Recent Drug Testing News
For Immediate Release...
Contact: Stephanie Cartozian
Tel: (602) 289-2663/(760) 941-6889
Fax: (760) 631-3751
Federal Drug Testing Programs in Jeopardy
The drug testing industry has been able to successfully downplay its accuracy
problems in the past, but their complete inability to differentiate the
ingestion of products that contain hemp seasoning, hemp-seeds, or hemp-seed oil
from marijuana use is the biggest threat ever posed to the industry. The
widespread availability of
hemp containing products that cause a false positive, including everything from
hemp-seed oil nutritional supplements to hemp-seed candy, cookies, cheese,
bread, cooking oil, and general seasoning, puts the government drug testing
programs in an utterly indefensible situation, according to Theodore Shults, MS,
JD, Editor of the scientific substance abuse testing publication directed at
physicians who administer drug tests, MRO Alert (published by the American
Association of Medical Review Officers in Chapel Hill, NC). He states,"How
can the government defend its mandatory drug testing programs while allowing the
importation and distribution of hemp
products that can cause a positive urinalysis? Today products can be purchased
at the supermarket, health food store, or by mail order which when consumed will
essentially result in a covered employee being sanctioned, evaluated for
substance abuse and most likely terminated from employment." According to
the MRO Alert,
federally mandated drug testing will likely now fail the Supreme Court's
constitutional test of reasonableness, and many experts predict that it is only
a matter of time before federal drug testing programs will be challenged on
this. The court would then probably enjoin employers from taking any adverse
employment action
on a positive marijuana test unless there is independent probable cause to
suspect illegal marijuana use, essentially crippling the testing programs.
In a closed door session of the Department of Health and Human Services Drug
Testing Advisory Board and the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
strategies to resist the hemp-seed onslaught were laid out. These varied form
the use of warning labels on hemp products to ordering employees to avoid
certain foods as a condition of employment and attempts to increase the pressure
on Congress to make all hemp products illegal. These all raise numerous
practical and legal problems. Drug testing proponents also worry that measures
that give individuals knowledge of the hemp-seed problem, also gives users an
automatic defense. In the meantime, the strategy appears to be denial of the
problem. The recommendations to the Medical
Review Officers who evaluate positive test results is to strictly follow the
guideline that states the only acceptable alternative medical explanation for a
THC positive urinalysis is a prescription for Marinol even though it may cost
innocent people their jobs, their livelihoods, their good reputations, and their
rightful unemployment and disability benefits.
For the second time in six months, a jury overturned a military court marshal
after hearing evidence that hemp oil may have caused the positive tests,
exonerating Corporal Kevin Boyd and Master Sergeant Spencer Gaines. The
Department of Defense realizes that now there is not only a problem of
prosecuting future urinalysis cases, but also, there could well be new appeals
filed on old cases based on this
new defense. Boyd's attorney, Captain Todd Wallace, said that the combination of
the growing body of evidence illustrating the forensic inadequacies of
commercial drug-testing and the precedent set by his client's acquittal could
pose serious trouble for the military's random drug testing program. "It's
going to be tough on any government prosecutors because anyone who turns up
positive on a test will argue this defense." Gaines's attorney similarly
noted, "In the event that there are any marijuana smokers who missed the
point, a smart marijuana user would be inclined to buy this stuff [hemp oil] and
have it in his refrigerator in the event he pops positive on a urinalysis."
###
Mass drug testing of night-clubbers raises controversy
January 16, 1998
BANGKOK, THAILAND - AP World News via Individual Inc. : Recent police raids of
night clubs where hundreds of revelers were forced to undergo urine drug tests
have drawn criticism from human rights groups.
``It is very dangerous to the rights of people,'' Thongbai Thompaw, a
Thai civil rights activist said Thursday. ``Ordinary people can become
victims of police abuse.''
The increasingly frequent testing, which has netted scores of
club-goers with traces of Ecstasy and other illegal drugs, even has
police worried about possible violations of constitutional rights.
- Law enforcement authorities met this week to consider amending
narcotics laws to allow for random drug tests, The Nation newspaper
reported Thursday.
- Some educators are also interested in starting mandatory drug-testing at high
schools to reduce growing drug abuse, particularly of amphetamines.
- In recent weeks, hundreds of night-clubbers have been rounded up in midnight
raids and forced to undergo tests.
- In one raid, two reporters covering the raid repeatedly asked Interior
Minister Sanan Kachornprasat, who was leading the raid, whether it was
constitutional to test people, simply because they were at a night club.
Sanan, known for his tough stance against drug abuse, ordered police to test the
urine of the two reporters. An embarrassed anti-narcotics officer let them slip
out without performing the tests.
Jongrak Juthanon, metropolitan police commissioner, was quoted in The Nation as
saying that drug laws should be amended to allow testing, only if police have
reason to suspect a person of drug abuse.
While this may seem extreme and unlikely to happen in the United States because
it would be considered a constitutional rights violation, all that is needed is
for the courts to deem patrons of night clubs to be at high risk for drug use
and rule there is a "special need" to control drug use in this group,
justifying any infringement of their civil rights. As drug testing proves to be
ineffective at combating the drug abuse
problem in this country, the government continues its typical reactionary
reasoning that drug testing is unsuccessful because not enough people are being
tested. Thus, drug testing will continue to expand and invade many aspects of
our lives. Unless this country realizes that drug abuse can not be extinguished
by force, such rounding up and ferreting out of high risk individuals may,
unfortunately, not be far off.
19. Editorial: Drug Warriors Claim to be Fighting for America's Kids,
but Are They?
The release this week of the EU's annual report on kids and drugs
highlights a debate which is beginning to gain popular prominence across the
globe. The report concludes that teens in Ireland, a country with historically
"tough" policies on drugs, are using substances at higher rates than
their European neighbors, and, significantly, at more than three times the rate
of their compatriots living under the notoriously "lenient" drug
policy of The Netherlands.
Another report, this one out of the UK, finds that despite
government-perpetuated stereotypes about what types of kids use drugs, the
typical young recreational user is socially well-adjusted,
knowledgeable about the substances they are using, and disapproving of "out
of control" or "problem" use-behavior.
In the US this week, DEA administrator Thomas Constantine released a statement
in response to the airing of an episode of "Murphy Brown" in which the
title character smokes marijuana to relieve the nausea brought on by
chemotherapy. In the statement, Constantine's main assertion is that this
representaion sends the "wrong message" to kids and that the show
would mislead kids into thinking that recreational pot use was "OK."
Without disputing the fact that many young people do, in fact, have
problems with substance use, these reports effectively demonstrate how current
drug policies, particularly in the US, woefully underestimate both the
intelligence and the social skills of young people who use drugs. This
disconnect undermines our ability to communicate important information about
drugs and their use aimed at reducing both the incidence of use and the harms
associated with misuse of various substances.
What could be the possible implications of the fact that the EU study
found that only 14% of Dutch teens had even tried "drugs" while 40% of
Irish teens have done so? Or that in America, where "zero tolerance"
has been an official policy for decades, over 25% of teens are estimated to have
used illegal substances? Rational observation of such trends can lead to no
conclusion other than that the "zero tolerance" approach has failed
miserably in its stated goal of reducing drug use among youth.
Judging by the recent actions of the US government, however, rationality is far
from the rule when it comes to the Drug War.
Take, for example, Constantine's statement with regard to Murphy Brown's use of
medicinal marijuana. The very assumption that American kids cannot differentiate
between the medical and recreational use of a substance is more than simply
insulting; it is indicative of a naive and counterproductive approach to a
generation far more sophisticated and far less vulnerable to scare tactics and
propaganda than its government believes it to be.
Dr. Joel Brown, in his landmark study of California's Drug, Alcohol and
Tobacco Education program (DATE), found that by the time kids turned 13 or 14
years old, the overwhelming message that they had garnered was that educators
and police had systematically lied to them about drugs and drug use. This led,
Brown concluded, to a general disrespect for those authority figures and disdain
for their message. In a nation where leaders seem intent on basing drug policy
on "messages" this is a very disturbing finding indeed.
The fact is that the rumblings coming from our elected and appointed
leaders amount to little more than pandering to the fears of parents,
and has little basis in either the realities of the lives of teenagers
or in any pragmatic strategy for the reduction of harms associated with
drug use. Are American kids somehow intellectually or morally inferior
to their Dutch counterparts? In The Netherlands, drug policy aims to
impart factual information, based upon the assumption that kids exist in the
real world, where they will be faced with real choices and
opportunities, including choices concerning drug use, and that kids
armed with the facts will act in a more or less rational manner. In the
US, the assumption seems to be that we must somehow protect our kids from the
facts, lest they be tempted to make choices that make adults uneasy. This
strategy has served only to alienate and disenfranchise our youth, leaving them
to drift through their world without the very moral compass that our wrongheaded
policies are attempting to instill.
The lesson to be drawn from these bits of news from around the world is that
lies, threats and oppression are likely to lead teens to far
different conclusions than the ones we intended for them to reach. So
let us reassess our direction. It is worth considering that for all the
assertions of the US government that Dutch drug policy is a failure, the
numbers show that in rejecting the "drug free" American ideal they
have, ironically, come far closer to achieving it than the American model
itself. And for all the U.S. government's talk of "zero tolerance,"
the fact is that American kids are making their own decisions with little
regard for the rhetoric. If the numbers of American and Dutch kids who used
drugs were reversed, our leaders would be proclaiming, rightly, the success of
their system. Now that it is clear that this isn't so, the time has come to
learn from our mistakes, and to finally allow our kids to learn from the facts.
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director, DRC
More Than Just Saying No
From the LA Times August 21, 1997:
Several recent studies by the national center and others that show a longer rise
in the number of teenagers using drugs (from 1.1 million in 1992 to 2.4 million
in 1995) and a decline in the age when they start to use those drugs (the study
says children are beginning to smoke and binge-drink at younger ages than ever).
One reason for the nation's failure to successfully combat teenage drug use was
suggested in another study, released last week at the American Psychological
Assn. convention. It found that DARE, the country's most widely used drug
prevention program, had no long-term effect on students' use of alcohol,
cigarettes or marijuana. More than a dozen studies have reached similar
conclusions, leading some cities, like Seattle and Oakland, to drop the program.
The solution is not to dump DARE's "just say no" message, however, but
to supplement it with proven intervention strategies. One model is Santa
Barbara's "Fighting Back." Begun in 1990, when youths in that county
were using alcohol and cocaine at a rate 30% higher than the state average, the
program has reduced rates to or below the state average. It uses peer counseling
and programs wherein teachers, judges and others spot problems like depression
that lead to substance abuse.
To properly fund such programs, Congress would have to revise current laws that
prevent federal substance abuse funds from being distributed to programs that
stray in any way from the "just say no" message.
Finally, we must realize that a teenager's drug use is usually the product of
community and family influences as well as one kid's bad decision. Fashion and
other magazines continue to glamorize hollow-eyed, razor-thin "heroin
chic" models. Parents too often cynically conclude that their youngsters
will inevitably use drugs. Adult use of prescription antidepressants has
skyrocketed. Given these sorts of social messages, young people need to be
counseled wisely, not merely lectured to just say no.
Epitope Announces FDA Cleareance of Oral Fluid Assay for Cocaine
January 16, 1998
BEAVERTON, Ore., Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ via Individual Inc. -- Epitope,
Inc. (Nasdaq: EPTO) today announced that its research partner, STC
Technologies, Inc., located in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has received FDA
clearance for the STC Cocaine Metabolite Micro-Plate EIA (enzyme immunoassay)
Kit for use in detecting cocaine and cocaine metabolites in oral fluid collected
with the OraSure(R)/EpiScreen(R) Oral Specimen Collection Device manufactured by
Epitope. "This is the first oral fluid-based immunoassay for drugs of abuse
cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration," said Sam Niedbala,
Ph.D., executive vice president, research and development of STC.
Under an agreement with Epitope, STC has developed OraSure-based tests for
cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, and a group of drugs commonly called the
NIDA-5. The NIDA-5 include cocaine, methamphetamines, cannabinoids (THC),
opiates, and phencyclidine (PCP). Four oral fluid 510(k) submissions for
cocaine, methamphetamine, THC and cotinine have been submitted to the FDA. Two
additional 510(k) submissions for oral fluid opiates and PCP are expected during
the first quarter of 1998.
"This is Epitope's first step to
expand our base technology beyond our
current applications," said John Morgan, president and chief executive
officer of Epitope.
The clearance of the oral fluid test for cocaine is the first for any
drugs included in the NIDA-5. Upon clearance of tests for other NIDA-5 drugs,
Epitope intends to market a combined drugs-of-abuse panel that will detect any
of the NIDA-5 drugs using a single OraSure specimen.
Epitope holds exclusive distribution rights for the STC OraSure-based
drugs-of-abuse assays outside the United States.
In 1996, the worldwide market for laboratory-based, drugs-of-abuse
testing was approximately $530 million, involving 35 million test
panels. Over 60% of the worldwide test volume and sales revenue comes from the
United States. Drugs-of-abuse testing generally occurs in one of four basic
testing segments: 1) Clinical testing including hospital emergency rooms,
laboratories, and drug rehabilitation centers, 2) government mandated testing,
such as testing of transportation workers (D.O.T.), defense contractors (D.O.D.),
and other governmental contractors, 3) forensic testing, including applications
in the criminal justice system, law enforcement, the courts, and
probation/parole programs, and 4) industrial testing for employment evaluation
and drug-free workplace programs. In each of these segments OraSure testing will
provide an alternative for sample collection that can be performed in any
setting, is non-invasive, is less embarrassing, and improves the chain of
custody.
STC Technologies, Inc., is a privately held company that develops and
markets proprietary clinical diagnostic tests and medical devices for
use in clinical labs, physician's offices, and work-site testing. Since
its founding in 1987, STC has twice been named to Inc. magazine's list
of the 500 fastest growing, privately held companies in America.
Epitope, Inc., is an Oregon based corporation that develops and markets medical
diagnostic products. Its principal products, including the OraSure oral specimen
collection device, focus on the use of oral fluid to detect HIV infection and
other conditions, and are marketed primarily in the life insurance and public
health sectors. SOURCE Epitope, Inc.
Tuesday, August 26, 1997
Judge Blocks Drug Testing of Student Athletes
NEWARK, NJ -- For the first time since a 1995 Supreme Court decision allo=wing
random drug testing of student athletes, a New Jersey court has blocked a
similar program.
Ruling on state constitutional grounds, Superior Court Assignment Judge Sybil R.
Moses today issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Ridgefield Park
Board of Education from implementing a new policy requiring all student athletes
in grades 6 through 12 to submit to random drug testing as a condition of
participating in interscholastic athletics.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed suit on August 21 on
behalf of Bryan Wilson, a Ridgefield Park High School student, and his parents.
Bryan has played on the school's football team for the last two years, and
planned to play again this year until the District enacted the drug testing
policy.
The suit alleges that the drug testing program violates the state
constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to
privacy, and state laws governing drug testing of students.
"If school officials have reason to believe that a particular student is
using drugs, they already have the power to require that student to submit to a
drug test, said ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney David Rocah. "But random drug
testing assumes that every student is using drugs until they prove to the
contrary by submitting a urine sample. This presumption is insulting and
demeaning to the vast majority of students who do not use drugs, and turns the
constitution on its head. We generally do not let the government search persons,
their belongings, or their bodily fluids without some good reason for doing so,
and there should be no general exception for students."
The lawsuit is the first state constitutional challenge to random drug
testing of student athletes since the United States Supreme Court upheld a
similar policy in Vernonia School District v. Acton, rejecting claims that such
tests violated the Fourth Amendment of the federal Constitution.
The ACLU-NJ argues that the New Jersey courts have historically interpret ed the
New Jersey Constitution as providing greater protections of individual rights,
particularly in the area of searches and seizures, and that the Supreme Court's
ruling therefore should not be followed as a matter of state constitutional law.
After hearing from lawyers for both sides, Judge Moses concluded this morning
that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the New Jersey
constitution required some reasonable, individual suspicion prior to forced drug
testing, and that state statutes governing drug testing of students prohibited
the random drug testing program adopted by the Board of Education. She also
concluded that the School Board presented no evidence that there was a drug
problem among student athletes, and thus had not demonstrated any need for the
drug testing program.
"We are quite pleased by Judge Moses' principled decision," said
ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney James Katz, who argued the Wilsons' case Tuesday
morning. "Her ruling shows that New Jersey law respects students' dignity
and privacy, which is a lesson that school officials should take to heart."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, August 4, 1997
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge has ruled that Contra Costa County can no
longer require applicants for General Assistance to take a controversial written
"drug test."
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court in San Francisco
ruled against the County's mandatory test in the case of Hunsaker v. County of
Contra Costa, which was filed on behalf of welfare recipients and applicants by
the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the Disability Rights
and Education Fund, Inc. and the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich &
Rosati in 1995.
The test, which the County began using about five years ago, is officially
called the "Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory," or SASSI-2.
It asks 62 true-false questions such as "I believe everything is turning
out just the way the Bible said it would"; "Most people would lie to
get what they want"; "Sometimes I have a hard time sitting
still"; "Some crooks are so clever that I hope they get away with what
they've done"; and "Pornography and obscenity have become serious
problems and must be curbed."
Twelve additional questions ask about alcohol- and drug-related experiences in
the past year. The test is then scored as "CD" (chemically dependent)
or "non-CD." A CD score requires the applicant to be further
evaluated, and may lead to enrollment in a mandatory drug treatment program as a
condition for continuing to receive County welfare.
The County's use of the test was challenged by the ACLU-NC and the Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc. working with cooperating attorneys at
Palo Alto's Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati. The lawyers argued that the
test was unconstitutional, and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
Several other counties in California, notably Alameda and San Diego, have used,
or have considered using, the SASSI-2 as a screen. Last year, Alameda County
agreed to cease using the test pending the outcome of this lawsuit.
Until last year, the County required all test-takers scored as "chemically
dependent" or "at risk" of dependency, to go through an onerous
six-month treatment program. Based on the results of the test, thousands of
applicants were referred to the drug treatment program. Many subsequently were
dropped from the rolls when they failed to complete the program.
After this suit was filed in 1995, the County modified its use of the test,
requiring persons scoring as "chemically dependent" to be further
evaluated in a psychological interview for referral to the treatment program.
The plaintiffs argued that the test was totally unreliable and extremely
inaccurate. Last year, the County and the plaintiffs agreed to jointly study the
test's accuracy. The study revealed that the test incorrectly classified nearly
half (44 percent) of the applicants scored as "CD." In other words, of
the persons found by the test to be chemically dependent, half were not. The
study also found that the test missed half of the truly chemically dependent. It
also incorrectly identified many recovered and rehabilitated drug and alcohol
users as currently dependent.
"The County was removing people from General Assistance based on a test not
much more accurate that a coin toss," said David J. Berger, a litigation
partner at WSGR and one of the plaintiffs' lawyers. "It wasn't serving any
interest in getting the right people to treatment, while at the same time it was
forcing non-chemically dependent people into extremely burdensome treatment
programs."
"By falsely labeling recovered applicants as drug abusers," added
Disability Rights lawyer Brad Seligman, "the test stigmatized the very
people we shouldbe supporting."
Judge Chesney found that the test violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
because it placed a disproportionate burden on recovered former drug and alcohol
abusers who are entitled to protection under the ADA.
Judge Chesney also noted that the joint study showed that 84 percent of
recovered abusers are treated as currently chemically dependent by the SASSI.
A CD label requires these applicants to go through an intrusive evaluation
process where they "must disclose sensitive personal information not
"demanded" of persons who "pass" the SASSI.
As a result, the Court held that "the County's policy of using the SASSI...places
a disproportionate burden on persons protected under the ADA and is not
necessary to effectuate the purposes of identifying CD individuals who apply for
GA."
The Court's order permanently prohibits the County from using SASSI. Reserved
for later determination is the amount of damages the County must pay. The order
was issued on July 31, but made public for the first time today.
In addition to Berger and Seligman, the plaintiffs were represented by
ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen and WSGR attorneys Millicent Meroney, Marthe
LaRosiliere, and Dorothy Fernandez.
May 24, 1997
TREATMENT IS BEST WAY TO REDUCE DRUG CRIMES
THE STATE (Columbia) from Dialog via Individual Inc. : A recent study confirms
earlier results showing treatment is more effective than mandatory, long prison
sentences in reducing drug use and related crimes. South Carolina should
consider these facts as it looks at modifying its drug laws.
New research from the Rand Drug Policy Research Center shows that states with
mandatory-minimum sentences for drug
offenses have a higher crime rate and higher drug use than states that have less
stringent sentencing guidelines and better drug
treatment programs.
South Carolina locks up more people per capita than all but three other states.
Here, a 1995 law requires a life sentence the
second time someone commits a violent offense, such as rape or attempted murder,
or the third time someone commits a
"serious" offense, such as drug trafficking and white-collar crimes.
And the quantity of drugs required to be considered a
trafficker is relatively modest.
But the Rand study indicates the best way to cut drug consumption is to offer
adequate treatment programs in prison as well as
in the community. Dollar for dollar, the study says, mandatory-minimum
sentencing is the least effective preventative.
Conventional enforcement is 70 percent more effective at reducing drug-related
crimes. Even more striking, treatment is 10
times more effective than conventional policing methods and 15 times more
effective than mandatory-minimum sentences.
One of the reasons for the disparity in effectiveness is that long prison
sentences usually go to small-time dealers who also are users. Putting them
behind bars for life does nothing to stop the big dealers, who rarely are caught
possessing the drugs. By treating addicts, demand for illegal substances is
reduced. Studies also suggest that giving judges sentencing guidelines rather
than mandating long sentences is more effective. Then, judges can save the hefty
sentences for the real dealers and give users a shorter sentence combined with
effective treatment.
House Speaker David Wilkins and others have supported bills to establish
sentencing guidelines for a variety of crimes in South
Carolina. And a statewide committee of law enforcement, corrections and
drug-prevention officials is currently studying the specific issue of sentences
for drug crimes.
They should look carefully at the Rand study and others, such as one published
earlier this year by the Justice Policy Institute.
The latter also found that violent crime fell much more in states without
mandatory minimum sentencing than in states like South Carolina, with its
two-strikes/three-strikes law. As that study pointed out, it's important to lock
up truly violent criminals for long sentences, even for life. But drug users who
do not commit violent crimes should be treated, not left to languish their lives
away behind bars.
If South Carolina continues to lock up its drug users for such long periods, it
will have to build thousands of new prison cells and spend billions of tax
dollars. If the Rand and JPI studies are correct, all that money could be spent
more effectively on education, prevention and treatment programs. Law-and-order
legislators should take a hard look at these facts and approve a reasonable
sentencing-guidelines law rather than forcing mandatory minimums on the courts.
June 1, 1997
Drug Testing in House of Representatives Could Stir Lawsuits
WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers who want their staff members and other Capitol Hill
workers randomly tested for drugs could face a flurry of lawsuits because of
prior court decisions affecting drug testing in the executive branch, the Hill
reports.
''If there were a random drug testing program that included me, I would consider
a lawsuit," Robert Raben, minority counsel to two House Judiciary
subcommittees, told the newspaper. In interviews, several House aides who work
on policy matters privately echoed him, though most declined to speak on the
record.
Under a House rule adopted recently, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Republican of
Georgia, is creating a program for drug testing that resembles that used by the
executive branch. It could be months before the House finally adopts such a
plan, but already the Senate Rules Committee is reviewing how, and whether, it
can implement similar practices.
In the House, where the possibility of implementing a drug testing program seems
strongest, only about one-tenth of the total 10,000 employees could be tested
without a clear legal challenge, the Hill said. These include 82 employees of
the Sergeant at Arms Office; 20 aides to the Select Intelligence Committee; and
1,100 members of the Capitol Police force, half of whom are technically employed
by the Senate.
''I think a random drug testing program for Hill employees is unconstitutional.
I think the courts would say so and I think the ACLU
would be eager to challenge it,'' said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of
the ACLU affiliate in Washington.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE
June 1. 1997
IF DRUGS ARE REALLY TO BE BANNED, DEFINITIONS MATTER
CINCINNATI POST from Dialog via Individual Inc. : Let me get this straight. Out
of two Post stories for May 23: the U.S. House of Representatives can't pass a
flood-relief bill that will affect 35 states - and North Dakota a great deal
(page 2A) - but they can pass 420-1 a bill that Rep. Rob Portman titled ''The
Drug-Free Communities
Act of 1997'' (page 4A).
Yeah, right, Honorable Rob and congressional colleagues. The millennium has
arrived and we'll have ''drug-free communities'' in the USA.
You really think you're going to take away from Americans our prescription
drugs?
No? Then there will be drugs in American communities. Over-the-counter drugs,
perhaps: our pain-killers, antihistamines, stomach-settlers, and all those drugs
the ads tell us to buy, buy, buy and take, take, take? Not them either?
Recreational drugs, then?
Try getting beer away from that new Republican voter, Joe Six-pack, or deprive
your more traditional country-club Republicans of their wine and ''spirituous
liquors.'' Or cigars, cigarettes, or gourmet, high-power, super-caffeinated
coffee. Those are recreational drugs, and they will be all over American
communities for the next couple of decades or a whole lot longer.
It should be no surprise that some 420 members of Congress are convinced that
they can define ''drug,'' whatever logic and nature has to say. Problem is that
the American press and public are too ignorant, apathetic, cowardly,
hypocritical, illogical, and/or zonked on their favorite drugs to insist that
our public servants talk about ''illicit drugs'' and ''licit drugs'' - and think
of themselves as only public servants and not masters of the universe and
giver(s) of all names.
We can't start talking intelligently about what drugs our communities will be
free of and which we will tolerate until we start making the licit/illicit,
legal/illegal distinction.
Meantime we get the Congress we deserve, who may seriously believe that ethyl
alcohol, acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin), caffeine, clemastine fumarate (Tavist),
and nicotine aren't drugs. Sure - and Janet Reno is really Anastasia Romanoff,
Empress of Russia.
RICHARD D. ERLICH
drug test, drug testing, drug tests, drug test, drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug
testing drug tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug
tests,drug test,drug test, drug testing drug testsPASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG
TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG
TEST PASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG TEST PASSING DRUG
TESTS PASS
DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG TESTPASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING
DRUGPASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG TEST PASSING DRUG TESTS
PASS
DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG TEST PASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG
TESTING DRUG
TESTPASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUGPASSING DRUG TESTS PASS
DRUG
TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG TEST PASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING
DRUG TEST
PASSING DRUG TESTS PASS DRUG TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG TESTPASSING DRUG TESTS PASS
DRUG
TESTS DRUG TESTING DRUG,