Deseret News | Box Elder students, parents question drug-testing policy

Reader comments
Box Elder students, parents question drug-testing policy

Necessary | 5:47 a.m. Oct. 21, 2009

With so many drugs in schools I am for anything, even the inconvenience of students or faculty, that can reduce students using them.

Security is the norm because of past experience in too many attempts to hide drug use with others samples. I'm not sure what the complaint is but in my experience this drug testing is done in a secluded and secured rest room and the tester remained at the door for the sample and the person to exit. I don't think student complaints are valid if this is the procedure being used. Those doing the testing don't enter the rest room or stand over the toilets and watch as this story implies.

Maybe the reporter should go do a drug test himself and he will see what it really is. I also think that it be required that all students be tested for drugs before every school year, just like they are required to produce doctors medical reports.

We all complain and demand drug free schools but not willing to participate in enforcement. No student is going to voluntarily report themselves and this is the only alternative.

Z | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 21, 2009

This policy is just as ridiculous as the "Zero Tolerance" policies that will get your daughter expelled for bringing Midol to school during her period, or you 6-year-old expelled for bringing his Cub Scout knife in his backpack because he doesn't know he can't.

I'm sure that there are ways that you can verify a valid sample without having to be in the stall with a 16-year-old, especially if it really is random. It's hard to prepare to cheat if you don't know what day the test is, and if you'll be chosen.

Hair Drug Test | 3:35 p.m. Oct. 21, 2009

What about using the hair test instead of the urinalysis? It's slightly more expensive but I have heard it is actually a better test (the results show 90 days of prior usage) than the other.

To: Necessary

I was drug tested by BYU. Yes, the person was in the stall with me about 1 foot away from my personal space the whole time. Those doing the testing DO watch the whole time!!! Modest young people who are already very concerned about body image would DEFINITELY find this kind of drug test an invasion of their privacy.

Comments continue below

Children at risk | 12:41 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

With the epidemic of child molesters in our high schools this practice may put our children at risk.

The predators are just waiting for their opportunity to be part of the "watcher duty".

We need something better than this!

jean magann | 6:21 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

In today's world it is increasingly difficult for parents to make decisions on how best to protect our children. Does their privacy out-weigh their safety. They are children...so the answer is no! If they are in sports, they have already given up their privacy.

Athletes are often targeted by drug pushers to enhance their performance with steriods. It's been proven that the athletes will lie about taking the drugs. We don't find out until they are arrested for Ryoid Rage or they develop a brain tumor or their bones become brittle, only to cripple them for life.

Some coaches have turned a blind eye and ignored the problem. These tests are to protect our children. If they want to participate in sports, this is part of the routine and it should be.

Sadly, the cases of sexual abuse in the school environment is not new, but we are becoming more aware of it. Banning a pee test will not stop the abuse. Only our vigilence will.

J | 7:38 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is any more intrusive than conducting a common physical examination which should be routine and mandatory for all athletic programs. Is there a reason why this couldn't just be a mandatory part of a mandatory physical exam conducted by a licensed physician or medical assistant at a local clinic?

Standard Procedure | 7:54 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I agree with the comments posted by Necessary and jean. It is necessary, keeps everything fair, and may help to keep our kids off drugs.

I have had to provide urine samples for drug testing a few times prior to being hired for a job. This was done at professional facilities and while I don't normally do my business with the door open or others in the room at no time did I feel violated. The people "overseeing" the test never looked directly at me.

I am a female and was therefore obviously fairly exposed and facing the door when performing this "task" but can't speak to what the procedure is like for males.

Perhaps the answer is to outsource the testing to professional labs/facilities... which I would hope to be the case in the first place.

Hair Testing | 7:56 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Hair testing is significantly more expensive than urine testing and the results are not instanteous. With stressed education budgets hair testing would be another drain.

S2 | 8:03 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

If it is truly random, with no prior notice as to when they will be conducted, and on whom, what chance is there that a student is going to have or be able to get a clean sample into the room(s) designated for testing? I agree - this is ludicrous and invasive and likely to be as ridiculously administered as the horrific zero-tolerance cases where innocents become victims.

2009 | 8:03 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Kids take drugs. Some for recreation, some to enhance their ability in sporting events. To find out whether or not they are using, you must test.

This is very simple. If you want to make sure they are not using drugs that can HURT them, you must make sure the test is legitimate.

I remember needing a physical in gym back in the day, where a Dr. would come in and make us do the old "turn your head and cough". That was not beneath my dignity.

To many parents a too caught up in how "precious" their little baby is.

It's time for some of these parents to act like adults and model adult behavior for their kids and stop the whining...

Ridiculous | 8:16 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

All you whiners need to grow a spine. To participate in high school sports your kid already has to have a physical which includes a hernia check. A hernia check involves a nurse actually touching the child's genitalia....why aren't you complaining about that?

People will even see your naked form when you try to get on an airplane, thanks to those new imaging machines.

I'm willing to bet a large chunk of money that these kids who are refusing the drug test are really refusing not because they are afraid of being observed during the test, but because they know they will fail.

Knowwhat | 8:16 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

The embarassment of this drug testing program is just the tip of the iceberg of the incompetance going on at Box Elder. As for performance enhancing drugs they will not even be screened for by the drug test. The rebuild of the high school has sent a message loud and clear to the students at Box Elder, we don't really care about you, athletics or your future, but don't take drugs. The new soccer field and baseball field are not regulation size. They spent a lot of money on inadequate facilities that other schools do not want to come and play at. They have forced the best track coach in the state to leave because of lack of support for new track facilities, other schools will no longer run on the old track. The basketball gym needed to be knocked down with the school, but they would not do it or even replace the floor. There is no longer a practice field for football team and no plans for one, and on and on. Welcome to the 16th century, there is no future at Box Elder you druggies, at least that's the message being sent.

Procedures in Place | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I was employed as a "Collection Technician" for almost 4 years. I can tell you the rules that are on us are very stringent. I tested Murray District athletes and we never did direct observation, but we also tested U of U athletes, who by NCAA policy require a direct observation from the source, male to male, female to female. It's all very professional and as non-invasive as possible. As a former tech I would not want to be responsible however for observing a minor, that would open a HUGE set of potential problems. On another note, the reason not to do hair tests, no way to actually detect the amount that is in the system.

Parent | 8:40 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

My children do not go to school in this area, however this whole thing raises concerns for all children. What kind of people would insist on being in the stall with a child that has their pants down? The school's may also want to think about all the people in the roll of "caretaker" at schools around the country that have been being charged with sexual abuse to their just students alone. Why would parents ever trust this?

uncannygunman | 8:45 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

The outrageous thing is that kids are being essentially forced to take suspicionless drug tests to begin with. If you're OK with letting someone sift through your (or your kids) bodily fluids for no reason, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the idea that seeing your private parts for a few brief moments to accommodate that intrusion violates your rights.

Utah needs to be a little less concerned with modesty and a little (or a lot!) more concerned with privacy.

Klaus | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I have had quite a few drug tests for employment, and never had an observer in the room. I do not see the need. Drug testing does not automatically mean you have to be directly observed to be effective. For my last test, I emptied my pockets. I took the cup into a bathroom which had one toilet with blue water and nothing else. They tell you to not flush until you deliver the sample. They check the toilet and flush. Then you wash your hands.
Standard Procedure: If the people didn't look directly at you how can they be sure you didn't cheat? If this really is standard procedure, I would hate to be the observer who had to watch people pee in a cup all day.

Not just sports | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

One thing to remember is this isn't just sports -- it's any competitive activity. So, they are going to be doing observed drug tests of debate, choir, and band members. The percent of school kids using drugs is actually quite low. This seems an extreme measure.

Lay off Box Elder | 9:16 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

We need to lay off of Box Elder in this. This is a statewide (national) issue. Box Elder is one of the places struggling with how to handle it appropriately.

At this point they have chosen to raise the validity of the test by limiting opportunities to cheat. Others have chosen to value modesty/privacy at a higher level,and validity of the test at a lower level.

Parent who choose to be outraged over this need to look at it with an open mind. If they suggest a more discrete way of conducting the test that does not also compromise the validity of the test, I am sure Box Elder, and many others districts would be thrilled.

This is a real pain for them, but an action that they have been forced to take because some people do cheat.

Is there a better way to catch the cheaters?

They would love to hear it.

The real k9 | 9:23 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Why not have someone randomly come to your house? Why not let them sift through all your personal belongings? why not have someone randomly go through your langerie drawer? What have you got to hide? The premise of this is so stupid!!! I always thought that people were innocent until proven guilty. I guess I was wrong. Now, you have to prove your innocence without even being guilty of anything. I hate an establishment that thinks they know what's best for everybody. Kinda like nazi Germany. If a kid smokes pot it will be in their system for awhile and nobody can say if their under the influence or not. but, they can snort a quarter ounce of cocaine on Saturday and it will be out of their system by Monday. Same thing with alchohol. What about nicotine? your supposed to be a certain age to smoke right? are they testing for that? As far as I know unless your a convicted felon that has to report for court ordered drug test. They watch you pee. Otherwise it's against the law. So basically you can be a raging alchoholic but that's legal.

been there done that. | 9:48 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

If the athletes want to cheat they can, which is why all real athletic (and most actual drug testing that has is legally required i.e., truck drivers) drug tests are observed. I have spent many hours having to observe these types. It is amazing, what some athletes can and do know about cheating the tests. There is a reason they are observed. I agree in minors it is a bit problematic, but most collegiate and professional athletes started in high school, and were NEVER tested. Not sure what this district is testing, but most test for the 4 or 6 most common classes of drugs, which are very easy for high schoolers to obtain, marijuana, cocaine, meth, pcp, amphetamines (ADHD drugs), and opiates. Most of the time, the point of high school testing and collegiate testing is to deter, which is why its random, and all are subjected to it. You just can't pick and choose the individuals that you think are most likely to be doing drugs.

to real k9 | 10:12 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Yes cocaine does leave system in 48 - 72 hours or longer depending upon about consumed, but it can be detected in drug tests for up to 3 months depending upon the tests. Urine testing typically will detect its presence for 30 - 45 days.

Anonymous | 10:22 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Good for you kids. Youth in Utah needs to stand up against creeping fascism, Utah adults won't.

Steve (the actuary) | 10:53 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

I can't believe people are ok with this. I have been drug tested for jobs, I've never had anyone "directly observe" me while i did it. I thought direct observation was resevered for people who are drug testing for a parole/probation type of situation.

Anonymous | 11:03 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Good for the kids also. I whish adults would stand up against these drug test also.

Wrong message | 11:40 a.m. Oct. 28, 2009

As a former observer I can tell you that many people get uncomfortable during the test. There are many that just can’t go with someone looking at them. My problem is the signal we are sending to these young people. Are we to suspect of everyone using drugs? Or you are guilty until proven innocent.

Anonymous | 12:22 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

There should be no drug testing, let the kids use steroids and get tumors.

rnoble | 12:58 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

mandatory submission to authority is what random drug testing is really all about---

we should be less concerned about the drugs and more concerned about the people/kids---in my experience people can be taught about the consequences and dangers and then allowed to choose for themselves---in the case of steroids, athletes can and do choose to take or avoid based on their own understandings of risk or reward and the amount of pressure from peers about what is right---(right here is defined as specific to local time and place)---instead of treating people as if they were guilty we should be teaching them so we can define what right is and so they trust the consequences---

for those who say resistance to drug testing proves something to hide i say baloney---i resist drug testing at every chance and i have never been tempted because at an early age i observed others using and did not like the result---even prescribed drugs are used sparingly for the same reason---
our people/kids are smarter than i was and can see the results also---

Knowwhat | 1:38 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Steriods are not drugs that are being screened for in the test. This is just more proof along with the bad decisions and mistakes made with the school re-build, showing the incompetance of the administration.

re: renoble | 1:56 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Your resistance to taking a drug test or trying to avoid the test is something I would look for when I was a collection tech. Drugs and Drug abuse in the workplace or school have shown to have long term affects to not just the user but the people they are around. I would have to say that direct observation of minors takes it way to far however, drug testing can check for dilution and foreign waste that may be placed there by the donor. Also it takes a little common sense from the technician to discourage tampering with the test. The tech should follow all procedures, empty pockets, blue the toilets, etc. As the donor you should insist that the sample not leave your sight until the tamper proof seal with your initials are on the vial. That's your career (weird as that sounds) that you just handed to someone so you also have a responsibility in the process.

Hatuletoh | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 28, 2009

Let me be sure I understand: a kid makes a bad choice one night and smokes some weed. Then he or she gets tested--with someone being sure to watch from the "point of origin--comes up dirty, gets booted from the choir. This creates a situation wherein a borderline at-risk kid looses access to the part of school that is likely the most enjoyable for him or her. This kid will also be estranged from other kids who are probably making better choices, leaving plenty of after-school time to . . . hang out and smoke weed.

I understand that we need to check athletes for steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs, but this is just a punative measure that will ensure kids who are already on the fence get pushed out, marginalized, removed from positive systems of support, and places they can turn to avoid negative peer pressure. What's the educational theory here? Ensure that at-risk kids are turned off to school, socially ostracized, and have plenty of time to keep screwing up? Actually, that's perfectly congruent with my experience with Utah educational administrators. "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.