"As long as there is a demand for illegal drugs, there will be dealers eager to make a profit selling drugs to our children," said Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.). "We must focus on reducing demand, and one of the most effective ways to accomplish this is through random drug testing."

Random drug testing to reduce demand? Now maybe I miss the inherently logical thinking in that statement, but I am unaware of how drug testing reduces demand for drugs in more than some minor round-about way. Likely the fine Representative is suggesting that if kiddoes think they might get caught, they are less likely to purchase drugs in the first place. I'd venture a guess that in some way that may be partially accurate, but I'd also surmise the solution ain't that simple.

My argument is based on the fact that I am actually young enough to still recall being in high school. Though my memory is not exceptionally vivid, I seem to remember doing whole bunches of things with whole bunches of other kids regardless of the belief we might get caught. For example, after my alma mater decided that too many of us kids were getting drunk and coming to basketball games, they implemented a little program of having the principal and vice principal walk through and watch over the student section at all games. They would strike up conversations, and generally try to see who was "on the sauce..." Well, a buddy or two got found out and then suspended, but most of us just bought more gum.... We thought it was our "right" to drink, and beside, you had to to be cool....

That said, I have a feeling random drug testing of students is the same ball of wax.... Kids will still do the drugs. a handful will quit, and the rest will figure out ways to beat the system. (So you get kids ordering piss off the internet, swearing that they eat poppy-seed bagels daily, or ingesting more dieuretics than Rosie on a binge diet....) Anyway, I think Rep. Petersons bill is short sighted and he should be focusing his energy elsewhere.

And finally, I really dislike Mr. Peterson's suggestion that we should pick up the bill by authorizing the expenditure of $100 million to fund the new testing.... Not what I really want to pay tax dollars for..... if somebody wants to test their own kid fine, but don't take my money to check your brat.....

Here's the article:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200207\CUL20020719b.html

This goofy statement comes from PETA Director of Vegan Outreach Bruce Friedrich.

Let me preface this brief diatribe by stating I have nothing against vegans, vegetarians, or anyone else for that matter. Hell, if you subsist solely on beans (or beef) I couldn't care less. But I do have issues with PR people espousing health information. Notice the conspicuous lack of an MD or DO on the end of Mr. Friedrich's name. Further notice his title is Director of Vegan Outreach, this may indicate a sligh bias in his point of view. Finally, note that he is speaking on behalf of PETA, and use your previous knowledge of this pro-animal organization to temper the credulity you give to his argument.

My point here being, I have no problem with folks of any stripe stating opinions of any sort. Mr. Friedrich would ne'er have raised my ire if he simply stated, "We at PETA believe that the best thing anyone can do to reduce their health care costs is to simply go vegetarian." That statement is perfectly acceptable. But a blanket statement of this sort, by a talking head for a biased organization, should be taken with an extremely large grain of salt.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.... I won't even get into the fact that the comment was in the context of the release of a survey querying participants on the benefits of a "Meat-tax."