Teen ScreenTeen Screen was developed by Dr. David Shaffer, known for his connections to the pharmaceutical industry and Columbia University. Many watchdog groups opposed the use of mental health screening programs and viewed them as marketing opportunities for drug manufacturers. It was proven that these mental health screenings were conducted on minors without parental consent. In 2005, Teen Screen became the subject of a lawsuit in Indiana filed by parents who objected to the “passive consent” procedure. The Rutherford Institute, a non-profit civil liberties organization, criticized the use of "passive consent," by which parents who do not want their children screened need to sign a form and send it in to the school. If the school does not receive a form, it is assumed that the parents do not object. In June 2006, after the lawsuit, Teen Screen changed their consent procedures to require active parental consent, but offered incentives such as movie tickets and gift vouchers to students to encourage participation. In situations where neither parent is accessible (i.e., in teen shelters or the juvenile justice system), passive consent (parental consent assumed if not explicitly denied) would suffice. Teen Screen led to massive drug use with children in the foster care and juvenile justice system where there was scant oversight or protections for human rights.
The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution guarantees our citizens the right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, a right that extends to all citizens regardless of their age. There were several important Supreme Court Decisions regarding whether children could be tested for drugs by schools:
1) Vernonia School District v. Wayne Acton
2) Board of Educ. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma Petitioner v EARLS.
In 1995 by a 6-3 decision in Vernonia School District v. Wayne Acton the U. S. Supreme Court decided that because public school athletics are susceptible to injuries, their right to Fourth Amendment protection could be waived in order to protect them from the added dangers of illegal drug use. The court gave schools the right to require suspicionless drug testing. Before making it to the Supreme Court the issue made it to the Federal Appeals Court. At the appeals court Veronia had submitted as their expert witness Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Jr. Dr. DuPont is the founding director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the second White House Drug Czar. It was Dr. DuPont's NIDA that administered a $ 1 million grant to The Seed -- Straight's predecessor program. Later Dr. DuPont became a paid Straight consultant and was an expert witness for Straight in several civil trials. DuPont became chairman of the scientific advisory board for Psychemedics--the world's premier hair testing drug program. The Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF) is a leader in establishing national and international drug policy and lobbying successfully for its own interests.
Board of Educ. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma Petitioner v EARLS by a decision of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court extended suspicionless drug testing beyond the scope of the Veronia decision to include suspicionless drug testing of any student involved in any extracurricular activity in a school. The court decided that "schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs an individual's right to privacy. The justices were aided in their decision process by an Amicus Curie (friends of the court) brief that had been filed with the court and signed by a large number of individuals prominent in American drug policy, many of whom had relationships with DFAF.
The Drug Free America Foundation has positioned itself as a leader in establishing national and international drug policy. Straight Foundation, under its new name, DFAF co-sponsors The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) workshops.
References and citations: 1. TeenScreenTruth.com,
http://www.teenscreentruth.com/teenscre ... ayers.html 2. Groenendijk, Charly, AntidepressantsFacts 2004 – 2009, Antidepressantsfacts.com,
http://www.antidepressantsfacts.com/Bus ... rogram.htm3. Breggin, Peter, Dr. Peter Breggin PhD Psychologist, International Counselors, Social Workers, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, & Educators, ICSPP.org,
http://www.icspp.org/ Dr. Breggin's 40-year effort to expose the scientific and ethical hazards of biopsychiatric theory and practices including psychiatric diagnoses, drugs, and ECT. And second, to encourage and inspire humane and ethical empathic social services and therapies that assist individuals and families toward better and more successful lives without the harmful effects of biopsychiatric interventions. You can also visit Dr. Breggin's professional page at Breggin.com,
http://www.Breggin.com.
4. According to PublicIntegrity.org, more than a third of pharmaceutical companies' resources go into promotion and marketing. Notice that these companies spend many more millions of dollars to market their products than they invest in research and development. Perhaps we should be demanding better research rather than great commercial advertising to push products for which there is not adequate research into patient safety and into the efficacy of treatment.
Company Marketing costs in Research and Development Pfizer$16.90 billion in Marketing $7.68 billion in Research and Development
Glaxo Smith Kline$12.93 billion in Marketing $5.20 billion in Research and Development
Sanofi-Aventis$5.59 billion, $9.26 billion
Johnson & Johnson$15.86 billion, $5.20 billion
Merck$7.35 billion$4.01 billion
Novartis, $8.87 billion, $4.21 billion
Astra Zeneca$7.84 billion, $3.80 billion
Hoffman La Roche$7.24 billion, $4.01 billion
Bristol-Myers Squibb$6.43 billion, $2.50 billion
Wyeth$5.80 billion,$2.46 billion
Abbott Labs$4.92 billion,$1.70 billion
Annually, the industry spends nearly twice as much on marketing as it spends on research and development, although drug companies report neither total precisely. Various news reports estimate that the industry spent anywhere between $30 billion to $60 billion on marketing in 2004. The trade group PhRMA estimates its members spent $39 billion on R&D that year. As this table shows, the same year, 11 major companies reported spending close to $100 billion on marketing, along with administrative expenses not categorized separately. Those companies reported spending $50 billion on R&D. In 2004, Pfizer spent almost $120 million for media ads for Lipitor, the world's number-one selling prescription drug, while companies promoting erectile dysfunction treatments Viagra, Levitra and Cialis spent $425 million. Direct to consumer advertisement has also grown significantly: from $791 million in 1996 to $3.8 billion in 2004.
5. The actual copy of the lawsuit is on the Rutherford Institute's website. case 3:05-cv-00586-JTM-CAN - Rutherford.org
http://www.rutherford.org/PDF/Filed_Complaint.pdf 6. Lenzer, Jeanne, British Medical Journal, US teenager's parents sue school over depression screening test, BMJ.com,
http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7519/714.2/suppl/DC17. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646 (1995). Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ronia.html8. BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS (01-332) 536 U.S. 822 (2002), 242 F.3d 1264, reversed. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy implemented by the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County (School District) requires all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing. Because this Policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, we hold that it is constitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-332.ZO.html 9. BOARD OF EDUC. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA Petitioner, v. EARLS. June 27, 2002 These are the signers of the Amicus brief in support of drug testing. The signers include: Drug Free America Foundation (DFAF); Robert DuPont who is on DFAF's advisory board; Peter Bensinger (Peter Bensinger is former head of the DEA and is the business partner with Robert DuPont); Julie Murdoch, Esq. (an employee with Bensinger, DuPont & Associates); Bensinger DuPont & Associates, Bethesda, MD; Institute for Behavior & Health, Bethesda, MD (another Robert DuPont company); Institute on Global Drug Policy (a division of DFAF); Eric Voth, MD, Topeka, KS (but Dr. Voth is the director of DFAF's Institute on Global Drug Policy); Ambassador Melvyn Levitsky who has co-authored an article on drug policy with Dr. Eric Voth; Donald Ian Macdonald, M.D. (Straight's former national research director turned White House Drug Czar); Stephanie Haynes of Save Our Society From Drugs TM, (but SOS is a Betty Sembler foundation); Legal Foundation Against Illicit Drugs (an organization founded by Calvina Fay, executive director of DFAF, and others); Otto Hauswirth, M D, of the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Addicts (DFAF's Calvina Fay is director the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse); Carolyn Burns, of Louisville, KY. DFAF's Calvina Fay is a board member and past president of Drug Watch International (DWI). DWI or its International Drug Strategy Institute division includes or has included Robert L. DuPont and Peter Bensinger, Straight's former national research director Donald Ian Macdonald, Straight's former national clinical director Miller Newton and Straight-Springfield's former research director Dr. Richard Schwartz, MD. Straight's former national executive director Bill Oliver is an Honorary Advisor for DWI (he also became director of parent training for P.R.I.D.E.). Joyce Tobias, formerly acting secretary for DWI, used to be a very active Straight parent. Alex Romero, a DWI board member, and Nancy Starr, a DWI delegate, were signers. And, of course, the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA) was a signer. You may see the brief itself at this website:
http://www.datia.org/resources/amicusbrief.htm
