Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:


After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.

UK: Blair can't resist a cheap fix

Mary Ann Sieghart

The Times

Wednesday 25 Feb 2004

---
Comment




If only random testing could drive the opiate of pandering to tabloid
prejudices out of the Prime Minister's bloodstream

WANT A GUARANTEED way to turn our children into binge-drinkers, heroin
addicts and coke fiends? Easy. Just introduce random drug testing into
schools. As with so many of Tony Blair's 'eye-catching initiatives', this
latest one is half-witted, ill thought-out and likely to lead to exactly
the opposite of what he intends.

I had hoped that the Prime Minister had managed to kick the habit of
pandering to the prejudices of whichever tabloid he graced with his next
interview. I was sadly deluded. Addictions like that are not easily
conquered, and it seems that Blair lacks both the discipline and the
determination to quit. When a fix is offered, he cannot resist. If only
random testing could drive that opiate out of his bloodstream.

But no. Focus groups have told him that voters believe (as they always
have) that young people are out of control. Something must be done. So the
Prime Minister casts around for a solution that costs the Government no
money but sounds as if he is 'cracking down'. Had he bothered to ask the
experts first, he would have discovered what a crackpot, wasteful and
intrusive 'solution' this is.

The critical fact that Blair has overlooked is that cannabis, because it
stays in the body's fat deposits, can remain in the bloodstream for a month
or more, while heroin is gone within two to three days, cocaine in a day,
and Ecstasy and alcohol in a matter of hours.

So if you are a teenager worried about having drugs detected in your blood,
what will you opt for on a Friday night? Surely heroin, coke, E or alcohol
rather than the less damaging cannabis.

We already have problems enough with young people and drink. Increasing
numbers of them have taken up binge drinking, with the result that town
centres have become violent and scary at night. What is more, cases of
cirrhosis of the liver are emerging ever earlier. Deaths from liver disease
have risen eightfold in men aged 35 to 44 and sevenfold among women over
the past 30 years. Do we really want to encourage more of this?

Cannabis isn't harmless - which drug is? - but it is indisputably less
dangerous than heroin, cocaine, Ecstasy or even alcohol in large
quantities. Given that teenagers are hardwired to take risks, it is surely
better that they smoke the odd spliff at a weekend than inject themselves
with smack or experiment with crack.

It is not as if random drug testing in schools even works. Three University
of Michigan researchers published a large-scale study last April based on
76,000 pupils at 722 American schools. They found that drug use in the
schools that tested pupils was exactly the same as in the schools that did
not. The conclusion was that drug testing was both expensive for the
schools (from $14 to $30 - 7.50 to 16 pounds - per test, and $100 for
steroids) and utterly pointless.

All it succeeds in doing, in fact, is alienating the students from their
schools. What could be more humiliating for a teenager than being forced to
pee in front of a teacher? And why should the school anyway be allowed
jurisdiction over what a pupil gets up to in the evenings or at weekends?
This practice is bound to breed deep and lasting resentment.

Drug use is problematic for a student only if it affects his or her work.
Of course drugs have no place inside the school itself, and a headteacher
should have every right to bring in sniffer dogs to detect them. Pupils
should not be stoned during lessons or selling drugs to each other in the
playground.

But on a Friday or Saturday night, it is none of a school's business what
its pupils choose to do. And it is a gross invasion of their privacy to
demand evidence of that behaviour.

The more enterprising of American students have already found ways of
getting round the tests, including buying kits off the internet. Doubtless
some British pupils will follow suit. That means they will continue to take
a toke on the joint as it passes by.

And why should schools, or prime ministers, worry about them? Most of them
are not going to turn into crazed crack addicts. They will lead perfectly
productive and fulfilled lives. Moderate, recreational use of cannabis will
not destroy them. But a positive drug test might, if it leads to suspension
or expulsion from school.

Random testing, for those who do not manage to stymie it, will lead to
loads of 'false positives'. It will unearth plenty of students who have no
problem with drugs, whose schoolwork is not suffering, who do their
homework conscientiously before they roll a spliff. And what will happen
next? Is their school career to be blighted because they prefer to get
stoned rather than drunk at the weekend?

Meanwhile, pupils who do have a problem are easy enough to identify without
testing their urine. They bunk off school, fail to hand in work, look
glassy-eyed in lessons. No experienced teacher should have any trouble
identifying them.

In fact, teenagers with a drug problem are just as easy to spot as a Prime
Minister hooked to a headline high.



 

 

 

After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.




This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!