Compulsary drug testing for pubs/clubs in Aberdeen

It seems that the police along with pub and club owners in Aberdeen have joined other cities in making it compulsary for pub/club goers to face compulsary drug testing if they want to have access to the pub/club.

Although it is claimed people can say no, they are denied access if they refuse and if the police in Aberdeen are as bad as other areas, those saying no for any number of reasons (privacy, human rights, being wrongly accused of handaling drugs etc) will be investigated by the police. Saying no is not an option.

With some schools and the police wanting drug testing in schools, it is not hard to see a time when the min we walk out the door we are tested for all sorts of things and it is not hard to see that the children of today will be the brainwashed of tomorrow, which is handy for those pub/club owners and the police.

As with the schools, testing is done in public, so you better make sure you wash your hands everytime you touch a surface just incase it has been contaminated because that will get you ether a ‘amber’ or ‘red’ light which will see you getting searched for drugs in public.

If the pub/club owners and the police realy cared about combating drugs in pubs/clubs they would deal with the dealers rather than trying to brainwash us into thinking it is OK to be tested wherever we go.

The cost of these things to test  a few hundered people queing to get in is about £30,000.00 whereas hiring a sniffer dog that can easily go from one pub to the nest and search a lot more people and catch the dealers is about £300.00 a night.

Why would the pub/club owners want to spend £30,000.00 to find out who might have been in contact with drugs (the machine does not know if you handled the drugs directly or if you simply touched a contaminated surface) rather than spend about £300.00 for dog to catch the dealers is something you would would need to ask the club/pub owners because I can only think of 2 reasons. 1) the machine is purley another PR stunt or 2) for some reason they do not want to target the dealers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7702856.stm

ChildProtectionLine, good or bad?

I only heard about this via the media, so I contacted the Scottish goverment about it. To my suppsrise I got a prity full reply (not often that happens!).

From what I could make out from the reply, there are good and bad points about it (some of the questions/issues are still not sorted).

Good. This is a single phone number that people can call if they are not sure who to call. The people on the other side of the phone will be able to direct people to the relevant department/service. That means if the SS (social services) are the best people to contact, then they will be directed there, if it’s the police, then they will be directed there. This should save time in getting things sorted and it makes sure the right people are contacted. It should (if it works OK) mean that children can be saved/protected more than they are just now.

BAD?. There are few things in life that are all good, and this is no exception. In theory there will not be a creation of a national database of accused, but with the goverment looking to creat things like the childs index, then it means there is a database be default. It also means that that anyone with access to the child index (SS, police, schools, local authorities, fire service, health authorities etc) will be able to find out the family are being investigated. Some of them should know, but why would the fire service ‘need to know’? In theory those accused will be able to clear their names, but that is easier said than done (dont forget that forced adoptions have increased 3 fold in some areas after ‘targets’ for adoption were brought in and the SS are famous for miscarages of justice and operate under secrecy to the extent the concept of a ‘fair trial’ is not a garantee). There is also no way of knowing if their file will be deleted if they are found not guilty (remember even children never charged or cautioned have a ‘police record’ and have their DNA stored nationaly). It could (even if this is not the aim) mean that a national network of accused is set up due to the ‘joined up’ thing the goverment is keen on.

There is also the issue about people own perecption of what is right. There are people that think you should never drink when you have children, so could they report people that fail to meet their own personal standards? The theory is, they accused would be investigated but as I pointed out above, this has it’s own problems. There is also the issue of double reporting. That should be sorted out quickly, but the fact that some others have been brought in, such as the SS, could mean it appears on their childs record available via the child index. Having never done drugs, I dont know if people seeking help are always reported to the police or SS. This new scheme seems to garuntee they would be brought in.

There is also a question mark about how you check people are drinking too much or taking drugs. Would all accussed be forced to have a edical exam to test for drugs or conditions that could be caused by drinking? Would they be required to have a breath test for alcohol on a random basis? With goverment having a ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ card for everything, would this be used against parents? Would children be asked about the acctivities their parents get up to? Would the accused be allowed to chalange claims made by others, such as neibours?

Would info get into the accused medical records? This is something the reply does not full answere. It is important that the choice about having the info stored in the medical record of the accused is only done with explicit consent, yet that is not a garuntee. Dont forget who will have access to this record. It is not just the GP, there are all the doctors/nurses and a large amount of admin staff at the practice (and future practices) who will have access. There are insurance comapines, employers can ask for it and with the goverment looking more and more at national records. I have managed to avoid some of these problems (cant do anything about insurance comapines or employers as the Scottish goverment could not care less about the level of access these scum have), but that was only after being treated like dirt by NHS Grampain and other PCTs, by me endgaering my health and by me not giving in to scum. I dont know of anyone else who has that protection/privacy, yet info could be getting put in their records without their explicit consent.

I fully support the idea of protecting children, but there is so much secrecy (this only protects doctors, SS, creates distrust, causes serious misscarages of justice and allows SS to do what ever it takes to get children. See links bellow).

There does seem to be better ways of helping drug users and people with other problems. The only problem is, this would need to be a truly confidential service and the goverment would ratehr spend money on paying locums £1000 a day or spend money on out of hour services to justify spending hundreds of millions (£20 billion in England) on national medical records that are less secure that the goverment claims. They could spend more money on having enough social workers, but again, they dont seem to fancy that idea. They seem to think it is better to set up a net work where neibour spies on neibour and thos who object to be spied on are simply told ‘nothing to hide. nothing to fear’. At the same time, they complain if they are monitoured talking to a suspected terrorist. I am not saying nothing should be done, but is a national phone number the best way to proect children or would it be better to help the people this number is targeting (suspected drug and alcohol abusers)?

Some links you might want to read:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nadopt115.xml

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/nadopt105.xml

Random drug test on children?

This is a growing problem in the UK. It seems that some parents have so much distruss in thei children they like the idea of their children being forced to have random drug test. Schools seem to love the idea too, but concidering they liked the idea of introducing ‘virtual strip searches’ in schools, the fact they demand children take drug test is no surprise. The problem?

First of all the drug test (which is classed as a medical) is done in front of the rest of class by taking a check swab which is tested there and then (no privacy about the results).

It creates distrust. Teachers and parents are in effect telling their children they don’t trust them whilst the teachers and parents dont have to be tested.

They are not as reliable as they are promoted. At one school 2 pupils had a false positive, one of them failed because the toothpaste she used was confused with crystal meth

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=439743&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments).

The testing breaches medical ethics as pupils are being forced to have a medical exam (they have no way of saying no without being accused of being a drug user by the ‘nothing to hide nothing to fear’ crap brigade). The pupils that failed were model pupils, which made the school think something was wrong. I very much doubt the school would have thought that if the pupils were ‘trouble’ pupils. Personally, I think if a trouble pupil gets a positive, they will be treated very differently by the school. But then again, I could be wrong. I doubt I am wrong, but never say never. Teachers are now even allowed to search pupils, although it should be stressed that this search is no way near as bad as they have in the USA where schools are allowed to strip-search children (http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/092006search.cfm). There has already been a few instances of this happening even before this became law (might want to think twice about going to the States to stay if you have children).Then again, it could be worse. You could be going through Israel where morals and ethics dont seem to apply and security staff are allowed to abuse men, woman and children ( http://www.counterpunch.org/weir03152007.html). Personally I think it is sick that such abusers are allowed anywhere near adults let alone near children. I wonder if Israel would be offended if this was happening to Jewish children (Jewish children are exempt from being abused by the security services)? I’m not saying it should, It should not happen to anyone and I don’t have a problem with saying anyone that thinks this is OK, is sick in the head. It does raise the question, are the security services only doing this to humiliate men, woman and children in the hope they don’t return?