Do I have the right...

Pages: 1234
My school has sent out forms for parents to fill out, regarding drug testing. By my parent signing the form they are signing that the school may conduct random drug tests on me. I agree (considering I am clean), however, am deathly afraid of needles and know that blood tests are a common way of drug testing. My question is: Even though my parents have agreed, may I refuse a blood test and force the school to allow me a urine test? (This is all legal speaking, for argument's skae pretend I am in America/UK)
They can't make you do anything. There may be ramifications to not complying (suspension until you do?), but I can't imagine they'll do a blood test. That's a lot more expensive and time consuming than a simple oral swab test or urine test. I've never had to do a blood test for drugs, even when I was doing my military physical exam they had us do a urine test.
> the school may conduct random drug tests on me.
closed account (zb0S216C)
Here in the UK, testing students for drugs use is also random[1, Drugs Tests, UK]. Here in Stoke, testing for drugs (and STDs, STIs, etcetera) should be mandatory.


[1, Drugs Tests, UK]

Last edited on
Why should it be mandatory? A kid who smokes weed on the weekends is not automatically going to fail or stab his fellow students. What goes on outside of the school is no business of the school, IMO (except for things like child abuse and bullying, ofc).
Last edited on
closed account (zb0S216C)
Weed isn't harmful so it shouldn't be taken too seriously, especially if it's medicinal. Students who are believed to be taking drugs like heroin, cocaine, crystal methamphetamine, etcetera should be subject to these tests and then send to mandatory rehabilitation clinics if they fail the tests. If the student is taking drugs outside of school they shouldn't be subject to tests unless they arrive in school in a "drugged" state.

Last edited on
Alright, that's different to what you said before. I agree, hard drugs are a different case, and if you're doing it in school you're asking for trouble (although I did that on the last day of sixth form). Although, weed is actually more harmful than tobacco if you smoke it.

Also, I've never heard of drug tests in this country.
In response to Script Coder, It's highly unlikely they'll do a blood test. Compared to urine or saliva testing, it's needlessly expensive and precise. At my highschool they did mouth swabs, which have a wildly short window of opportunity for testing positive. Like, I've heard tales of people getting high at night and passing the drug test the following afternoon.

On the context of weed and drug testing, I tried smoking the pots for the first time in august just after I found out that my new job didn't drug test. I'd been want to try it for a while, and I knew my roommate used to smoke. That was the end of last summer, now I'm a regular user and regret nothing. I actually had the infamous 'LISP epiphany' while watching a lecture video on data structures using LISP at a solid [7] (where [0] is sober and [10] is somewhere on the moon).
There is legislation in the US Congress under way to lift the prohibition of marijuana at the federal level is a happy happy thought. (ftw, the legislation would leave it up to the states to regulate, just like alcohol and tobacco. If the end of alcohol prohibition showed us anything it shouldn't be long till it's legalized in every state.)

weed is actually more harmful than tobacco if you smoke it.
Only because of the temperature at which it burns, and that's just increased immediate harm. AFAIK Mariujana does not contain nearly as many carcinogens as tobacco, and one of the upsides to smoking out of a bong is the water helps reduce the tar in the smoke. And, if you put ice in the stem the smoke is cooled beneath it's usual throat scorching temperatures.
Last edited on
Meanwhile in the UK, it was moved up to class B (meaning jail time for possession) again a few years ago. In my and some of my friends' experience, though, the police don't care and won't arrest you, even if you have it in public. Even if you walk past them on Millennium Bridge...

IMO any drug that doesn't have demonstrable and prevalent negative effects should be legal to possess. In this country, you can find a certain type of fungus in the autumn. Not buy it, find it. As in, go to a field and pick it off the ground. You can also buy the spores and grow it yourself. But it's illegal to possess or cultivate the actual mushroom. It makes no sense to me.
If you don't want a needle you wont get it, no one will want to put a needle in if you cant but help associate a jab as violence of some kind, they will totaly understand if they are reasonable.

I never heard of drugs testing at school! your obviously not legally obliged to do anything unless there is some kind of court order, the institution can do what it likes however.

This is clever, this is how you can use the law, if you know it...

i used to be pro weed but some of my mates have gone crazy, its a sad state actually you cant get them to a headshrinker cos they think its a concpiracy, i blame the superskunk, the stuff our parents smoked was sooo much milder, pretty soon no one will be smoking weed at least i hope not, not until its weaker.

Some drugs i just dont understand why theyre illeagal, especially when kids activities have a worst saftey (horse riding with a helmet, council climbing frames) record and theres been no longterm effects discovered for over 50 years, like your in complete control on acid, while you can drink yourself to death or go joyriding/think your invincible.

I think the public has had it soo drilled in their heads that drugs are bad, that not a spot of reason is ever going to be allowed in a discussion ever again, interesting social experiment though.

EDIT: that scilly little mushroom is now ileagal to even pick, you cant take it home and dry it or put in in a nice pot of honey and lemon thats still illeagal! i dont think its illeagal to get on your hands and knees and graze, youl put the locals at eas with your behaviour tho, may even make freinds.
Last edited on
If they do come at you with a needle, be 100% sure that you watch them take it out of its sealed packaging -- and refuse the test otherwise. Getting stuck with a dirty needle is something that you simply cannot risk.

On drugs: I've lost close friends. I've seen respectable people turn into scumbags in a matter of weeks. Whoever says such substances harmless should get their heads examined and consider themselves lucky for not having to go through the loss of a loved one.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
yeah weed might not be a bad drug, but what if you get addicted then get worse and worse drugs and start robbing, mugging etc. and this could have been prevented with a drug test.
There's no scientific consensus on whether THC has positive or negative long-term effects. Obviously smoking it will damage your health, but that's because you're inhaling smoke and resin, which has nothing to do with THC. Eating it or vaporising it have no proven physical or mental health risks. There is evidence that THC, like other drugs, might cause psychosis and other psychological disorders, but there's also evidence that they only exacerbate them in those already susceptible, and there's also evidence that they don't do anything at all. No causal relationship has been established, so you can just as well say that being mentally ill causes people to use drugs as you can say that drug abuse causes people to become mentally ill; there's just as much evidence for both of those arguments, as well as for the position that they're both part of a bigger picture. There are no recorded deaths due to THC overdose ever (there was a girl in the USA that died from smoking (legal) synthetic marijuana recently though) and although there is an established toxicity, an average person would have to ingest about 5 mg of THC, with none being lost, to reach it. It's also generally held to be non-addictive, although there is apparently evidence of withdrawal and people do build up a tolerance to it, so that may not be true. As for psilocybin, it is definitely non-addictive because the more you take in a short period of time, the less it affects you (I mean in several doses; a larger does will obviously effect you more than a smaller one). I don't know about the relationship between psilocybin and mental health, though, but from what I've heard it's the same as THC; it's accepted that if you develop psychosis, you were already susceptible to it.

Ultimately, don't do drugs if you have family history of mental illnesses or you aren't emotionally stable. And never do hard drugs. Other than that, have fun.
Last edited on
Weed was banned in the USA in the 1930's. The mechanism used for implementing the bann at the time was via racist stories in the news paper, claiming things like "Marijuana makes black men step on the shadows of white men. Marijuana makes black men stare into the eyes of white men for 3 seconds or longer ...

When these stories were being printed they did not use the name canibus at that time (which was what the medical association back then were familiar with), instead they used the Mexican word marijuana which was not well known at all amongst the target audience of the news papers back then.

The main reason for this bann was due to weed being a threat to the financial interest of the super rich. Basically weed has about 50 thousand industrial applications, which imply that it will greatly drive down the cost in all these industries.

Besides also driving down cost due to weed being a highly replenishable resource, it also produces superior products in most cases.

Weed also prevents and cures cancer!!!

Thus with current statistics of 1 out 4 people will get cancer, one can claim that you are using cannibus to prevent yourself from becoming part of that statistic. In actual fact one may even see it like this:

If the authorities try confescating your weed then its the same as increasing your chances to get cancer. So why should you allow that. It would be almost the same as allowing them to inject you with the aids virus. Most people I know would brutally kill such an authority regardless of how many medals they have pinned to them.

Lookup "The emperor wear no clothes" by Jack Herer.

Also lookup Rick Simpsons hemp oil. Although Rick believes only the hemp oil can cure most cancers other evidence suggests that heavy use will also produce the same effect.

So anybody still professing that weed is bad is really a racist.

Alcohol is waaaaaay more addictive, dangerous, and bad for your health than weed. Though government is finally coming around to that.

Weed is actually legal to possess in Washington state right now. But not legal to grow or sell... so it's kind of weird.


And yes, hemp has a million and one useful applications that it can't be used for because of legal reasons. It really is retarded.
Last edited on
@Disch - what is really retarded is society for allowing this to continue even when they are presented the facts.
Society is a stubborn thing. People get stuck in their ways and don't like change. You can see this anywhere, not just in this issue.
If you haven't noticed, people in general ARE retarded. Don't believe me? Go on Facebook, or in a Walmart, or anywhere with people really.
Ultimately, don't do drugs if you have family history of mental illnesses or you aren't emotionally stable. And never do hard drugs. Other than that, have fun.

It's funny you say that because the thing that kept me from trying pot for the longest time was that I have manic depressive bi-polar disorder. I've been on medication for that for most of my life and I wasn't sure what side effects cannabinoids could have on my medication or on the symptoms of the disorder it's self. I looked up some studies on the matter and found that smoking marijuana has been shown to alleviate symptoms when a dose is missed and has shown no ill side effects. Turns out it works on a bi-polar brain in much the same way mood-stabilizers do.
That statement was really a catch-all, because there's no conclusive evidence either way. It's generally accepted that THC and psilocybin will exacerbate symptoms in emotionally unstable people, but it hasn't been scientifically established by any means. I have heard before that people with depression and bi-polar are actually helped by psilocybin, but you have to be in a safe place and a good mood, otherwise you'll get a bad trip and it will make it worse. Also, with bipolar, you might not be that volatile. I've heard of people whose manic episodes would last for months or years at a time. If yours are stable for at least a day or two at a time (psilocybin's effects can last for 6-12 hours depending on how much you take) then taking psilocybin might actually be beneficial.

The same may apply for THC. My knowledge of each is pretty patchy.

As for LSD, it's more of a risk, supposedly you can become permanently depersonalised. Although there's a good chance that's just an urban myth, probably perpetuated by anti-drugs lobbyists.
Pages: 1234