or in a designated, licensed facility like the coffee shops that Amsterdam is so famous for.

Another myth about drug users is that they are all completely out of control. If someone is truly out of control, there are laws to deal with violent or dangeerous behavior and those people will go to jail (to one of the newly emptied jail cells) if they cannot control themselves.

And this is proof that people cannot use drugs responsibly? Of course you had problems in the military, there are drug problems everywhere. The true point is that prohibition causes far more problems than drugs ever have.

This is obviously not true. Alcohol is a drug and society has found a rather substantial place in our society and so have illegal drugs, given that over 25% of Americans have used them. The point is that our drug policy can achieve the goals of reducing availability to and use by minors in a dramatic way and in the course of the long term, we can have a positive effect on overall rates of use, especially of the more dangerous drugs. The only way that it is possible for our drug policy to accomplish those goals is through regulation of the industry.

Presumably places that already have facilities for dispensing drugs like pharmacies. Obviously, any center that dispenses drugs will have to be well secured, but there is easily money for that in the taxes that we will make on the drugs themselves.

In any case, it would be legitimate businesses with much to lose by selling to minors or to people who supply minors (as opposed to the criminals to whom we have ceded control of these dangerous, addictive substances).

If you would like to have a substantive discussion of this issue, it would be helpful if we both had a similar frame of reference. I have come up with an actual plan. Read the description of said plan at http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthre...&threadid=63243.

 

And yet you support carrying on with and expanding a program that you describe as "McCarthyism?" I don't know what you're smoking, but...

 

Federal Court Slaps Down Congressional Effort to Censor Drug Reform Mass Transit Ads 6/4/04

A federal judge Wednesday ruled that a federal law prohibiting the display of paid advertisements advocating mar1juana law reform on municipal buses and transit systems receiving federal funding is unconstitutional. Passed by Congress as a section of this year’s federal spending bill at the urging of Rep. Ernest Istook (R-OK) and known as the "Istook Amendment," the law was provoked by a mar1juana reform advertising display on Washington, DC metro facilities. Arranged by the Massachusetts-based mar1juana reform group Change the Climate (http://www.changetheclimate.org), the ads caused Rep. Istook such distemper that he crafted legislation jerking federal funds from any transit authority that allowed such paid messages to be posted. In all, transit authorities across the country faced the loss of more than $3 billion if they ran paid political ads advocating reform of the mar1juana laws.

Change the Climate had run earlier ad campaigns in Washington, but the one that moved the Oklahoma conservative to act, but the ad that drove him crazy was controversial even within drug reform circles. It featured a man holding a woman in his arms above the words "Enjoy Better Sex: Legalize and Regulate mar1juana." While Istook remained blissfully unaware (or at least quiet about) earlier Change the Climate ads, the sex-drugs nexus appeared too much for him to handle.

But US District Court Judge Paul Friedman ruled that Istook's law violates the First Amendment by infringing on the free speech rights of Change the Climate. "Just as Congress could not permit advertisements calling for the recall of a sitting mayor or governor while prohibiting advertisements supporting retention, it cannot prohibit advertisements supporting legalization of a controlled substance while permitting those that support tougher drug sentences," wrote Friedman. "The government has articulated no legitimate state interest in the suppression of this particular speech other than the fact that it disapproves of the message, an illegitimate and constitutionally impermissible reason."

"I'm delighted with the ruling," said Joseph White, the Massachusetts-based businessman who founded Change the Climate. "Now, we can continue to advertise our message about mar1juana reform on transit systems and billboards, and now we can do that in every transit system in the country. Before the ruling, we were barred from presenting an alternative point of view to the government's position," he told DRCNet.

The decision came in a lawsuit filed by Change the Climate, the mar1juana Policy Project, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance after the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), citing fears of losing federal funding, refused to allow Change the Climate to place more ads. The lawsuit targeted WMATA for refusing the ads, and the federal Department of Transportation, which would withhold funds from offending transit agencies.

The suit was argued by Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project. "The court ruled that Americans have a right to hear the message that mar1juana prohibition has been a cruel and expensive failure," Boyd said in a statement after the ruling. "The constitution protects these messages from the type of viewpoint-based discrimination attempted by the federal government."

Change the Climate is already plotting new campaigns, White said. "We're in discussions right now about how to approach the next six months. There is some discussion about how to advertise at the Democratic and Republican conventions, but that isn't entirely clear because some of our funders are concerned we would raise the mar1juana issue and hurt Kerry's chances. They feel we would be better off with Kerry than with Bush."

Congressional conservatives walked into a trap, said White. "Change the Climate decided to place a Trojan horse right outside Congress in the hope that those self-righteous, moralistic conservatives would take the bait and show their true colors. And indeed, the anti-reform members of Congress took it hook, line, and sinker, and provided us with a great opportunity to educate Americans about the folly, futility, and expense associated with the war against mar1juana," he said.

"This actually worked out quite well," White continued. "We devised a strategy that allowed us to include all these other groups, we ended up with a great coalition effort, and I have to give everyone credit who was involved. I also am grateful for all the contributions that have come in just since the ruling was announced. This is a great victory not only for free speech but for mar1juana reform."

And Boston, where Change the Climate has a similar lawsuit pending against the local transit authority, is next, said White. "I can't help but believe that today's decision will put pressure on the court to rule in our favor," he said.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/340/istook.shtml