Teen Screen was developed by Dr. David Shaffer, known for his connections to the pharmaceutical industry[i]  and Columbia University.  Many watchdog groups opposed the use of mental health screening programs and viewed them as marketing opportunities for drug manufacturers.[ii] [iii] [iv]  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.[v]  [vi]  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 needed 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 [vii] 2) Board of Educ. of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma Petitioner v EARLS.[viii]

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. 

These are the important players in the legal battle to maximize profit by drug testing teens.  Look at this legal case about mandatory teen screening in schools and then referring those teens to drug treatment.  The legal case is: 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.

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. 

According to PublicIntegrity.org, more than a third of pharmaceutical companies' resources go into promotion and marketing.  /

Pfizer $16.90 billion in marketing and only $7.68 billion in research & development Glaxo Smith Kline $12.93 billion marketing and only $5.20 billion research & dev. Sanofi-Aventis $5.59 billion   $9.26 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 information 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.

Dr. John Rengen Virapen worked 35 years for Eli Lilly & Co as an executive. He now speaks out on the many crimes Big Pharma was and is responsible for and he himself also participated in. Unfortunately, many of its crimes go passed public awareness as it enjoys the unethical protection from its big allies, the mainstream media, the FDA and governments.

Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui mailed a package with videos and pictures to NBC headquarters.