Student Drug Testing Fails To Reduce Teens’ Self-Reported Substance Use

[Editor's note: This post is excerpted from this week's forthcoming NORML weekly media advisory. To have NORML's media alerts and legislative advisories delivered straight to your in-box, sign up here. To watch NORML's weekly video summary of the week's top stories, click here.]

Students subjected to student drug testing programs in school are no less likely to report consuming illicit drugs, tobacco, or alcohol than their peers, according to survey data published online in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

An international team of researchers from the United States, Israel, and Australia assessed the impact of school drug testing programs on a nationally representative sample of 943 high school students.

Investigators reported that the imposition of such programs had no positive impact on males’ self-reported drug use. Student drug screening programs were associated with minor reductions in females’ self-reported drug history, but only among women who attended schools with ‘positive’ environments. By contrast, investigators found that the enactment of drug testing programs in ‘negative’ school environments were most likely to be associated with “harmful effects on female youth.”

Authors reported, “[C]onsistent with previous research, students in schools that conduct drug testing do not report less substance use. … In total, the results indicate that, to the extent drug testing is effective, it is primarily for female students in schools with positive climates.”

They concluded: “The current research expands on previous findings indicating that school drug testing does not in and of itself deter substance use. Indeed, drug testing appears to be particularly ineffective for female students in negative climate schools, which tend to have higher substance use rates and thus are in most need of effective substance prevention programs. Interventions that improve school climate may have much greater efficacy. Thus, our findings indicate that drug testing should not be undertaken as a stand-alone substance prevention effort and that improvements in school climate should be considered before implementing drug testing.”

Previous studies assessing the impact of student drug screening programs, including a 2010 study by US Department of Education, have similarly failed to report that drug testing deterred student drug use.

More than one-fifth of US high schools impose some form of student drug testing, according to data compiled by the US Centers for Disease Control.

NORML’s fact-sheet, ‘Just Say No to Random Student Drug Testing,’ is available here.

Marijuana Patients Hobson’s Choice: Work or Medicate?

An employer may terminate an employee for his or her off-the-job marijuana use, even if the employee is authorized under state law to use cannabis medicinally, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled last week.

Off-the-job medical marijuana use does not bar firing: Wash. high court
via BusinessInsurance.com

The ruling stemmed from the case of a woman who suffered from migraines that caused chronic pain, nausea, blurred vision and sensitivity to light, according to court documents. She said conventional medications did not provide relief.

In June 2006, a doctor provided her a document authorizing marijuana possession for medical purposes, and about four months later TeleTech offered her a customer service job contingent on the results of a drug screening test.

The employer learned of her drug test results about the same time the plaintiff began training for the job and terminated her. The company’s drug-use policy does not make an exception for medical marijuana use, court records show.

… On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the woman argued that because the medical marijuana law explicitly does not require employers to accommodate pot use “in any place of employment,” it implicitly requires accommodation for use outside the workplace.

But eight justices agreed with lower courts and found that MUMA broadly protects a personal decision to use medical marijuana, but does not address impediments to doing so, such as an employer’s drug policy.

The case is Roe v. Teletech Customer Care Management LLC. The majority’s argument essentially comes down to this: “Washington courts have recognized that MUMA’s purpose is to protect the rights of qualifying patients to use medical marijuana in accordance with the advice and supervision of their physicians. … Washington court decisions do not recognize a broad public policy that would remove any impediment to medical marijuana use or impose an employer accommodation obligation.” You can read the Court’s decision here.

Though disappointing, the Court’s 8-1 decision upholding an employer’s right to arbitrarily discriminate against medi-pot users is frustratingly predictable. In 2010, the Oregon Supreme Court made a similar ruling in Emerald Steel Fabricators Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, finding that an employee who uses marijuana in accordance with state law is nonetheless “engaged in the illegal use of drugs” and may be fired for his or her off-the-job conduct. And In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecom that: “California’s voters merely exempted medical users and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under two specifically designated state statutes. Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and obligations of employers and employees.”

In short, the west coast Courts have issued patients a classic Hobson’s Choice: ‘Use your medicine in compliance with state law but don’t seek gainful employment,’ or ‘Work, but refrain from using the medicine that most effectively alleviates your pain and suffering.’ The ‘choice,’ of course, is really no choice at all. It’s discrimination — plain and simple.

Further, it remains painfully obvious — to virtually everyone but the Courts — that employers lack any legitimate justification to sanction anyone for their off-the-job use of cannabis, much less legally authorized patients. As NORML Outreach Coordinator Russ Belville recently blogged — in a story picked up by the Colorado Independent and other media outlets — rising rates in the number of legal marijuana users is not associated with increased incidences of workplace accidents. In fact, just the opposite result is shown to be true.

Finally, scientific studies have consistently reported workplace urine testing programs are a poor method for identifying employees who are under the influence, and do not significantly reduce job accident rates. Writing recently in the journal Addiction, Investigators at the University of Victoria in British Columbia reviewed 20 years of published literature pertaining to the efficacy of workplace drug testing, with a special emphasis on marijuana – the most commonly detected drug. They found: “[I]t is not clear that heavy cannabis users represent a meaningful job safety risk unless using before work or on the job; urine tests have poor validity and low sensitivity to detect employees who represent a safety risk; drug testing is related to reductions in the prevalence of cannabis positive tests among employees, but this might not translate into fewer cannabis users; and urinalysis has not been shown to have a meaningful impact on job injury/accident rates. … Urinalysis testing is not recommended as a diagnostic tool to identify employees who represent a job safety risk from cannabis use.”

So why are the courts still affirming one set of rules for pharmaceutical users and another set of rules for herbal cannabis patients?

Florida Governor Rick Scott To The State’s Poor: I Want Your Urine!

By Kellen Russoniello, George Washington Law School student, NORML legal intern

Update: June 19, 2011…Florida Governor Scott Backs Down, Suspends His Executive Order For A Massive State Drug Testing Scheme

On May 31, 2011, unpopular Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill that mandates all those seeking public assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (commonly known as welfare) to pass a drug screen. Those that fail the test will not be eligible for benefits for one year. The law will become effective on July 1.

Furthermore, the law requires those seeking assistance to pay for the cost of the screening. The expense can be recovered if the applicant qualifies for benefits. If you fail the test though, tough luck: your money belongs to the state. Those who are denied may designate another person to receive the benefits on behalf of their children, but they must also pass a drug test.

In justifying his signature, Governor Scott stated that it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.” So instead of supporting effective treatment and prevention, the law will implement a costly and ineffective means to try and deter drug use. Not to mention the law is most likely completely unconstitutional.

A Michigan law similar to this one was struck down in 2000 and affirmed in 2003 by the 6th Circuit. Michigan lawmakers had enacted a law allowing for suspicion-less searches of welfare recipients. A class action lawsuit was brought by applicants alleging that these drug tests violated the Fourth Amendment. The applicants won.

Although the Supreme Court has recognized certain situations in which a suspicion-less drug test is allowed (including testing railroad employees, customs agents whose line of work causes them to be directly involved with drug interdiction, and high school athletes and other students involved in extracurricular activities), the testing under the Florida law does not seem to further a special need of the government which outweighs the privacy interest of the individual. In order to demonstrate this special need, the state generally must show that public safety is in jeopardy. The Michigan government made the argument that drug use put children at the risk of abuse and neglect, but this argument was rejected by the district court. (It could be argued that the denial of benefits is more detrimental to public safety than not testing potential recipients). Testing welfare recipients for drug metabolites does nothing to further public safety, and therefore the government will most likely fail to meet the strict test set forth by the Supreme Court.

Those convicted of drug trafficking charges are already ineligible to receive welfare. Even if you can justify this by saying that they cause harm to communities, this new law places the focus on users. Legal challenges are expected and should come down in favor of the applicants, although with the Supreme Court’s recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, if the case were to rise that high there may be cause for concern.

*          *          *

Editor’s note: 1) Isn’t it interesting how elected politicians like Rick Scott (often with no legislative hearings at all) are so quick to want to control the living habits of poor citizens who receive state funding, but they never insist on drug testing requirements to issue state funding and grants to rich land developers, corporations, business executives, professional sports team owners or religious leaders–just the poor?

2) Looks like Governor Scott may have more than ideological reasons to push the state of Florida into using taxpayers’ money on massive drug testing programs for welfare recipients and state employees…as reported in the Palm Beach Post in March:

“Floridians deserve to know that those in public service, whose salaries are paid with taxpayer dollars, are part of a drug-free workplace,” Scott said in a statement. “Just as it is appropriate to screen those seeking taxpayer assistance, it is also appropriate to screen government employees.”

Until last week, Scott’s communications office in Tallahassee had ignored repeated requests for comment on the potential for a conflict of interest. On Friday, as national media began to call as well, the office issued this response:

Any perception that the governor’s business interests pose a conflict of interest with his health policies are “baseless and incorrect,” said Scott’s deputy communications director, Brian Hughes.

Privately, one Scott official acknowledged that every time the governor discusses health policy, his urgent care business would be “the elephant in the room.”

Shortly before he was inaugurated, Scott’s lawyers met with attorneys at the Florida Commission on Ethics. Subsequently, they moved his Solantic holdings into a revocable trust in his wife’s name, making her the controlling investor in the privately held company. No public records were created from the ethics meeting.

During the election campaign, he had estimated the worth of his Solantic holdings at $62 million. Jacksonville-based Solantic has 32 clinics statewide, including two in Palm Beach County, and plans rapid growth and an eventual initial public offering, according to company documents.

Suffolk University Law Professor Marc Rodwin, author of several books on conflicts of interest in medicine, said the movement of Scott’s ownership to his wife’s trust was insufficient to eliminate the ethical issues.

“He owned the company and transferred it into his wife’s name,” Rodwin said. “It’s a conflict of interest.”

Marijuana Testing State Services Applicants: It’s Just Wrong!

[The following blog post was submitted to the NORML Women's Alliance by Anna Diaz.  NORML's commentary appears in italics below.]

Urinalysis, the most common form of non-impairment drug testing, unfairly targets marijuana consumers because it screens for the presence of inert byproducts that may be detectable for days, weeks, or even months in former users. This is a discriminatory policy that sanctions individuals who may have consumed cannabis at some previous, unspecified point in time, while most other forms of illicit substance use to go undetected. Further, most marijuana consumers are responsible, hard-working Americans.  NORML believes that it is arbitrary and counterproductive to single these people out for punishment simply because they fail a urine screen.

By: Anna Diaz

NORML Women’s Alliance Steering Committee

Oregon NORML, Co-Founder

I am a Latina, a forty-year cannabis consumer, a medical cannabis patient and a single mother who has had to use public assistance more than once.  In 2011, Oregon and three other states have introduced bills that would require drug testing for people receiving public assistance.  I am writing to present my unique perspective on this issue, and why individuals should oppose any type of legislation that would require drug testing for all applicants looking to receive state services such as food stamps or unemployment benefits.

Many groups oppose this type of legislation including the ACLU, various associations of health professionals and, not surprisingly, organizations that assist women and children in need.  One in five Oregonians receive state services.  Currently, 79% of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits – formerly food stamps — in Oregon are awarded to households with minor children.  65% of the children receiving those benefits live in single parent households.  Most of these single parents are women.

The ACLU position states, “Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is a policy that is scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound.”

Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients – a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003. The ACLU challenged the mandatory drug-testing program as unconstitutional, arguing that drug testing of welfare recipients violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The case, Marchwinski v. Howard, concluded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision striking down the policy as unconstitutional.

Further, studies show that welfare recipients are no more likely to use drugs than the rest of the population.  70% of illicit drug users are employed.  The ACLU also cites research showing that drug testing is an expensive and ineffective way to uncover drug abuse.

OR NORML's Madeline Martinez (with award) and Anna Diaz with NORML founder Keith Stroup, Esq.

This is an expense our state cannot afford under any circumstances.  The average cost for drug testing in Oregon is $44.00 a person.  According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, there were 361,300 households (682,000 people) receiving SNAP benefits in February 2010.   The caseload is expected to increase until it peaks at 398,000 cases (760,000 people) in April 2011.  That is a 10 percent increase from February 2010.  Even if only one test were administered per household, the cost of drug testing would be roughly $17 million dollars.

While there are several reasons to oppose this type of legislation in all four states, there is one reason that is very unique to Oregon. Oregon is the only state that has a medical marijuana program.  The problem is that the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act does not protect patients who also receive public assistance.  Should this bill pass, many of us would be ineligible for services just because we are legally using our medicine.

The ACLU is right. Drug testing welfare recipients as a condition of eligibility is unsound on all levels for everyone, including taxpayers.  It discriminates against medical cannabis patients, is a waste of money, and will hurt single parent households, which in turn, hurts our children.

Please send a message to the Oregon Legislature and ask them to oppose any type of drug testing legislation.  It only takes a few minutes, and you can do it right now.  Here is an example of what you can say to get you started:

“Please oppose any legislation that incorporates drug testing as a part of the law.  Our state cannot afford the expense, and these bills discriminate against disabled medical marijuana patients.”

NORML Thanks America’s Military Veterans!

A recent phone call from a returning serviceman from Afghanistan pained by the recent suicide of a fellow Marine who was given a dishonorable discharge after failing a drug test for cannabis, along with his own harassment from Veteran Administration officials and medical personnel who ‘didn’t get the memo’ for his lawful, physician-recommended use of medical cannabis to help cope with his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was a harsh and bitter reminder of the tribulations facing military personnel who’re still falling victim – both while serving and post service – to America’s longest war—the federal government’s 73-year-old war against adult cannabis consumers.

For the support of Vietnam vets in the early 1970s embracing NORML’s important advocacy work…

U.S.S. Inchon Sailors In 1978 Showing NORML's Colors and Logo!

To today’s Iraq and Afghanistan military personnel…

NORML thanks the men and women of America’s all-volunteer armed forces for their commitment and sacrifices made for the country’s safety, prosperity and freedom…

Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard…Thank You ALL!