There is no doubt that random drug testing is an effective deterrent to drug use. When done on a “regular” basis, it delivers the strong message to the youth that they cannot use illegal drugs and be able to “hide” it all the time. – Dr. Ramon Ricardo A. Roque, CESOI
(Source-Tempo.com 2008-September)
The San Juan City (Phillipines) government, after passing an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor and the city health officers to conduct random drug testing among students of both private and public schools, has already rolled out plans for the full implementation of the measure.
R.A. No. 9165 provides, among others, that all drug testing expenses shall be borne by the government.
Local governments should prioritize the appropriation of funds for drug testing because it is undoubtedly the wisest use of public funds – an “investment” that will surely yield the highest “gain” for the people and the society. All other “investments” made by the government for the people and the country’s future like in education, infrastructure, and programs to alleviate poverty will mean nothing as widespread illegal drug use will certainly negate developmental gains. - Dr. Ramon Ricardo A. Roque, CESOI
But more than being just a deterrent, random drug testing can likewise serve as a venue for the government to address the rehabilitation needs of those who are already hooked to illegal drugs.
All local governments in the country should implement a random drug testing program in schools. It is the best service they can provide to the people and their indispensable contribution to the creation of a truly drug-free Philippines.
3 responses so far ↓
Mike // August 12, 2009 at 8:12 pm |
True, random drug testing can be a strong monitoring tool as well as a deterrent to drug abuse. That is, if the program is properly designed and administrated. Most random programs used for monitoring require the individual to call in on a specified schedule to hear a message with some kind of letter, number or color code, and then give a specimine at a pre-determined location when their particular code is announced. The problem with such a system is there is no documentation of the call and therefor no information available about call history. Which candidate is compliant, the person who call intermittently, doesn’t call for a week, calls back and happens to hear a “go” code, or the person who calls every day as required. Of course, as with any drug screening program, the technology, collection methodology and other factors will determine the ultimate effectiveness of the program.
pcholakis // September 22, 2009 at 12:20 am |
The above is not an example of a robust random testing program since the donor has the ability to adulterate the specimen during the interim period between notification and reporting to the drug testing site.
Mike Grosh // September 22, 2009 at 12:35 am |
Pcholakis – How is that possible? The individual is notified that they must report. They have until the end of the day to present to a clinic where the give an observed specimen. The technician places a seal over the specimen container and the individual initials the seal. There is no opportunity to adulterate the specimen with that procedure. They may try to consume lots of fluids or take one of the products available on the net but if the collection and lab procedure check creatinine levels, specific gravity, and employ other procedure any attempt to dilute or alter the specimen will be discovered and reported. Most courts will interpret such alteration as tantamount to a positive result.