On May 7th, the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy opened up its cave to school teachers, principals, administrators (and a few drug policy reformers) to have an impartial conversation about random student drug testing. Approximately 45 people showed up to the event, and what was great was that about 20 of those who attended only had to travel a few feet from their ONDCP desks! The setting was ONDCP's 5th floor conference room. It had no windows and really felt like a cave.

Bertha Madras gave opening remarks. She droned on and on about teen drug use and utilized a Powerpoint presentation awash with the smiling faces of kids and brightly colored brain scans to illustrate the point that teens suffer neurological damage from marijuana. She made a point of noting that teens use alcohol and tobacco most, followed by cannabis. Of course, much of Bertha's remaining talk was on cannabis and how it is a big contributor in automobile accidents. She largely ignored the larger imbibed contributor to accidents and death.

Attorney William Judge followed. He was quite amusing and likable. He made a point of publicly recognizing Tom Angell and Kris Krane as the guys from "the Drug Policy Alliance" and quipped that they weren't welcome in Heaven. Judge actually made a strong case why a school system wouldn't want to touch a RSDT program. Much of his talk touched on court cases (including Washington State) and the complex rules that public schools must follow. However, he was happy to stress that private schools need not worry as much about legal constraints. And he also offered to work pro bono for any school that wanted to start a RSDT program. Jasmine Tyler (the Deputy Director in DPA's Office of National Affairs) received a strong response from the audience when she asked why schools would want to take the risk of getting sued over RSDT. I heard several people whispering "that's a good question" and "Uh huh." Judge replied by not replying at first. He had to gather his words for a second or two. It should be noted that most of the attendees I talked with were school administrators, and several expressed reservations about the legal uncertainty and the true cost of implementing a RSDT.

Dr. Bob DuPont followed with a talk about the different testing options. He discussed - somewhat generally - the pros and cons of urine, hair, saliva and blood testing. He then abruptly asked the audience for questions. Tom Angell asked a two-pronged question of DuPont: why would schools want to implement a RSDT when the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependence oppose it. And why should the audience listen to a man who is on the payroll of drug testing laboratories? The audience responded well to this question with audible exclamations that suggested there was anticipation for DuPont's response. DuPont initially responded by tripping over a muddled response of "I don't know about that." He then allowed an ONDCP employee in the back of the room to take issue with the statement that the American Academy of Pediatrics had actually gone on record opposing RSDT. It was suggested that pediatricians oppose the practice because they don't get to do the drug testing and could derive a profit from the procedure.

I asked DuPont why hair and saliva testing is good enough for schools when the federal government has refused to utilize these methods for federal employees, and I also asked him to respond to evidence that hair testing gives a stronger positive result for dark-haired people than for blondes, and a stronger positive result for African Americans than Caucasians. Why would schools want to implement a practice that is potentially discriminatory? DuPont paused for a moment and then offered that the federal government's refusal to implement hair and saliva for employees is due to a "bureaucratic mess." He then flatly denied that hair testing is discriminatory, and that no evidence exists to support this theory (and that early controversy was put to rest by research). Shortly after my question, there was a scheduled break.

Within minutes, an ONDCP employee approached me and said "Oh, no, you can't pass out materials!" I was in the middle of a conversation with a woman. Tom and Jasmine observed as I handed over the two booklets I had in my hand to the employee, who then dropped all of our materials in the recycling bin.

The summit continued. A panel of three school officials representing a public school district in North Carolina, a Washington, DC charter school, and a Catholic private high school began. I'll offer three interesting observations about this panel:

(1) the North Carolina school district discussed their RSDT program entitled "It's My Call," which featured a carnival activity of stacking pee cups in order to "desensitize" student participants to the realities of submitting urine samples.

(2) the principal of the Catholic private school was proud to say that his RSDT program features "proactive prevention," which consists of drug dog searches and a "scared straight program."

(3) ONDCP offered up what they must have deemed to be a more palatable RSDT option for schools in a fairly progressive part of the country: voluntary RSDT. In this case, a Washington, DC had started one, and the school principal spoke glowingly about "voluntary" testing and her gradual acceptance of the concept of RSDT.

The moment open Q&A was offered to the audience, I directed a general question to ONDCP asking why public schools would want to spend money on RSDT when there have been so many legal challenges, tight budgets and so many risks. Wouldn't public schools want to spend the money on a drug abuse counselor instead?

Many of the seats in the conference room were vacant. This didn't deter Bertha Madras from taking the podium again and delivering more monotone remarks to the remaining audience (mostly ONDCP employees acting as fillers in the back of the room, a legion of the converted in the front row and Joyce Nalepka poised to spew hatred at the "pro-drug legalization groups"). The most notable statement I remember Bertha making was (paraphrased) "If you saw the lifeless body of a teen in a casket dead from an overdose you would do anything in your power to stop drug abuse. You would do anything legally, ethically to stop drug abuse, and RSDT is only one thing you can do."

I directed a question to Bertha: We have been encouraged to test students who participate in voluntary extracurricular activities. But why would we want to remove students from these activities for a positive test result when these after-school activities happen during peak drug taking hours of 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM when parents are still at work. Given that extracurricular activities are designed to keep children in school during this time, why would schools want to take a chance with discouraging students from participating in these school supervised activities by making testing a requirement of participation in extracurricular activities?

Bertha's response: There are no studies that show RSDT discourages students from participating in extracurricular activities. In fact, only around 3% of all students tested for extracurricular activities test positive for drugs so this is really a non-issue.

Well, I immediately thought that Bertha just negated the whole point of RSDT for extracurricular activities and I raised my hand to make that point and add some more points. Naturally, Bertha told the room she wanted more than just the same person to ask questions.

Joyce Nalepka spoke up and displayed a black and white printed article from The Independent newspaper in the UK with the headline "Cannabis: An Apology." She then went on to say she will be fighting the Drug Policy Alliance, its "safe crack pipe invention," and all the other pro-drug legalization groups until the day she dies.

Then Jasmine raised her hand.

Bertha called on her. Jasmine stood up and began to refute the idea that DPA is pro-drug by telling the audience that her father died from HIV-AIDS on account of a dirty syringe and her brother died from a cocaine overdose. As she was conveying this, a female ONDCP employee sitting behind her was speaking aloud saying "she's so angry" and "look at her...how sad." Jasmine kindly asked the woman to allow her to speak; however, the employee carried on with her audible commentary.

Bertha responded by saying that "it sounds like your family was smitten with drugs."

Jasmine, still standing, asked "smitten? I don't understand, what do you mean by smitten?"

Bertha replied. Smitten. The same vocal employee behind Jasmine chimed in to say that Bertha meant to say that drugs destroyed her.

"Drugs didn't destroy me. I'm right here. I'm fine,"

No, no, no, no, says Bertha. Bertha then went on to say that she's never met anyone who was disappointed that they went through treatment and recovery. She made a few more distorted, confusing and emotionally charged statements. When I raised my hand again, and as Jasmine was also eager to weigh in, Bertha felt the need to close out this calculated propaganda seminar-turned-on its head.

As Jasmine and I were leaving, the ONDCP employee had more words for what Jasmine said. Joyce told me to find something better to do with my life and Bertha gave me a neat little sneer. All in all, the summit was a smashing success.