Is Bush Really this Dumb? (curious element in Bush radio address about drug use)

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Bush wants to provide $23million for high schools to carry about drug testing programs b/c "research shows that teenagers that do not start using drugs are less likely to use drugs as adults." Wouldn't it make more sense to provide comprehensive drug education to these kids, provide them with alternative activities, and provide security to guarantee that drugs are difficult to acquire at school or school-sponsored activities?



 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,414
468
126
"Just Say No" Isn't working
"DARE" Isn't working

You want kids to not use drugs? The real hard ones like crack, coke and meth?

Show them the babies.

If that doesn't do it, then they are too depraved and will do what they will
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush wants to provide $23million for high schools to carry about drug testing programs b/c "research shows that teenagers that do not start using drugs are less likely to use drugs as adults." Wouldn't it make more sense to provide comprehensive drug education to these kids, provide them with alternative activities, and provide security to guarantee that drugs are difficult to acquire at school or school-sponsored activities?

I think its a good a idea personally. You don't honestly think we (teens) give a rats ass about how smoking gives us cancer? Do you think a 7th grader can actually understand how painfull lung cancer is? Do you think they understand death? My sports teams at school are full of druggies. The football team is full of stoners and the hockey team is full of drinkers. You can't tell them drugs are bad for them, they are growing too fast for the drugs to even hurt them remotely, for now atleast. You'll tell them in twenty years they'll have cancer. Hell, can you even see twenty years down the road? Because, they cant. They haven't even lived 20 years, they cant see that far. I say mandatory drug testing for extra cirrciucluar activities. I think Bush isn't dumb, he says dumb stuff though. Are you really this dumb? :p BabyDoc you need to get in the mind of teenager, think invincible. :) While, agreed this will piss of alot of people. Most teens will give up drinking and/or smoking weed to play sports.
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Tabb
While, agreed this will piss of alot of people. Most teens will give up drinking and/or smoking weed to play sports.
But the at risk ones, the ones who specifically need sports, will just quit playing sports.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: SViscusi
Originally posted by: Tabb
While, agreed this will piss of alot of people. Most teens will give up drinking and/or smoking weed to play sports.
But the at risk ones, the ones who specifically need sports, will just quit playing sports.

Nah, we'd risk doing drugs and still try staying in sports. I've got proof, my hockey team for example. Even so, don't you think it would be werid as a parent to see your son suddenly quit a sport he/she loved all his life? Again, why would you let them be in sports and still do drugs? Now, where is that UT announcer going "You are dominating" :)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush wants to provide $23million for high schools to carry about drug testing programs b/c "research shows that teenagers that do not start using drugs are less likely to use drugs as adults." Wouldn't it make more sense to provide comprehensive drug education to these kids, provide them with alternative activities, and provide security to guarantee that drugs are difficult to acquire at school or school-sponsored activities?

there is so much drug education in school already that adding more on would be ineffective at best, and possibly counter-productive. there are also tons of extra curricular activities, but those don't work either
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
heck, drug education was what got me to understand that experimentation in itself generally isn't harmful. however, i think the best way to keep kids from turning into drug addicts is to make drugs legal. instead of keeping the problem so hidden like it is now, kids would see all the pitiful junkies lining up to get their fix.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
I think it depends with the family a lot- I don't think there is enough emphasis with the family. Activities, and education does a great job, but the difference between me and the guy in the back who smokes pot (well...when i was inHs last year ;) ) is that my parents cared and everytime I'd go to a friends house they'd say something along the lines of not drinking, smoking or doing any drugs (in which I usually reply "But when WHAT am I going to do ;) " ) and to date I haven't done any of them...even drink some beer ;)

So while Bush is kinda 1/2 right...I think more effort should be taken by parents because a lot of influence comes from there
 

BugsBunny1078

Banned
Jan 11, 2004
910
0
0
I don't necessarily agree that schools should do any drug testing of kids with the idea of keeping them off drugs.
However, it is required that they do it for sports because drug use mixed with intense physical activity does lead to death in young people from time to time. THe school has an interest in keeping these kids from having a heart attack out on the field because they did some extasy the night before. So yes please drug test the athletes.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Tabb:

It is precisely because teenagers are growing so fast that the use of drugs at that age is such a threat. The last thing a human body needs is the introduction of a cancer causing agent into it at a time of rapid cell growth and division. Not only is addiction stronger and harder to kick, but the deleterious effects on the body can be, and often are, profound.

There are other reasons to avoid drugs of course.

Why athletes would take illegal drugs will always be a mystery to me. Too stupid....

-Robert
 

DoubleL

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2001
1,202
0
0
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush wants to provide $23million for high schools to carry about drug testing programs b/c "research shows that teenagers that do not start using drugs are less likely to use drugs as adults." Wouldn't it make more sense to provide comprehensive drug education to these kids, provide them with alternative activities, and provide security to guarantee that drugs are difficult to acquire at school or school-sponsored activities?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush wants to provide $23million for high schools to carry about drug testing programs b/c "research shows that teenagers that do not start using drugs are less likely to use drugs as adults." Wouldn't it make more sense to provide comprehensive drug education to these kids, provide them with alternative activities, and provide security to guarantee that drugs are difficult to acquire at school or school-sponsored activities?

I think it is a good idea. School is about educating students so that they are able to get a job when they graduate and if they are using drugs they need to learn early how to cheat drug tests.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
BBD:

To answer your initial query, yes, it makes more sense to have a clinical and patient (in both senses of the word) approach to drugs. We should all strongly condemn illegal drug use, but we should also support forms of intervention that are humane, not totalitarian. Unfortunately, many right wingers and even some liberal Democrats support Bush's approach. Dumb....

-Robert
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
BBD:

To answer your initial query, yes, it makes more sense to have a clinical and patient (in both senses of the word) approach to drugs. We should all strongly condemn illegal drug use, but we should also support forms of intervention that are humane, not totalitarian. Unfortunately, many right wingers and even some liberal Democrats support Bush's approach. Dumb....

-Robert

Did you say anything or are you just making more noise? I would define dumb as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Name one of these "education programs" that has had any quantifiable success. Just one. Name one sucessful prevention/treatment program that doesn't use random urinalysis as an integral part of the program. Instead of succumbing to your oligophrenic instinct to say "Bush is dumb" every chance you get, try engaging your brain first.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
They haven't even lived 20 years, they cant see that far. I say mandatory drug testing for extra cirrciucluar activities. I think Bush isn't dumb, he says dumb stuff though. Are you really this dumb? BabyDoc you need to get in the mind of teenager, think invincible.
I'm currently a Research Fellow in Pediatric Neuropsychopharmacology on the way to a residency in Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Child/Adolescent Psychiatry. I travel the state giving seminars to schools (teachers and students) on health and education . . . ranging from my wife's elementary school to college students. Guess what toad . . . step off before you become roadkill.

Edweek
Ambitious high school students who recognize that participation in extracurricular activities gives them the leg up they need to gain admission to the college of their choice will not be deterred by required drug testing, for example. It might even be for them, as one adult suggested, the "hammer" they need to "say no to temptation." But what about marginal and disaffected students, those who may not see college in their future? Missing in most accounts of this debate has been any consideration for what the impact of extending drug-testing programs might be on them.

Research is fairly clear about what academically at-risk and marginal students need: connections, attachments, and engagement.

Studies show that participation in extracurricular activities reduces drug use.
No references but of course . . . Bushies don't need no stinkin' references, either.

ACLU
This policy is not an effective way of combating drug use in schools. A drug test is not likely to catch most drug users. Alcohol and many drugs are virtually undetectable unless the student is under the influence at the time the test is administered.

This policy may encourage students to use more dangerous drugs to avoid detection. Because marijuana is the most easily detectable drug, students may use harder drugs or binge drink, creating greater health risks.

This policy, when used to screen particular groups, such as students participating in extracurricular activities, may actually increase drug use. Students actively participating in extracurricular activities are less likely to do drugs because they simply do not have as much free time on their hands. A policy that randomly drug tests students involved in extracurricular activities may deter other students from joining these activities and thus give these students more free time in which they might turn to drugs.

Of course, the President mentioned steroids in the SOTU. Nandrolone decanoate (Deca durabolin) can show up in a urine screeen 18 MONTHS after last use. While water-based (and some orals) like oxandrolone (Anavar) can clear in a few days. Why bother with Sustanon (a mix of different testosterone esters) when you can take short-acting esters every other day, get the same benefits (and fewer side effects), while having a better than average chance of avoiding detection?! And of course IGF-1, human growth hormone, insulin, and thyroid hormone are all the rage these days . . .

Salon
But there is little evidence that drug testing programs -- which can be extremely costly -- have had any measurable impact on substance abuse in the schools that use them. So far, statistics reflect almost no change in student drug use in testing schools. And it is quite possible that, as students see drug testing more as a challenge than a deterrent, drug use actually increases with testing.

At Rushville, certainly, the kids say that they continue to smoke and sniff and sip to their hearts' content. "Drug testing is costing a lot of taxpayer money; but anything that's going on around here would be out of your system by the time you're tested," says one anonymous Rushville student. "I don't know anyone who is denied right now, but there are drugs everywhere."
Huffing KILLS, alcohol KILLS, smoking cigarettes KILLS (albeit slowly) but I doubt schools will test for any of them. And if schools use the typical commercial threshold for THC (marijuana) you will miss the majority of "experimenters".

So as someone with YEARS of experience working with children of ALL ages and an expert in pharmacology and child mental health . . . Bush is a tool.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Name one of these "education programs" that has had any quantifiable success. Just one. Name one sucessful prevention/treatment program that doesn't use random urinalysis as an integral part of the program.
Damn try google, Chief
Research has given us powerful strategies to continue this progress. In particular, we know that a combination of individual/ family education with school/community policy and enforcement are especially effective at preventing problems. (Drug Strategies: "Keeping Score" 1999) For detailed information, see the page called Here's How on this website.

In fact, one study showed that well-designed prevention efforts can save $15 in future health, social and treatment costs for every dollar invested. (Kim, et al, Journal of Drug Education, 1995)

There is some evidence that certain types of programs work better for girls and others for boys. Community coalitions may help boys more than girls (CSAP, 1998) while education programs may favor girls. This is another reason why both types of programs are needed.
I skimmed this site and did not find a single reference to random urinalysis.


Project Success SAMHSA
Posttest data regarding use during the previous 30 days revealed that of students in the second year of Project SUCCESS (n=78) who reported using at pretest:

§ 33% (15 of 46) reported no longer using alcohol
§ 45% (18 of 40) reported no longer using marijuana
§ 23% (11 of 48) reported no longer using tobacco

Project SUCCESS was found to be effective with both genders, students from various ethnic groups, and across grade levels from the 9th to 12th grades. Project SUCCESS benefited not only students who participated directly in the program but also those students (the control group) who participated indirectly by associating with Project SUCCESS students.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Name one of these "education programs" that has had any quantifiable success. Just one. Name one sucessful prevention/treatment program that doesn't use random urinalysis as an integral part of the program.
Damn try google, Chief
Research has given us powerful strategies to continue this progress. In particular, we know that a combination of individual/ family education with school/community policy and enforcement are especially effective at preventing problems. (Drug Strategies: "Keeping Score" 1999) For detailed information, see the page called Here's How on this website.

In fact, one study showed that well-designed prevention efforts can save $15 in future health, social and treatment costs for every dollar invested. (Kim, et al, Journal of Drug Education, 1995)

There is some evidence that certain types of programs work better for girls and others for boys. Community coalitions may help boys more than girls (CSAP, 1998) while education programs may favor girls. This is another reason why both types of programs are needed.

I skimmed this site and did not find a single reference to random urinalysis.

. . . and I didn't find any facts that prove "success". Sorry, it was as worthless as your previous link to the ACLU.

 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
I'm currently a Research Fellow in Pediatric Neuropsychopharmacology on the way to a residency in Pediatrics, Psychiatry
HAHAHAHAHAHA
figures...not even a medical license i'm guessing....
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
2
71
I hate when people say Bush is dumb.

He knows exactly what he is doing.

And that makes him even more dangerous.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
This policy is not an effective way of combating drug use in schools. A drug test is not likely to catch most drug users. Alcohol and many drugs are virtually undetectable unless the student is under the influence at the time the test is administered.
Tell that to DoD. There is one helluva difference in drug abuse between members of the armed forces in 1980 and now. Why? Education and random drug testing.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
This policy is not an effective way of combating drug use in schools. A drug test is not likely to catch most drug users. Alcohol and many drugs are virtually undetectable unless the student is under the influence at the time the test is administered.
Tell that to DoD. There is one helluva difference in drug abuse between members of the armed forces in 1980 and now. Why? Education and random drug testing.


But , but, but . . .


To be fair there is also a fairly stiff penalty too. I think it could be translated appropriately though. Loss of driver's license maybe. Some weekends cleaning up the road, painting the school. And getting treatment, of course. I think a programmed approach that includes random urinalysis would be effective. I'm a big believer in "trust but verify". Probably because I'm just one of those stupid realists.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
SAMHSA
Adolescents participating in Project SUCCESS showed a significant 37% overall decrease in substance use as compared to adolescents in the comparison group who did not participate in Project SUCCESS. Of the adolescents using substances, 23% of those in the Project SUCCESS program quit using, whereas only 5% in the comparison condition quit. For those adolescents who did not quit using substances, there was still a significant reduction in mean substance use ranging between 17% and 26.6% among Project SUCCESS participants

Posttest data regarding use during the previous 30 days revealed that of students in the second year of Project SUCCESS (n=78) who reported using at pretest:

§ 33% (15 of 46) reported no longer using alcohol
§ 45% (18 of 40) reported no longer using marijuana
§ 23% (11 of 48) reported no longer using tobacco

Project SUCCESS was found to be effective with both genders, students from various ethnic groups, and across grade levels from the 9th to 12th grades. Project SUCCESS benefited not only students who participated directly in the program but also those students (the control group) who participated indirectly by associating with Project SUCCESS students.

HAHAHAHAHAHA
figures...not even a medical license i'm guessing....
HAHAHA . . . technically a fresh out of Med school grad gets a license to practice (including DEA) without ANY real understanding of medicine. Feel free to challenge my knowledge of child/adolescent psychiatry, pharmacology, or medicinal chemistry . . . oops, nevermind . . . that would require you to actually know something.