Got a bit of a rise out of the story this morning about how Manheim Township School District officials are spending their summer worrying about drugs.
The district has released a survey and is forming a committee to study the issue (and don’t you love that? My God, what shall we do about the scourge of drugs? I know - form a committee!)
And all of it is but an obvious precursor to drug testing. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion, isn’t it?
As a graduate of Manheim Township High School - class of 1985 - I can tell you that even in the era of “Just Say No,” plenty of MTHS kids were saying yes. ‘Twas ever thus - and buried within this morning’s story is the reason why:
She cited a Columbia University study, “Pressured But Privileged,” that found a “much, much higher risk” of drug and alcohol abuse among students whose parents earned $125,000 a year or more, who received an allowance of more than $25 a week and who worked less than 30 hours a week.
“The more affluent the school, the higher the illicit drugs, such as cocaine, hallucinogens and heroin,” she said.
The more money you have to do the drugs, the more time you have to do the drugs, the better the chance that daddy’s law firm can get you bailed out if you wind up in trouble.
So if there’s a school where drug testing might be legitimate, it might be MTHS - though I think random drug testing of kids to be illegitimate in virtually every case. Again, the lines between private and public spheres; requiring a kid to pee into a cup simply because he or she wants to be on the yearbook staff clearly is an intrusion into the private sphere, though we are talking kids here - and with kids, the insinuation always is, they don’t have rights. Or rather, “we are merely trying to protect them.”
The bottom line is that this is about flushing out the bogeyman. Most kids who are toking up between classes aren’t joining the yearbook staff anyway; those who are involved in school activities and falling into the drug trap, you know, their teachers and peers are going to know about it. It’s not as if they need the drug test to pinpoint the problem - though I suppose it makes it easier to take action. And it’s a great way to smoke out those kids who are getting high but aren’t letting it affect their peformance.
How dare they take a weekend toke and get a 4.0! It mustn’t be allowed!
Incidentally, I call BS on what follows:
Marijuana use might be rising, she said, because many students and parents mistakenly consider it safe because it’s a natural herb.
“A lot of parents don’t perceive the danger because they used it, they’re fine, and they’re professionals now,” she said.
What many parents don’t realize is the level of THC, the chemical in marijuana that makes a user high, is much higher today than when they smoked “pot,” Herr said.
Memo to the anti-drug crowd: This is the same thing as saying that liquor is a bigger “problem” than beer.
But beyond this - what does this mean? That kids with a blunt today are getting more stoned than mom and dad did with Jeff Spicoli-style bong hits? That’s bunk:
Kleiman also notes that there is no evidence at all that marijuana is getting kids more stoned than it used to. Writing on his own blog, Kleiman cites the respected annual University of Michigan study that asks respondents about levels of intoxication. Writes Kleiman: “The line for marijuana is flat as a pancake. Kids who get stoned today aren’t getting any more stoned than their parents were. That ought to be the end of the argument.” Kleiman points out that the average joint is now half its former size, so even if kids are smoking more powerful pot, they are smoking less of it. ” ‘Not your father’s pot’ is a great way to convince [boomer parents] to ignore their own experience, personal or vicarious, and believe what they are told to believe.”
And that’s exactly the point. It’s krep like this that undercuts the entire anti-drug argument.
