Downing Street Says » Drug Testing in Schools

Asked if the Prime Minister believed he had the support of most head teachers for the Government’s proposals for random drug testing in schools, the PMOS said that clearly there had been some comment from organisations representing teachers over the weekend. The Prime Minister did believe he had the support of parents in tackling the menace of drugs. It was important to recognise what this policy was and what it wasn’t. It was something we had been working on for some time, and guidance would be out shortly – next month. It was the result of extensive consultation with the teaching profession, the police and those working in the field. This was a discretionary power. We were not saying that all children would have to be tested at the same time as the school register was taken, which was how this had been interpreted in some quarters. This was about giving head teachers the option, where they felt that such powers would be beneficial, to use them. This was an extension of the Government’s desire to tackle the issue of drugs in schools. For example in 2002 we introduced guidance for “one-strike-and-you’re-out” for students found dealing drugs on school premises. There were now a number of police officers attached to schools, working with them 5 days a week. The Government had also put a significant investment into drugs training for teachers. The decisions to act would quite rightly sit with schools but the Prime Minister believed it was right that we gave head teachers the powers that they might find useful. Asked if it was workable given the implications of permission, the PMOS said that we should wait for the guidance on this, but clearly this was something which had been put together in consultation with the teaching profession, the police and those working in the field. It was not falling on them from a clear blue sky courtesy of SW1. We were working in partnership with them.

Asked if the Government was sending mixed-messages over drugs given that Cannabis was being re-classified for adults, but there was a crackdown on children, the PMOS said that in relation to Cannabis, what we had been saying was that there were clearly finite resources in respect of the fight against drugs and it was important those resources were targeted at the drugs that did most damage. It was right to acknowledge that Cannabis was not the same as Amphetamine for example. People working in the drugs field acknowledged that. That was not to say that Cannabis was legal. It was not. Clearly however when there was a change from category B to category C there would be some static around the place and the Government would continue to explain its policy. In respect of schools however much we would like to believe that as a society the classroom was immune to the menace of drugs that was not the reality. It was important that we put in place measures that gave head teachers the powers to tackle the problem. Asked if there would be similar categorisation of drugs in schools with respect to punishment, the PMOS said that we should wait and see what the guidance said but clearly the Government had already recognised that there was a difference in terms of schools between drug dealing and drug use.

13 Comments »

Does this policy make any provision for those ‘over the counter & prescribed drugs’ which may provided a positive test (such as opiates)? In this way, young people might be persuaded to use other (more dangerous) substances which exit the system faster.. ie. Cannabis may stay in the system for up to four weeks (for regular users), however the use of cocaine, ecstasy, heroin(2-4 days) has a shorter life span in the system. Therefore, will this policy effectively persuade young people to use riskier substances (and some others which can’t be tested for.. Mushrooms, Solvents), to prevent the likelihood of being singled out, tested, excluded and more isolated from services which can support and provided advice around harm reduction and healthy living??

I was wondering, what are the Child Rights issues involved concerning those children ‘picked out’ for tests?

Yours Sincerely
Simon Legrand
Comment by Simon Legrand — 18 May 2004 on 1:29 pm | Link
This isn’t blanket testing; nor is this a move towards inner-city American style "metal detector at all entrances with optional body cavity exam" methods of ridding schools of problems, which is a good sign.

Handled as a blanket drug test, you can indeed expect that implementation of policy will lead to users straying from drugs which stay in the body longer; however, as with all of them, it depends on the test. Saliva tests can detect most toxins within 3-4 days, but not longer; other tests have a better hit ratio. However, the most likely tests to be performed are saliva tests or urine tests where the results are obtained through a ‘stick’ immediately, rather than lengthy blood/hair/urine analysis tests – those are likely to only be used to ensure a positive result after the initial tests fail.

And as for mushrooms… Psilocybin is also detectable – though many of the drugs you associate with testing are not necessarily testable outside of laboratory conditions anyways, and will not appear in urine/saliva dipstick tests.

Moreover; false positives for cannabis can be caused by: Ibuprofen (advil, nuprin, motrin, excedrin, etc.), Naproxen (Aleve), Ketoprofen (Orudis KT), Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan), Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil), Kidney infection/disease, diabetes, and other liver diseases that reduce the body’s ability to rid itself of any of the above as well as other biotoxins that register on th etest, and dronabinol (Marinol), amongst many others.

To buy one yourself, a 4-panel saliva drug test which handles marijuana, cocaine, a raft of opiates and opiate-alikes, and methamphetamine (M-AMP, including MDMA, speed, and a raft of other drugs which break down in similar ways) will cost you $125 USD for 5, up to $2000 for 100 tests. In other words – this is an expensive test; and the more comprehensive the test kit, the more expensive it becomes to do this on a per-student basis.

A six-panel test can, in addition, catch a wider variety of terribly common true amphetamines and the stupidly rare PCP, with an associated increase in the number of ways of obtaining a false positive.

This stuff will get used sparingly; it will most likely get used when teaching staff suspects that the child is actually on drugs on school premises, and will likely be followed by hair/blood testing at a medical facility or treatment clinic before any direct action can be taken against the child. At a cost per student of, even for the NHS, probably over 50\xA3 per test, this is going to really eat into the per-student educational spend if overused, which is already pretty low.

Drugs which have incredibly low concentrations, like LSD, are incredibly difficult to locate in any kind of OTC or remotely non-invasive test; in addition, there is evidence that hair testing is more/less successful dependent on the color of the hair being tested.

This stuff is far from foolproof – either in terms of its ability to catch an individual taking a drug or in its ability to prove that an individual has been taking illicit substances; parents with an idea in their head that this kind of testing absolves them from any and all responsibility are likely to be the kind of clueless idiots whose actions or reactions will likely make the problem worse in the first place, and none of this, absolutely NONE of this, can be considered even a reasonable replacement for good drug education for parents and students and a solid harm reduction strategy.

I.E.: Drug testing of any kind is a poor and often unlikely way of catching drug users; and at great expense, does nothing to lessen the damage that these drugs do on students or parents, or educate either of the parties involved in how to react and what to do about drug use in general. Only drug education will give individuals enough information to make the smart choice to avoid drugs like heroin, and only drug education will get parents to locate the more likely signs of a problem and react in a manner which won’t actually make the problem worse.

And none of the above covers what happens when the person is discovered to be taking drugs, and elects for treatment – there are already far too few places in drug treatment clinics, and detecting more users, while adding them to a growing waiting list, will not be seen as acceptable by the parents who discover their children are on drugs and who want help but must wait the six months until a position opens up on the waiting list.

I can’t think of a worse way for the government to highlight the weaknesses of its current policy than this one, quite frankly.

More information on drugs, drug use, and drug testing are available at:

Erowid drug archives: <a href="http://www.erowid.org/">http://www.erowid.org/</a>
Australian roadside drug testing ("Arrive Alive" project): <a href="http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_test.html">http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_drugs_test.html</a>
Example 4-panel test: <a href="http://www.craigmedical.com/saliva_drug_tests.htm">http://www.craigmedical.com/saliva_drug_tests.htm</a>
Norml’s comments on drug testing in workplaces: <a href="http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6032">http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6032</a>
Comment by Gregory Block — 19 Jul 2004 on 10:07 am | Link
I think Gregory Block is right if you look at sites like http://www.pass-hair-follicle-test.com/ – you’ll see its not hard for intelligent or not-so intelligent people to pass a drug test.
Comment by Mr. Robinson — 19 Nov 2004 on 8:58 pm | Link
Here at Preventx we sell low cost drug testing kits to many schools across the Uk and have had only positive feedback.
Comment by Polley — 1 Dec 2004 on 4:40 pm | Link
Drug testing in schools is an idea that may help to address certain drug related issues in society but why is it only children, who have to be tested? Teachers have the money and have the stress levels that could easily push them to take drugs!
Home Health UK Ltd is able to offer support to parents and schools who may have questions or need advice as to what to do next. We are also able to supply Saliva/Urine Drug Tests at a very special rate for both parents and head teachers.
Contact Mark Hanson on: 01707 262 282 for more information. Or visit our website http://www.homehealth-uk.com
Comment by Mark Hanson — 8 Mar 2005 on 12:49 pm | Link
Tony Blair\x92s recent backing of drug testing in state schools could significantly reduce substance abuse amongst school children.

Head teachers are allowed to randomly test pupils if suspected of taking drugs as part of a drive to curb drug abuse among teenagers.

The Prime Minister\x92s comments given to the News of the World has had backing from the Conservative Party and from David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers.

And a recent ICM research poll has shown that 82 per cent of parents and 66 per cent of children favoured drug testing in schools. Out of the 1,000 parents surveyed, 96 per cent said they would want to know if their child was taking drugs.

Preventx, the North-East based drug testing kit distributor\x92s spoke\x92s person, Polly Everett said: \x93Mr Blair\x92s backing of testing in schools is an excellent step forward in helping tackle drug problems. However, the next step must be to help schools with funding to supply the kits.

\x93It\x92s common place in private schools to have drug testing on pupils, but in state schools their budget doesn\x92t allow it, even though statistics show that one in five schools will have to deal with illegal drug use each year.\x94

Recent random tests in American schools have dramatically cut marijuana, cocaine and heroine abuse among pupils. And President Bush has provided extra millions of dollars into the programme as \x93a tool to save children\x92s lives.\x94

Polly Everett added: \x93The intention of drug testing isn\x92t to shame pupils, but to give help and assistance before it\x92s too late. If usage is detected early enough, support can be provided to show the potential harm they are doing to themselves and their loved ones.\x94

-Ends 284 words-

Preventx Image Library:
A large selection of high res 300 dpi jpg images are available for download at:
http://www.preventx.co.uk/press or simply e-mail press@preventx.co.uk were we will send images direct to you.

Media Contact: Stephen Davies

Tel: 0790 4444229
Email: stephend@zenithpr.co.uk
Comment by Polly — 28 Apr 2005 on 4:03 pm | Link
Preventx helps parents tackle the growing drug problems parents now face in the home

Preventx has launched a new range of easy to use, low cost drug testing kits which are suitable for home testing use and start from as little as \xA36.99.
Preventx was founded six months ago, has rapidly expanded to become on the UK\x92s leading drug testing specialist of testing kits.
The increasing availability of drugs in the marketplace means that many parents are worried about their children being tempted to experiment. Although we would like to think that it would never happen to our child, the possibility of it happening is very real.
As a parent your position is a difficult one. You are concerned about your child\x92s welfare but you don\x92t want to stifle individuality and independence; you want to know what he or she is doing but don\x92t want to impose on their privacy. Now they are young adults you want to keep the trust you have built up with them over the years and yet you still feel you want to protect them. The worse scenario is having someone like a schoolteacher contacting you to tell you of a drug habit you were not aware of.
An open, caring environment in the home can help strengthen family bonds and mutual trust. Young people will be able to see that their parents are concerned enough to want to administer tests. This knowledge will help them resist peer pressure to experiment. Help them say \x91No\x92- my parents test me\x92.
Polly Everett Preventx\xAE Managing Director, said after seeing the success of drug testing kits for the home\x92s in America, I want to give the parents concerned, the opporunity to make informed decisions on their children\x92s future\x94.
Comment by tom fotheringham — 2 Sep 2005 on 8:46 pm | Link
When I was at school drug testing was taken extremely seriously by everyone.

I’m told by my physician that I display most of the symptoms of one who did quite a lot of drug testing at school.

Not that I remember too much of my school days…..
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 5 Sep 2005 on 12:49 pm | Link
When I was at school drug testing was taken extremely seriously by everyone.

I’m told by my physician that I display most of the symptoms of one who did quite a lot of drug testing at school.

Not that I remember too much of my school days…..
Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 5 Sep 2005 on 12:50 pm | Link
UK Parents. Are you ready for your kids to be tested at school?

Now that the summer holiday period is over and children are returning to school, head teachers are increasingly looking for ways to improve GCSE pass rates, create safer environments and boost student/teacher morale.\xA0

In a bid to address these concerns, some heads are issuing random drug tests to pupils from ages 11 to 16.\xA0Using oral swab tests they can check for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, tranquilisers, barbiturates and methamphetamines.\xA0

Preventx, a leading European supplier, and the first UK company to offer the test has reported a high increase of sales to schools throughout the UK.\xA0

Preventx director, Michelle Hart said:

\x93Over the past year, our distribution to schools in the UK has risen every month.\xA0Head teachers are realising that something has to be done about drug abuse among pupils.\xA0Statistics show that one in five schools will have to deal with illegal drug use each year.\x94\xA0

She added:

The intention of drug testing isn\x92t to shame pupils, but to give help and assistance before it\x92s too late.\xA0If usage is detected early enough, support can be provided to show the potential harm they may be doing to themselves and their loved ones.\x94

A recent ICM research poll has shown that 82 per cent of parents and 66 per cent of children favoured drug testing in schools.\xA0Out of the 1,000 parents surveyed, 96 per cent said they would want to know if their child was taking drugs.

This comes after Tony Blair gave head teachers the power to introduce testing in schools in an interview with a national newspaper last year.

Mr Blair said:

\x93Some head teachers may worry that if they go down this path they are declaring there is a problem with their school.\xA0But in my view, the local community is probably perfectly fully aware that there is a problem.\x94\xA0

One school that is already carrying out random tests on its pupils claims they have had positive results.\xA0The Abbey School in Faversham, Kent has been testing pupils since the beginning of 2004 and head teacher Peter Walker believes it has contributed to all time high GCSE pass rates.\xA0

Mr Walker said:

\x93I feel that drug testing has helped people feel much safer.

\x93It has had an effect on contributions in the class room and on behaviour with far less disruption.\x94

Each week 20 names are randomly selected by computer to have the tests taken.

Mr Walker said he would not expel pupils if test results showed positive, but would interview pupils in the presence of parents where appropriate action would be taken.

He said:

\x93I can understand that there could be fears about infringing human rights and civil liberties, but we have been very careful about that.\x94

Miss Hart added:

\x93Mr Walker has appropriate systems in place when testing pupils.\xA0The parents and students are fully aware of what the procedure is and if they don\x92t want to take the test, they can refuse to do so.\x94

Recent random tests in American schools have dramatically cut marijuana, cocaine and heroine abuse among pupils.\xA0And President Bush has provided extra millions of dollars for the programme as \x93a tool to save children\x92s lives.\x94
Comment by Tom Giles — 16 Sep 2005 on 12:38 am | Link
Compulsory drug testing in parliament first – we say!
Comment by JK5 — 16 Sep 2005 on 5:12 am | Link
You can guarantee that if Tony Bliar has devolved any power to Head Teachers – for ANY reason – then there is an ulterior motive which has nothing to do with the health of kids or their performance in school…

Control freaks do not give power away unless by so doing they will ultimately end up with more.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Sep 2005 on 6:36 am | Link
Bliar NEVER devolves "power" – he just places cannon fodder in the first line of his own defense.

Remember "Foot-and-Mouth". "I will take PERSONAL control of this", he said. Within a week, when it was clearly out of hand, we heard "This [dumb schmuck] Brown will take PERSONAL control of this"

We are entitled (through experience) to ask – What’s his game this time?
Comment by JK5 — 16 Sep 2005 on 7:05 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, February 23, 2004

Drug Testing in Schools

13 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries