A brief introduction is followed by an expanded discussion on the positions of key stakeholders whose interests include economics, sports, academics, societal relationships, health care, the law, and the workplace.
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Testing is already widespread in independent boarding schools, with three-quarters of schools reported to be using some drug testing. The Kent initiative, partly funded by the News of World and supported by the testing manufacturers Altrix Healthcare plc, has been broadly welcomed, such that only a small proportion of parents have opted their children out of the scheme.
With adults, an Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work 3 cautioned against introducing random drug testing in the workplace, concluding that it was inappropriate to drug test as a means of policing private behaviour of employees or improving productivity, except perhaps in safety-critical industries.
We believe that if drug testing is not appropriate for adult employees then it should also be unacceptable to test school children. Illicit drug use is certainly prevalent among the young.
As with adults, cannabis was the most frequently used drug.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy in US 6 asserts that random drug testing in schools has been effective in reducing drug use and, most importantly, deters drug use among adolescents. Drug testing was responsible for a significant reduction in cigarette smoking among 8th grade students year-olds from In an attempt to examine the effectiveness of drug testing, James and Moore studied adolescents who had established drug or alcohol problems attending a treatment centre.
The authors concluded that strategic and focused testing via urine tests could bring about behavioural change, although it is unwise to generalise this specific situation to that of a large school where only a small proportion of the pupils will have problems with drug or alcohol misuse.
The biological detection involves a screening test followed by a confirmatory test if positive.
Other detection times include; 1—3 days for urine, 1—36 hours for saliva and 1—14 days for sweat. For example, while urine testing is cheap and able to detect most drugs of misuse, observed tests to avoid adulteration are problematic in children.
Hair testing is more expensive, can provide qualitative and quantitative analysis of drug use over previous weeks although cannot detect very recent past few days use.
Hair testing can be discriminatory: Testing saliva the method used in the Kent school 2 has the advantages of acceptability, and little chance of adulteration as it is obtained under direct observation. However, there is a very short detection window and, moreover, saliva is less effective in the detection of cannabis, the most widely abused drug in adolescence.
Testing sweat is more expensive than other methods, requires specialist laboratory services for analysis and can be contaminated by passive exposure.
Nevertheless, it is non-invasive, is quick to apply, and is difficult to provide sample substitution and, hence, may have some advantages over other methods.
There are significant problems associated with testing. False positives can be found from commonly taken medications: Even herbal teas can produce false-positive results. Even using the cheapest screening test the whole procedure can be costly for schools, especially as frequent testing increases a potential deterrent effect of testing.
Too infrequent testing will only serve to minimise the risk that youths feel of being detected. Students can outsmart their testers and find ways of cheating the tests. In a school district in US, students who were facing a hair test shaved their heads and body hair.Research regarding the effectiveness of random drug testing of students at school is scarce and inconsistent, says Emily Feinstein, director of health law and policy at The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
Why drug testing – and is it legal? Based on work place drug testing policies, Random Student Drug Testing (RSDT) programs require certain groups of students (e.g., those belonging to a sports team or club) to be drug tested at school.
Drug tests are usually in the form of a urinalysis, which detects marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, PCP and opioids. The stated goal of such programs is to identify .
ANCD research paper 16 Drug testing in schools evidence, impacts and alternatives. National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction Ann M.
|Featured in Health||Welcome to The Buzz—Center on Addiction's online conversation about addiction and substance use.|
|Doctors weigh in on random drug testing in schools - CBS News||The communities surrounding the district had seen a high rate of opiate abuse over the past decade. As use trickled into schoolsdistrict leadership concluded that drug testing was necessary.|
Roche Ken Pidd Petra Bywood Vinita Duraisingam Alternatives to school drug testing.. 8 Alternatives to drug. Many schools employ drug testing to deter students from using illegal substances – but new research has revealed that these checkups actually fail to dissuade teens from trying drugs.
According. The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing.
Students involved in extracurricular activities and subject to in-school drug testing reported less substance use than comparable students in high schools without drug testing, according to a new evaluation released today by the Institute of Education Sciences.
This essay discusses random drug testing in schools. A brief introduction is followed by an expanded discussion on the positions of key stakeholders whose interests include economics, sports.