School Drug Testing » drug test

SF police to shut down troubled drug testing lab

School Drug Testing — Fri, 14 May 2010 12:36:16 +0000

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco police said Wednesday they have decided to shut down their troubled drug testing lab and outsource the work.

The unit had been indefinitely shuttered since March 9, shortly after former lab technician Deborah Madden was accused of skimming cocaine evidence.

Prosecutors have dismissed more than 600 drug cases in the wake of the scandal. Madden has not been charged in the ongoing investigation.

Independent audits of the crime lab also found problems with mismanagement and understaffing.

Police drug-testing is currently being done by four outside labs.

Chief George Gascon said the decision to shut down the lab came after extensive discussions. The department will look for one outside lab to do the testing under police supervision, he said.

“We can certainly give the responsibility of the work to someone else, but we cannot give up the accountability,” Gascon said. “We will remain vigilant. We will still control that process.”

Gascon said drug testing was labor-intensive but could be contracted out at a reasonable price, though he didn’t know exactly how much the outside testing would cost.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi said closing the drug testing unit was only the first step toward restoring public trust.

“I am still concerned that our city will still not have the benefit of an independent crime lab,” Adachi said. “We need to examine the outside labs that the police department will rely upon.”

Assistant Chief Jeff Godown, who was put in charge of the lab in March, said the drug testing unit could possibly reopen in the near future.

Godown said outside drug testing could cost about $100 per test. Having police officers do some preliminary testing could limited the number of outside tests to less than 4,000 a year, he said, noting the police lab did about 14,000 tests a year when it was operating.

The crime lab was expected to continue conducting DNA and ballistics tests. Gascon said the department would explore moving the lab to another site

Gascon said a state audit of the crime lab’s DNA unit found only minor issues. The department intends to use outside labs to help reduce a backlog of DNA and firearms testing, he said.

“Today’s audit results do not resolve my lingering concerns about the crime lab’s DNA unit,” Adachi said. “Contamination and failure to document testing are serious problems that still exist.”

Police were criticized for their handling of a transgender prostitute’s death after a published report last fall said DNA taken from her body remained untested in the city crime lab for more than two years.

Via: signonsandiego.com

Nevada State Athletic Commission will not ‘fully’ implement USADA drug testing for Boxing

School Drug Testing — Fri, 07 May 2010 09:35:56 +0000

It appears the relationship between the USADA and the Nevada State Athletic Commission isn’t as blissful as it originally seemed. When the USADA first came on board to drug test Floyd Mayweather Jr and Shane Mosley, everyone seemed to be happy and eager to work with each other.

However, now that the fight is over, there doesn’t seem to be any hurry for the Nevada State Athletic Commission to adopt the USADA drug testing policies and procedures. In fact, the NSAC doesn’t even agree with all of USADA’s policies. Let’s examine further:

In an interview with the Grand Rapids Press, Kizer said that the NSAC appreciated what the USADA did and that they were open to ways of improving their drug testing procedures.”

The USADA was “purely supplemental and we appreciate that. We’ll “never close the door on adding to or improving our regulation.”

When speaking with KIzer today, he echoed the same sentiments “We always look for ways to improve our testing.” When I pressed further to see if the NSAC would adopt the USADA drug testing procedures, Kizer had the following response:

“While we do not agree with all of USADA’s policies, we will implement from their policies what we think can improve ours.”

So, for better or for worse, the NSAC doesn’t completely agree with the USADA’s drug testing policies.

Via: examiner.com

Schools Hope Drug Testing

School Drug Testing — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:36:16 +0000

The Fort Benton School District is one of the latest schools statewide looking to update its policy on drugs and alcohol use by students participating in extracurricular activities.

Most high schools around the state have policies issuing some sort of punishment for students involved in athletics or extracurricular activities who choose to consume alcohol or drugs, or use tobacco. The degree of punishment depends on the district.

Joe Brott, director of policy services for the Montana School Boards Association, said he has been approached in recent years by districts looking to tighten their policies — and in some cases institute mandatory drug testing — because they are experiencing an increase in use of drugs and alcohol among students.

Fort Benton Superintendent Scott Chauvet said his district isn’t looking at drug testing, but rather wants to add language to its policy to include a lesser punishment for students who self-report illegal behavior.

A first violation of the policy currently results in a suspension for the rest of the season and enrollment in a 10-hour substance abuse course, regardless of whether students turn themselves in. The district would like to change the language for students who self-report violations to a suspension of three event weeks of extra-curricular activities and enrollment in substance abuse training.

Chauvet said the issue has long been looked at by Fort Benton school trustees, but the trustees were propelled into action when allegations surfaced over Christmas break that a number of student athletes had been drinking.

He said that in the Christmas break case, his hands were somewhat tied because no citations for minors in possession of alcohol were issued, so he had to depend on students to turn themselves in as a way to resolve the issue. Some did; some didn’t.

Via: greatfallstribune.com

China: School Drug Test

School Drug Testing — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:34:06 +0000

A top narcotics advisor says expanding the school drug testing scheme to all districts would be too costly.

Action Committee Against Narcotics chief Daniel Shek Tan-lei said schools themselves, rather than the government, should take the lead if the scheme is to be extended.

He also called for more attention to be focused on drug abusers in other age groups.

His comments follow a report by the Narcotics Division which said projections based on its 2008-09 survey suggest that as many as 3,000 upper primary and three times as many secondary students could be abusing drugs.

A total of 158,000 students, comprising about 20 percent of the student population of 817,000, were polled. The survey said up to 4.3 percent of secondary school students could be into drugs – an increase of one percentage point over a survey conducted four years earlier.

Nonetheless, it has exposed the “fairy tale” that children from prestigious schools or with rich parents are not involved.

Some direct subsidy and international schools are already conducting their own drug tests.

Other schools should be encouraged to do the same if the scheme is to be expanded into other districts, he said.

Education Convergence vice chairman Hui Wai-tin said the scheme had only a promotional impact rather than helping students quit drugs.

He said school-based drug tests would be more efficient because these would be tailored to suit the needs of individual schools.

A Narcotics Division spokeswoman said the government has not set a timeline or a proposal to extend the scheme beyond its existing scope.

According to a Narcotics Division report to the Legislative Council, a total of 12,349 students, or 61 percent of all 23 secondary schools in Tai Po, had participated in the scheme up to January 31.

Via: thestandard.com.hk

School Athlete Drug Testing Program

School Drug Testing — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:43:25 +0000

Athletes are subject to a more rigorous form of drug testing and are asked to sign an agreement that verifies they know the policy of the school and what types of drug testing they will have to undergo as a student athlete in the school. They are required to give their samples in the view of a trained testing advocate who takes the sample directly from them and ensures that it gets to the testing facility without being tampered with. Below is some information about the methods and types of drug testing procedures used to get accurate results for student athletes.

Types of Drug Testing Programs:

Mandatory: This is where the athlete is required to submit to testing to continue being a member of the school’s sports clubs. A positive test results in suspension; severe and repeat cases will result in expulsion from those sports clubs.

Voluntary: The student athlete is given an option to be tested based on past issues with substance abuse well as the policies of the school.

Reasonable Suspicion: Drug testing only occurs if there are any signs that the student athlete is using drugs.

Methods of School Testing:

Urine Test: A urine sample is taken under the observation of a urine testing advocate who verifies the sample isn’t tampered with and then the sample is sent off to a lab for testing.

Blood Testing: This method is to test for additional substances or those substances that might be harder to detect in a standard urine test. A blood sample it taken from the athlete for testing at a lab.

Pros and Cons of Steroid Testing in Schools

School Drug Testing — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:35:12 +0000

Steroid testing in schools has been a topic of much discussion. Parents and students in favor of it say that it ensures fair play and stems increasing use whereas those against it feel that the high costs involved are not justified. Take a look at some of the pros and cons of steroid testing in schools.

Pros:

Removes the athlete’s ability to cheat the system. This makes steroid use less appealing and removes the performance enhancing drug users from regular play, which defeats the purpose of the steroids.
Encourages Honest Competition. Few teen athletes will miss the point that regular competition has no negative consequences versus those incurred by steroid use and so teens are less likely to abuse steroids.
Shows that there are consequences for steroid use. Seeing the testing process and what happens to those that get caught helps reinforce the idea that using performance enhancing drugs are bad for you.

Cons:

Despite privacy policies, the athlete’s status as a steroid user is made clear by suspension. There are few reasons for a student athlete to be suspended from regular play; being suspended for steroid use can draw attention to that athlete and make their positive tests results clear.

Most steroid testing programs require special testing and trained test advocates. Steroid testing requires specific monitoring of sample collection and often also lab testing, which takes up to a week to return results. This means more specialized handling and of course a higher overall cost for the schools that use this method to prevent steroid use.

These tests can be expensive and often lead to only a few positive results. Few students use steroids and so the more involved testing and evaluation that goes into them can be wasted if few positive returns happen to make the cost worth the expenditure.

Pros and Cons of School Drug Testing

School Drug Testing — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:29:56 +0000

The debate rages on about whether or not school drug testing should be allowed with those in favor of it saying it is likely to curb the increasing use of drugs in school and those not in favor justifying it by declaring it is a violation of a student’s privacy. Let’s take a look at some of the pros and cons of school drugs testing

Pros:

Helps teens to get drug counseling and treatment if they are already using drugs. This is the main purpose of drug testing to help these kids to stop using and get back on track.

Helps reduce drug use and sale in schools. Random drug testing acts as a deterrent to most users and dealers of drugs.

Offers teens a reason to say no to offers of drug use. Knowing that they might get in trouble gives kids incentive and random drug testing gives them the ability to say no with a reason that can be called valid even by an insistent individual.

Gets kids help who may not otherwise have been suspected of drug use. Not all users are obvious and often the less obvious ones face serious addiction that could have been averted if caught early.

Cons:

Can be considered an invasion of the student’s privacy despite most schools’ privacy policies for drug testing.

Can cost a lot of money, which some schools do not have. Not all school have excess funding to afford random drug screening and therefore may not do testing or limit it so severely that it proves to be ineffective.

Many of those tested are likely to be negative for drug use so that testing may seem redundant. Many schools have a large number of students that can be tested but inevitably there will be far fewer positive tests than negative, which means that a lot of money has gone into futile and fruitless testing that could have gone into other projects.

Most Common Drug Testing Types and Methods Used in Schools

School Drug Testing — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:22:47 +0000

Samples of each of these- urine, saliva, hair and sweat- are taken for the purpose of determining if there are any of a group of illegal substances in it. If a positive result occurs, a confirmation test is done to verify it. Schools keep results confidential and seek treatment for positive results rather than pressing charges on the student.

Urine: This is the most common form of drug testing and it has proven to be the most effective and least expensive, both of which are vital aspects of drug testing when you are dealing with larger groups. The student gives a urine sample and it is sent away for drug testing. A urine test will test positive for any drugs taken during the last 1-3 days.

Saliva: For this form of testing, the student gives a saliva sample. Results from this type are taken from 1 – 36 hours before saliva testing. This form of testing means evading the invasion of personal space that often comes with urine testing. However, it is less accurate in detecting marijuana, which is the drug more commonly used by teens.

Hair: A hair sample is taken for testing. Hair drug tests for about 1-100 days before the sample is taken, depending on the length of the hair. This type of drug test is more expensive and darker haired drug test subjects are more likely to test positive as compared to blondes. Another significant downside is that passive exposure can also give positive results.

Sweat: A sweat sample is taken for testing and can test for use in the last 1-14 days previous. Sweat test is also expensive but it evades invasion of privacy and is easily taken. Passive exposure can give positive results but it also pre-empts test cheating through substitution.

Drug Testing in Public Schools V/S Private Schools

School Drug Testing — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:16:10 +0000

While everyone is aware of the fact that all schools have drug testing policies in place, not everyone is aware that there are differences in the way that drug testing is conducted in private schools and public schools. These differences can have a major impact on the way drug testing is conducted and what rights the student and their parents have in deciding if they will participate in that drug testing. Below is a list of some of those differences.

While drug testing in public schools can be limited by state and local laws, private schools control whether this type of testing happens in their school. Because major funding for public school comes from federal resources and the government has major control over public school regulations, these schools must follow federal regulations. Private schools are privately funded and can do as they choose, so long as it suits the interests of those who fund them; from parents to councils.

Private schools have fewer students as compared to public schools and so the cost of drug testing in private schools is likely to be less expensive overall.

Private schools may test any student they want, while public schools must restrict drug testing to students in extracurricular activities or suspected use or possession cases. Private schools retain control on the way their students and faculty are governed, while public schools are federally monitored and regulated.

Public schools are required to address the issue of the student’s rights because they are federally funded, while private schools may set their own policies because their funding comes directly from parents and other private sources. Students at private schools apply for the right to go to a private school and must abide by the rules of that school.