Adult Entertainment and Sexually-Transmitted Diseases
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:21 PM

Back in 2004, there was an HIV outbreak among performers in adult movies; eventually five performers were found to be infected. The virus's spread might have been much broader had it not been for the Adult Industry Medical HealthCare Foundation (AIM) and its founder, Sharon Mitchell. Among other things, AIM tests adult performers for STDs. Yesterday, Dr. Mitchell and AIM put out a warning about travel to Europe for adult workers, due to a syphilis outbreak within the adult industry on the continent. There can be significant lags between contracting an STD and positive test results, so unprotected sexual activity with someone who has just tested negative for an STD is not free of disease risk (and of course, even condom protection is less than perfect).

Dr. Mitchell is not a supporter of governmental mandates in the area of sex worker health; AIM works with performers and producers on a voluntary basis. (Some of their practices, such as informing other performers and producers of positive tests, are at odds with California health privacy rules.) But STD rates in the industry are still much higher than within the public at large -- this is not the case for workers at Nevada's legal brothels -- and some people are calling for state regulation. Dr. Mitchell has suggested a "seal of approval" system, one that is paralleled by a proposal in this article:

Short of legislation mandating performer protection, restricting distribution of adult movies to condom-only films may be the one way to have an impact on the industry. If there were organized and truly effective advocacy for performers, then large hotel chains, video retailers, and cable networks could be pressured to purchase adult films under a condom-only “seal of approval.”

I learned about AIM's alert on the syphilis outbreak from (not work safe) Adult Video News.com; I found the article discussing regulation through SWOP East Sex Workers Outreach Project.

Labels: HIV, pornography, testing

 
Breath-Testing High Schoolers
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 7:36 PM

One recent innovation in our nation's secondary schools is more frequent use of breathalyzer tests:

[In East Hampton, NY] school administrators this winter proposed administering breath analyzers to students while high school is in session. Any student suspected of being drunk in class would be tested by a trained staff member, and not a police officer, board officials said. Results showing alcohol consumption would mean suspension. Refusing to take a test would be seen as an admission of guilt.

In central Connecticut, officials in the Avon School District are writing a plan similar to East Hampton's. A school district near South Bend, Ind. has had the policy in place for several years. Other districts around the country may well use their breath analyzers during the school day, even if their policies were originally intended for events outside of school.

Early identification of kids with a drinking problem -- and being drunk at school is probably a strong signal of having a drinking problem -- is helpful, as kids (like adults) can be good at hiding the extent of their alcohol dependence. Used sparingly and intelligently, school breath tests might be a good idea. But it is easy to see their use cascading into a tool to harass the usual suspects, or to supplement phys ed classes as a means to heap indignities upon young scholars. East Hampton claims that it will use the tests discreetly and only with parental permission, but that has not always been the case elsewhere: "In Indiana, at Penn High School in Mishawaka, which has a similar policy, the principal was forced to apologize to a student who had been pulled out of class by a police officer last year and given three breath tests, all of which were negative."

Labels: alcohol, teens, testing

 
Drug Testing Refugees
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:04 PM

They came from Laos and fought for the US in the Vietnam war. Then, the US pulled out, and they could not safely return to Laos. So, thousands of the ethnic Hmong fled to Thailand, where, almost three decades later, they still live in a refugee camp. Now the US has offered any of them who are interested a new life, and citizenship, in America.

Well, almost any of them: "Drug users and criminals are ineligible."

So the Chicago Tribune (registration required) reports today. The article provides no more details of the drug user exclusion -- what drugs get one excluded, for instance? -- though it does mention that urine samples were taken.

An American who was instrumental in seeing to the citizenship offer is quoted in the Trib article as follows: "They fought with us, and they paid the highest price. . . . If the Hmong were good enough to fight and die for us, they have to be good enough to resettle." Unless they smoke a little weed, perhaps.

Incidentally, the Hmong refugees also practice polygamy, though the article suggests that they try to disguise it a bit as they recognize that Americans are uncomfortable with multiple wives (at least holding multiple wives simultaneously). They better not get caught masking a drug test, though!

Labels: Asia, drugs, testing

 
Cheating on Drug Tests
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 9:25 PM

A few days ago this story on methods of cheating on drug tests appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times, and yesterday it was reprinted in the Sun-Times edition for people with short attention spans (that's the edition I have), Red Streak. The article claims that America hosts more than 40 million employment-related drug tests per year. (It doesn't say, but surely this must be yet another area in which America leads the world!) Less than 5% of these tests turn out positive. (The article somehow interprets the low percentage of positives as suggestive that most people aren't using drugs or cheating, but, well, that conclusion requires some further assumptions.) Of those tests that do turn out positive, more than 55% are positive for marijuana.

An accompanying article in Red Streak (I couldn't find it online) briefly recounts a story from a man who conducts drug tests on offshore oil platforms. The tester "said entire work crews have quit on the spot -- even in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico -- rather than submit to his test." It is nice to know there is still some backbone in America -- or at least just a bit offshore. How about some of that similar, New England spirit of independence, town workers of Seabrook, New Hampshire?

Labels: drugs, testing

 
Witchhunts Back in New England!
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 12:41 PM

For some time now, many employees of the town of Seabrook, New Hampshire, have been subject to random breathalyzer and urine tests. Apparently there's been a problem with maniacal, intoxicated behavior by other town employees not subjected to the testing regime, however. So now Seabrook has closed this dangerous loophole, by overwhelmingly voting to require all town employees to undergo alcohol and drug testing:

"Following Tuesday’s vote, all town employees, including those who serve on town boards, will be subject to random drug-and-alcohol testing, according to Town Manager Fred Welch. Union contracts will need to be negotiated to include the requirement or the contract will not be valid, he said on Wednesday."

Where did this outstanding idea originate? Well, it is sort of hard to say, as this Boston Globe article reports. An article in today's New Hampshire Sunday News (registration required) doesn't fully clear things up, either, but it does offer up a gem from a selectman who favors the new rule: "Asked if he thought such testing might violate people’s privacy, [the selectman] said: 'I don’t know that there is such a thing as privacy rights when you work for the people.'" Incidentally, the testing mandate applies to volunteers who serve on various town boards.

Update: I really have to start reading Vice Squad. Seems that Seabrook is the very town that Vice Squad member Nikkie identified as being in the midst of a heroin epidemic.

Labels: alcohol, drugs, heroin, testing

 
Illinois House Looking to Increase Jobless Rate
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 4:38 PM

Once you decide that a substance is evil, there doesn't seem to be any limit as to how far you might go in combating the substance. You become willing to put people in jail if they happen to possess that substance. You become willing to put people in jail if you have evidence that they once used that substance. You do not let deathly ill people use that substance, even if it helps relieve some of their symptoms. You declare items that might be used in combination with that substance to be prohibited, too. And yesterday, an Illinois House panel (Chicago Tribune registration required) decided that it would be a good idea to put people in jail if they possessed some item that might confound the tests designed to uncover use of the demon substance:

"The legislation, endorsed 13-0 by the Judiciary Criminal Law Committee, would impose a $1,000 minimum fine and possible prison time for anyone caught with another person's urine with the intent to deceive testers.

The penalties also could be imposed for possessing other products used to cheat drug tests, such as synthetic urine, human saliva or shampoo specially formulated to deceive hair follicle tests.

Any merchant who sold the products, such as over the Internet, and shipped them to Illinois customers could also be charged under the legislation."

Why the "Increase Jobless Rate" headline? Well, the Committee acted out of "growing concern that people are cheating on drug tests to get a job."

Labels: drugs, Illinois, testing

 
Pyrrhus Watch: Victory #13
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 11:22 AM

Overlawyered recently told the petard-like story of the drunken driving arrest of the Wisconsin Attorney General, who refused to take a blood test. (Thanks also to a Vice Squad reader for sending along that tale.) In South Dakota, what if you are arrested on some minor drug-related crime and refuse to provide a urine sample? Well of course, the police will tell you that they will go to a judge to get a warrant, and they will forcibly extract the urine from you. What's more, they are telling the truth! So, the credible threat of torture induces you to consent to provide the urine sample, and you test positive for a controlled drug. Your next treat is that you are convicted of drug possession -- based solely on the evidence provided by the urine test.

The whole ugly story is from this week's Drug War Chronicle. Of course, such gross indignities are not visited upon citizens in the Land of the Free without some great, noble purpose of the highest order. That purpose, as Vice Squad regulars know, is to make it a little bit harder for some of our friends and neighbors to consume a substance that they desire to consume.

Labels: alcohol, driving, South Dakota, testing

 
Controlling Drunken Soccer Spectators
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 2:13 PM

The Euro 2004 soccer championship finals will soon be upon us, with Portugal the site for this year's tournament. One problem with these tournaments in the past has been that they attract a critical mass of soccer enthusiasts who are willing (and able, alas) to drink heavily and brawl with supporters of other national teams (or brawl among themselves, for that matter). Four years ago, host nations Belgium and the Netherlands instituted a zero tolerance policy towards fan violence, such that folks involved in any fisticuffs were quickly herded up and shipped home, prevented from seeing any more of the soccer action in person. (Charges were later dropped against most alleged offenders, but it was the arrest, temporary confinement, and exile that was the real punishment, anyway.) There was still a bit of violence (well, even some rioting), but the strict policy was widely viewed as a success.

Preparations are now underway to provide security for Euro 2004. England supporters have traditionally provided more than their share of hooligans, and the UK has greatly expanded the number of citizens (to 2000, with hundreds more to be added) who are covered by travel bans (precluding foreign travel) during the tourney. A new approach to be used by the Portuguese police, however, will be to require alcohol and drug tests of fans who appear to be visibly intoxicated. Though details are sketchy, it sounds as if the screening will take place prior to entering stadium grounds. In other words, entering a stadium while intoxicated will be an offense that precludes admission, even if you are a pleasant, quiet drunk. It is unclear if those who become intoxicated (again, without otherwise misbehaving) during the match will be sent off. It is also unclear how the drug tests will be carried out.

Labels: alcohol, Europe, soccer, testing, zero tolerance

 
"Negligible" Intrusions Upon Privacy
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:19 PM

This Associated Press story in today's Chicago Tribune (registration required) concerns people who have a difficult time urinating into a cup on demand: "Their problem, a little-known phobia known as paruresis, or shy bladder syndrome, isn't new. But the intensely personal malady is getting some unwelcome exposure, an unforeseen consequence of widespread workplace drug testing." The Trib article tells the story of a man who was fired from his job at a Caterpillar plant in Georgia for his inability to produce a urine sample within the requisite three hours. This seems to me to be a very fair way for managers to implement downsizing.

The Trib story suggests that things might improve. What, silly drug testing eliminated, you ask? Well, er, no -- it's just that testing methods that employ hair, saliva, or sweat are growing in popularity. Keep your eye on unemployment rates among bald men.

The Supreme Court is a big fan of urine tests, at least when they are foisted upon schoolkids. Here's a sample from the majority opinion in Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (94-590), 515 U.S. 646 (1995), upholding a school district's policy of drug testing student athletes: "Under the District's Policy, male students produce samples at a urinal along a wall. They remain fully clothed and are only observed from behind, if at all. Female students produce samples in an enclosed stall, with a female monitor standing outside listening only for sounds of tampering. These conditions are nearly identical to those typically encountered in public restrooms, which men, women, and especially school children use daily. Under such conditions, the privacy interests compromised by the process of obtaining the urine sample are in our view negligible." Supreme Court to those with paruresis: too bad you don't share our view that the intrusion is negligible.

Later, the Court extended its protection of drug testing to all districts that test not just student athletes, but all students involved in extracurricular activities at school: Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls (01-332) 536 U.S. 822 (2002).

Does anyone remember when a drug testing plan in the Reagan administration was largely scuttled thanks to George Shultz's expressed willingness to take the test -- to be immediately followed by his resignation?

Labels: drugs, Supreme Court, teens, testing

 
Recent Vice News From the Blogosphere
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 6:16 PM

Adopting, yea, even perfecting the lazy person's guide to vice blogging, let me pass along some pointers to vice policy activity at better blogs:

(1) Mark Kleiman notes the suspension of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, source of much of our information about heavy drug use in the United States. Reasons for the suspension of ADAM remain murky, but Kleiman does mention that our nation's President found time in the State of the Union address to propose more funds for high schools that would like to administer drug tests to their students. (Remember South Carolina Senator Ernest Hollings's response when a challenger for his senate seat asked Hollings if he would take a drug test? It was along the lines of: "I'll take a drug test if he takes an IQ test.")

Over at Crescat, Peter Northrup makes a less than half-hearted, second-best argument that maybe losing the data on heavy users isn't so bad: "If all drug policy officials looked at--all they could look at--were the data on casual users, maybe we'd have a drug policy that was merely bad, rather than inexcusable."

(2) At Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok joins the Free Tommy Chong forces. While at Marginal Revolution, check out Tyler Cowen's post on how smokers who cut down partially offset the reduction in cigarettes by smoking more intensely. For more on this topic, and evidence that the offset (in this case, brought on by increased excise taxes that induce a shift to higher tar and nicotine cigarettes) is more than complete for young smokers, see William N. Evans and Matthew C. Farrelly, “The Compensating Behavior of Smokers: Taxes, Tar, and Nicotine,” Rand Journal of Economics 29: 578-595, Autumn 1998.

(3) Ken Lammers at Crimlaw documents the most recent (and most outrageous?) inroad into Fourth Amendment rights, in the service of ensuring that factually-guilty defendants will not walk. Naturally, the case involves (in part) drugs.

Labels: Crescat, Kleiman, search, testing, tobacco

 
Stateville Update
- posted by Jim Leitzel @ 1:26 PM

In keeping with Vice Squad's tradition of commenting on developments that are no longer
newsworthy, let me mention that Thursday's (October 23) Chicago Tribune contained a
brief item about another former corrections officer at the Stateville prison. (See early Vice
Squad posts on the developments at Stateville here and here.) Thursday's story involves
a guilty plea from a former prison employee who helped another guard acquire crack
cocaine, ultimately intended to be provided to prison inmates. The facilitator will be
sentenced in January, and is facing approximately 4 years in prison.

Here's the opening paragraph of a May 10, 2000 press release from the US Bureau of
Justice Statistics:

"An estimated 10 percent of the inmates tested for drugs in local jails during June 1998
tested positive for one or more illegal drugs, the Justice Department's Bureau of
Justice Statistics announced today. More than two-thirds of the 712 jails that tested
inmates had at least one inmate who tested positive."

Labels: cocaine, testing