An article headed “MT school officials consider drug tests” continues “The subcommittee is charged with recommending ways to curb drug and alcohol abuse among youths… Superintendent Gene Freeman supports random drug testing, but the school board has not weighed in on the topic.”

WATCHDOG: We will allow the following government sponsored and peer reviewed studies speak to the lack of scientific evidence that drug testing of students is effective.   Not discussed is the damage such exposure does to the one who gets identified out of a large portion of youths who benignly experiment with alcohol, marijuana and tobacco…as many of us did!

1. “Drug testing of any kind, including for cause or suspicion, was not a significant predictor of marijuana use. These results remained for all samples, even after controlling for student demographic characteristics.”

Source:

Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O’Malley, “Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies,” Journal of School Health, April 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 163.

1. “No DAT [Drug and Alcohol Testing] deterrent effects were evident for past month use during any of four follow-up periods. Prior-year drug use was reduced in two of four follow-up self-reports, and a combination of drug and alcohol use was reduced at two assessments as well. Overall, drug testing was accompanied by an increase in some risk factors for future substance use. More research is needed before DAT is considered an effective deterrent for school-based athletes.”

Source:

Linn Goldberg, MD, Diane L. Elliot, MD, David P. MacKinnon, PhD, Esther L. Moe, PhD, Kerry S. Kuehl, M.D., DrPH, Myeongsun Yoon, MA, Aaron Taylor, MA, and Jason Williams, MA, “Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Student-Athlete Drug Testing: The Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification (SATURN) Study,” Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (2007), p. 421.

1. “Similar to results for marijuana use, drug testing of any kind and drug testing for cause and suspicion were not significant predictors for use of other illicit drugs among students in grades eight, 10, and 12. Within the high school subsamples, use of illicit drugs among high school male athletes and current marijuana users was not significantly different based on drug testing at the school. Even after controlling for student demographic characteristics, drug testing was not a significant predictor for other illicit drug use in any of the samples.”

Source:

Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O’Malley, “Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies,” Journal of School Health, April 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 163.

1. “Drug testing of athletes was not a significant predictor of marijuana use by male athletes in high school.”

Source:

Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O’Malley, “Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies,” Journal of School Health, April 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 163.

1. “In the HLM (Hierarchical Linear Modeling) analyses for students in grades eight, 10, and 12, drug testing (of any kind) was not a significant predictor of student marijuana use in the past 12 months. Neither was drug testing for cause or suspicion.”

Source:

Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O’Malley, “Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies,” Journal of School Health, April 2003, Vol. 73, No. 4, p. 163.

1. “The deterrent effect of drug and alcohol testing was present for the index of past year illicit drug use and combined drug and alcohol use, each at two follow-up time points. If DAT were to have an impact, the expected deterrent effect likely would be that the policy would alter recent (e.g., past month) use of drugs or drugs and alcohol, since student-athletes were under the threat of testing during that time period, but not during the summer months. However, no differences were noted at any of the four follow-up time points for past month indices of use of drugs or use of drugs and alcohol. With 16 opportunities overall to demonstrate a substance-use deterrent effect during 2 years and four follow-up assessments (Table 3), only four effects were significant. The significant effects for past year drug use and alcohol and drug use were not independent, as both scales included drug use.”

Source:

Linn Goldberg, MD, Diane L. Elliot, MD, David P. MacKinnon, PhD, Esther L. Moe, PhD, Kerry S. Kuehl, M.D., DrPH, Myeongsun Yoon, MA, Aaron Taylor, MA, and Jason Williams, MA, “Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Student-Athlete Drug Testing: The Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification (SATURN) Study,” Journal of Adolescent Health 41 (2007), p. 426.