The forums will be May 1 at the Valley Head School auditorium, May 2 at the DeKalb County Facilities Center in Rainsville and May 8 at the Crossville School auditorium. The meetings are all scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m.

The system’s policy subcommittee on student drug testing set the meeting dates Wednesday, during its first official meeting to discuss the proposed drug testing program, patterned after one recently adopted for use in the Fort Payne City School System.

Liz Wear, director of the Partnership for a Drug Free DeKalb, secured a $500,000 three-year grant to establish student drug testing in both the city and county school systems. The city will begin mandatory testing June 3. Partnership’s grant calls for testing students, in seventh through 12th grade, involved in competitive interscholastic extracurricular activities. The city board will test those students, along with any student who drives on campus.

The proposed drug testing policy sets graduated penalties for students who return positive drug tests.

The program, set up to be random, can legally test up to 49 percent of the student population, Wear said. She said, if that level of testing is continued after grant money runs out, it would cost the system about $30,000 per year.

However, Wear said lowering the percentage of students tested could reduce costs. She suggested charging students more to park on campus to raise additional funds for testing.

Superintendent Charles Warren said he feels confident the system could continue to fund the program, without passing costs onto students.

“I think the money is there for this,” he said.

The subcommittee included two male students from local high schools. Both said they feel the proposed drug-testing program is a good idea.

The subcommittee talked about the possibility of requiring teacher drug testing, which Wear pointed out could not be legally implemented under the grant.

Warren said that the Alabama Education Association does not support teacher testing and Wear said the Supreme Court has ruled that current teachers aren’t subject to forced testing on the basis that working in a classroom setting presents a safety issue.

Warren said the school board could, however, enact a policy that required all new teachers hired to be subject to drug testing, and said he would pursue implementing such a policy.

He also said that the system could move to a voluntary system that would allow teachers and support personnel to sign up for drug testing off their own accord.

Nick Hall, agriculture teacher at Sylvania School, and a member of the system’s subcommittee, joined with several others on the board in supporting the idea.

“I would volunteer for drug testing and I would be a little suspicious of anyone who didn’t, to be honest,” Hall said.

Friday, February 24, 2006 · Last updated 2:42 p.m. PT

Customers cook up trouble with fake penis

By JOE MANDAK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

PITTSBURGH -- A woman trying to cheat on a drug test was behind a bizarre incident in which a frightened convenience store clerk thought she had microwaved a severed penis, police said.

The clerk at the store outside Pittsburgh actually microwaved a prosthetic device used to cheat on drug tests, police said Friday.

The incident unfolded late Thursday afternoon when a man and a woman entered the store and the man asked the clerk, "Can you microwave something for me? It's a life-or-death situation," police said.

The man asked for paper towels, wrapped an object in them, and had the clerk microwave the item for 20 seconds, said McKeesport police Chief Joseph Pero.

When it was finished, the clerk handed the item back to the man and saw what she thought was a severed penis, Pero said.

After news reports Friday, a woman called police to say she was with the man in the store and explained what really happened, Pero said.

The woman told police she was applying for a job and was required to take a drug test. She said the man had filled the device with his urine, which she planned to submit for the test, Pero said.

The couple stopped to warm the device in the microwave so the urine would "pass the body temperature test," Pero said - that is, be warm enough to not arouse the suspicion of those administering the test.

Pero said police weren't sure why the woman was storing the urine in a device mimicking male genitalia.

The woman wasn't applying for a job at the convenience store, but Pero said he didn't know anything else about the job.

Pero wouldn't release the names of the man or woman. Charges, including harassment and disorderly conduct, were possible, he said.

The clerk at the Giant Eagle Get Go! is "still visibly shaking," Pero said Friday.

Giant Eagle, which owns the convenience store, said the microwave will be discarded.

The advertising campaign, one of the first in the world, comes as Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government considers decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot in Canada.

Under a proposed bill, opposed by police who already feel helpless to stop dopey drivers, stymied by a lack of technological tools to spot them, possession of 15 grams or less of cannabis would be punishable by a fine.

The advertising blitz is financed by Health Canada and launched by the non-profit Canadian Public Health Association.

It shows two pilots in a cockpit smoking pot with the tag line: "If it doesn't make sense here, why does it make sense when you drive?"

It aims to reverse a growing trend, particularly among the young, to drive while under the influence of marijuana, officials said.

Researchers found that bygone anti-drunk driving campaigns and stepped-up road patrols helped cut the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes in Canada, but accidents related to driving while under the influence of marijuana are climbing.

According to the most recent addiction survey by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 44.5 percent of Canadians 15 years and older have used marijuana in their lifetime. Fourteen percent smoked pot in the past year, double the number more than a decade ago.

About four percent of people reported smoking pot and driving, or 10 percent among Canadians 16 to 29 years old and were four times more likely to get into an accident.

"The rate of driving under the influence of pot now rivals or exceeds the rate of driving under the influence of alcohol among young drivers and passengers," said researcher Christiane Poulin, noting that marijuana use is growing worldwide.

While most young drivers and passengers have little tolerance for alcohol-impaired driving, they commonly regard pot as "a benign, mainstream drug with no significant negative consequences" and driving under its influence as risk free, Poulin said.

"The impression is that cannabis does not affect driving skills," said Sylvia Fanjoi of the Canadian Public Health Association. "We found that 'designated drivers' often smoked-up instead of drinking."

In fact, cannabis impairs driving skills most severely during what is known as the acute phase, which typically lasts for up to 60 minutes after smoking, experts say. Impairment subsequently subsides rapidly over the next two to three hours.

While most Canadians fear stiff penalties for being caught drunk behind the wheel, few fear prosecution for driving while under the influence of drugs, Fanjoi said.

"It's difficult to spot a driver under the influence of marijuana because there are no tools to help us like breathalyzers for alcohol," said Mike Niebudek, director of the Canadian Professional Police Association. "We have to rely on visual cues, look for odd behavior, smell."

Police are pressing the federal government to provide funding to train officers to weed out drivers under the influence of drugs and to amend the law to require drivers to undergo sobriety tests if an officer believes the person is under the influence of a drug.

But, if Martin's government is toppled in the coming weeks as opposition parties step up pressure to force an election, those plans could go up in smoke.

"I was in complete and utter shock," said Officer Shawn Noel Harris. "I know that I never used drugs a day in my life."

The Boston officers are now suing the police department, claiming the mandatory drug test is unreliable and racially biased. They say hair testing is unfair because drug compounds show up more readily in dark hair than light hair.

Their civil rights lawsuit is one of many legal challenges against hair drug tests, which are used by companies and police departments nationwide. Employers like the test because it can detect drugs up to three months after use; urine tests go back only a few days and can be easily altered.

But studies have found dark-haired people are more likely to test positive for drugs because they have higher levels of melanin, which allows drug compounds to bind more easily to their hair.

The Boston lawsuit says the officers may have had some kind of environmental exposure to cocaine, but that they didn't use the drug themselves. The former officers are seeking reinstatement to their jobs, back pay, and unspecified damages.

Six of the seven former officers had a second hair test conducted that came back negative within days of the positive result. Harris had another hair test, a urine test and a blood test. All were analyzed by a different laboratory and all came back negative.

"It was humiliating," he said. "People who I once considered friends or comrades in arms treated me differently. They looked at me differently."

Police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole said the department believes the hair testing policy is sound.

"Our department's lawyers have certainly studied this and are prepared to go forward and defend the existing policy," O'Toole said. "To date, nobody has presented anything that's caused us to believe that we should abandon our current policy."

Boston police began testing hair in 1999, replacing urine tests. Their testing company, Psychemedics Corp., is the largest provider of hair testing for drug use, with clients including Fortune 500 companies and police departments in Chicago and Los Angeles.

William Thistle, Psychemedic's senior vice president and general counsel, said the company's tests are well-supported and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Each hair sample is thoroughly washed and soaked for an extensive period of time to remove any contaminants. If an initial test comes back positive, the sample is tested again, Thistle said.

"The fact is that the test is extremely reliable," he said.

But critics say it's far from perfect. Police are especially vulnerable because they can be exposed to drug residue on the job, they say.

Fort Wayne, Ind., narcotics detective Timothy Bobay tested positive for cocaine after a hair sample was taken from his forearm during a random screening last year.

The police chief moved to fire him, but Bobay vehemently denied using cocaine. He argued the positive test came from exposure to cocaine dust on the job three weeks earlier.

Bobay, who is white and has dark hair, had a hair sample taken from his head tested by a different laboratory and he also had a urine test. Both came back negative.

The petition to fire him was withdrawn after Psychemedics said it was unable to rule out environmental exposure to cocaine as the reason for his positive test, said Bobay's lawyer, Patrick Arata.

Under the substance abuse policy in Boston, officers who test positive for drug use are either fired or suspended for 45 days without pay and required to undergo rehab. Six of the seven police officers refused to sign rehabilitation agreements. The seventh officer signed the agreement so he could keep his job, but was later fired after testing positive in another hair test.

Dr. Bruce Goldberger, director of toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine, said he is more supportive of hair testing than he was five or 10 years ago because laboratory procedures have improved.

But the American Civil Liberties Union says the science is still questionable and discriminatory.

"Here you have police officers on the front line whose reputations have been horribly tarnished, if not destroyed, and who are out of a job because of a drug test that may have identified them for being guilty of nothing more than the color of their skin," said ACLU attorney Allen Hopper.

"We had a person voice their concerns about information they had heard on the street," said Chief Richard Keith of the Morristown Police Department.

Keith said police at first could not believe what they had heard. But when they went to Morrisville Cemetery and investigated, they found that someone had broken into a tomb, broken open the casket and removed a man's head.

"We had the funeral director come to the scene and we pulled the casket out. Yes, indeed, we found remains and they had been disturbed," Keith said.

Nickolas Buckalew, 17, later was arrested and charged with unauthorized removal of a dead body. He pleaded innocent to the crime.

Police believe they have a strong case against Buckalew because remains and evidence were found in a silo near the suspect's home outside the village and one-fifth of a mile from the cemetery.

"Within minutes we found the duffle bag with the remains in it and tools that were used to enter the tomb and the casket," Keith said.

The victim's widow, the only family member in the area, was told of the vandalism.

"The widow was in shock," the chief said. "She did not want any information. She did not want to know any details."

Authorities are not sure of the motive of the crime. Court documents said the suspect allegedly talked of using the man's head as a bong or a pipe for smoking marijuana.

Worker Fired for Medical Marijuana use has Lawsuit Reinstated

1/13/2005, 12:34 a.m. PT

The Associated Press

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit filed by a man who alleged that his employer failed to accommodate his use of medical marijuana.

Robert Washburn's employer, Portland-based Columbia Forest Products, fired him from its Klamath Falls mill after urine tests detected marijuana residue in his system.

Washburn suffers from neck pain and muscle spasms that disrupt his sleep. He obtained a state-issued medical marijuana registration card 1999.

A Multnomah County Circuit Court judge had tossed out Washburn's lawsuit, ruling that the state Medical Marijuana Act doesn't require a company to make accommodations for workers with marijuana in their system.

But the Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a positive drug test based on a urine sample does not prove that a worker used or possessed marijuana at work. It also found that the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act does not prohibit workers in Oregon from using marijuana for medical purposes.

But the court also found that Washburn's use of medical marijuana does not automatically entitle him to accommodations. Instead, the court said, an employer could argue that certain accommodations might be unreasonable or create an "undue hardship."

The appeals court ordered the Multnomah County Circuit Court to decide whether Washburn's accommodation request was reasonable. Washburn asked Columbia Forest Products to use a blood test to determine whether he violated company policy forbidding drug use at work.

A blood test is considered a more accurate measure of whether marijuana exists in the bloodstream, employment attorneys say.

The ruling is the first attempt to clear up a confusing area of law for scores of employers.

The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act says employers don't have to accommodate the "medical use of medical marijuana in any workplace." But Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries officials have said that under the state disabilities act, employers might have to make reasonable accommodations for medical-marijuana cardholders with qualified disabilities.

Philip Lebenbaum, an attorney who represented Washburn, called the decision a victory for workers who use marijuana for medical reasons. But he said the ruling does not allow workers to show up unfit for work.

1) Insurance requirements may require corporations to drug test their employees.

2) The corporation wants to lay off people, but wants to use a positive drug test as the reason so they will not have to pay any benefits.

3) A new Random Drug Testing program has been implemented in the corporation and it starts after the first of the year. Before drug testing was only required during preemployment.

Whatever the reason is it is very critical for YOU - the employee to be prepared for any drug testing situation that might arise. I say this in very strong terms as I have seen it time and time again that a person is not prepared for his/her drug test and they come to us seeking help for a drug test they have already taken.

I want to make it very clear to all the people that rely on TESTCLEAR products that we can not help you after you have TESTED POSITIVE. You must be prepared at all times, and being prepared in a job situation means that you should have the Powdered Urine Kit on hand just in case.

The best way to beat a drug test is by having a game gameplan.

Happy Holidays.

Many people think what we do here is politically incorrect but this Blog will give me an opportunity to help those people see, "The other side of the barn" so to speak. If you are one those that believe that everyone should be drug tested then I am sure there will be some good debate here.

Many people are led to believe that only the darkest elements of society need our services, but that simply is not the case. I talk to people all the time who are raising a family, making mortgage payments, and participating in the American Dream. And then they are faced with risking it all because of a society invention called, "The Drug Test".

The battle cry for 'Drug Testing' began in the name of safety. No one wants to ride in airplane whose pilot is on drugs, but the fact of the matter is that even the cashier that works at Wal-mart is being drug tested, and that marijuana can be detected up to 90 days. Now something is very fishy here, and we should not be terminating a person's employment for something done 90 days ago.

Most people would be very surprised of the wide array of people that we have helped with our products which includes Fortune 500 executives, professional athletes, and even an Oscar winner. However, the majority of people are hard working people such as yourself.