DdC

Save us from the busybodies
In Williamsburg, Vermont, a random drug testing proposal had almost been passed by the school board and was held up when it was discovered that some people opposed the idea. So they had a spirited discussion from people on both sides of the issue, and came up with a compromise. School sponsored voluntary drug testing (parents could sign up for it). Now, to me, it's still a waste of school funds that could be used in much better ways, and I feel sorry for the kids whose parents fall for it, but still, it's a compromise that should please those who want testing, right?

Wrong. Those supporting random testing for all students were outraged at the compromise.

Proponent Ginger Crapse promised after the meeting to begin a petition drive to make the two School Board representatives from Williamsburg into elected positions, instead of appointed posts.

And this gets to the heart of it. They don't want to drug test their kids. They want to drug test your kids. And they don't want you to have any say in the matter.

If crime labs can't be trusted for accuracy and have no Federal standards or oversight. How much less accurate are generic labs popping up for mandatory urine tests. I would think besides violating unreasonable searches this would also violate the 5th amendment right of not incriminating oneself. Must have been over rided by the D.E.A.th amendment stating we will get away with whatever you let us get away with.
DdC

Five Good Members of Congress DrugWarRant
On Thursday, Congress reauthorized the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
These are the principled members of Congress who voted against:

* Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
* Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
* Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
* Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)
* Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

The rest of Congress likes spending taxpayers' money on ineffective, racist, un-American, and wasteful government agencies.

Reasonable Doubt: Can Crime Labs Be Trusted?
March 13, 2006, from 4:00 -- 5:00 a.m. ET on CNN.
Program Overview
In a criminal court, forensic evidence can be decisive. A fingerprint match or positive hair analysis can turn a questionable case into a slam-dunk conviction. Jurors often see forensics as infallible, and popular TV shows like CSI have added to the mystique. But how good is the science behind forensics? And how well do our crime labs operate? A joint investigation conducted by CNN Presents and the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals serious flaws in bullet evidence, hair analysis, DNA testing, and even fingerprinting. In some cases, those flaws have put innocent people in prison.

Hair lacks constitutional protection By Sherry F. Colb
FindLaw Columnist Special to CNN.com Friday, November 19, 2004
LAW DICTIONARY*(FindLaw) -- At the end of last month, in the case of Coddington v. Evanko, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that police officers may constitutionally shave large amounts of hair from a suspect's head, neck, and shoulders, without a warrant, probable cause, or any basis for suspecting that the hair would provide evidence of crime.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But according to the court, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to hair removal. In so ruling, the Third Circuit followed its own 1982 precedent, In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Appeal of Mills), which held that taking hair samples from visible parts of a suspect's body does not invade any reasonable expectation of privacy. Such investigation therefore does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment "search."

Hair Testing For Marijuana Called Unreliable, But Proceeds Anyway

April 7, In a copyrighted story by C. Eugene Emery, The Providence Journal reported that even though the developer of the new hair test for drugs acknowledges that the test is not a reliable indicator of marijuana use, they are testing for it anyway.

The test, marketed by Psychemedics of Cambridge, Mass. is designed to detect trace residues of illicit drugs that may have been used over the last several months.* One advantage of hair testing over urine testing is that cocaine and heroin are not detectable in urine after a day or two, while marijuana metabolites can be detected for weeks.* The urine testing has the effect of encouraging the use of cocaine and other hard drugs over marijuana.* Urine testing is also considered relatively easy to beat.

In the Providence Journal story J. Michael Walsh of the National Institute for Standards and Technology and former executive director of President Reagan's Drug Advisory Council was very critical of the reliability of hair testing in general, but especially when used for detecting marijuana.* Walsh told the Providence Journal (which uses the hair test) that, "It is just inappropriate to deny employment or take adverse action against an employee on the basis of such a test."
[For more information on hair follicle testing, contact Allen St. Pierre at NORML, (202)483-5500.]

Drug Testing FAQ v4.12
1998/3/15 URL:www.csun.edu/~hbcsc096/dt

Fooling the Bladder Cops by Justin Gombos
(Frequently Wanted Information on how to beat drug tests)

During a job interview, have you ever been asked to piss for your new employer? New applicants for many of the Fortune 500 corporations are now being forced to take a drug test. In fact, 15 million will be tested this year. Drug byproducts can be detected in urine, blood, hair, external
residue, and even perspiration! Drugs aren't the only things they test for; employers are using urinalysis to test women for pregnancy. Pregnant women are getting laid off or denied employment after taking such a test. Parents are spying on their children. The DOD Directive requires the
military to screen all active duty members annually. If you don't want to be a victim of the drug war, this text will help you. If you are well known, this text may protect your reputation. I strongly recommended that drug users (pot smokers in particular) read this. Other drugs are covered as well, but marijuana is the main focus of this paper.

Drug Testing in the Workplace
ACLU Briefing Paper Number 5

There was a time in the United States when your business was also your boss's business. At the turn of the century, company snooping was pervasive and privacy almost nonexistent. Your boss had the right to know who you lived with, what you drank, whether you went to church, or to what political groups you belonged.

With the growth of the trade union movement and heightened awareness of the importance of individual rights, American workers came to insist that life off the job was their private affair not to be scrutinized by employers. But major chinks have begun to appear in the wall that has separated life on and off the job, largely due to the advent of new technologies that make it possible for employers to monitor their employees' off-duty activities. Today, millions of American workers every year, in both the public and private sectors are subjected to urinalysis drug tests as a condition of getting or keeping a job.

Articles On Urine Testing
*** USA Drug Testing Laws ***

PISS OFF!
How drug testing and other privacy violations are alienating America's youth.
Authors Laura and Paul Finley detail how school policy serves to alienate, denigrate, and subjugate the youth of our society. Rather than find humanistic ways to further the intellectual, emotional, spiritual and physical development of the youth, schools are increasingly taking on militaristic characteristics emphasizing efficiency, chain of command, and zero tolerance for mistakes (i.e., learning).
287 Pages