1. Addressing Vaping/THC Issues
February 2019 Joint Principals’ Meeting
Pupil Personnel Services

2. Disciplinary Incidents Including “AJ” (Electronic/Vapor Products) Incident Code

3. THC vs. CBD
THC (tetrahydrocannibol) contains the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana – i.e. it produces the “high” when ingested. Possession of < 1 gram of an oil or concentrate is a Penalty Group 2 controlled substance violation and state jail felony under Texas law (THSC § )
CBD (cannabidiol) is a concentrate of the hemp plant which lacks any psychoactive properties and is commonly included in gels, supplements, and extracts to combat pain, seizures, inflammation, and other symptoms. It is not FDA approved and is largely unregulated.

4. Expulsion/Testing Implications
Unlike alternative school placements which cannot be appealed, expulsion decisions are subject to multiple levels of appeal to include an appeal before the Board of Trustees.
The volume of current vaping incidents delays timely laboratory testing – at current testing rates, students would typically return to home campus before a positive THC test had been completed. Testing each confiscated vape/oil would likely result in significant cost increases being incurred by the District.
Lack of a consistent approach to testing given ongoing legal ambiguity impacts placement recommendations.

5. Increasing Supports to Campuses
Investigating purchase of low-cost kits which can test each sample immediately on campus
Providing parent communication regarding more stringent disciplinary consequences similar to new threat protocols in 18-19
Sponsoring parent education opportunities for addressing dangers of vaping
Developing a specific protocol to assist APs in investigating vaping incidents and providing subsequent training

6. Investigation Reminders
THC violations will continue to be classified as marijuana offenses for remainder of 18-19; these offenses will become potentially expellable in 19-20
You are investigating a violation of the Student Code of Conduct and NEPD is addressing a potential criminal offense under Penal Code – your disciplinary recommendation is not bound by an Officer’s decision or vice versa
Searches by school administrators must meet 2 objectives: be justified at inception and be reasonable in scope (remember that being truant off campus or in an unauthorized area automatically justifies an individual search)
“Blanket” searches are reserved exclusively for campus safety or security reasons

7. Investigation Questions/Scenarios:
(If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” please consult your Hearing Officer before communicating a final disciplinary consequence to a student or parent… )
Does the student exhibit any signs of being under the influence? Has s/he been referred to the nurse?
Is the student in possession of an oil/cartridge/edible which is labeled as containing THC (in any percentage)?
When asked to identify the contents of a device (remember that you are asking first and foremost as a safety precaution) does the student concede that it contains THC or do other students allege that it does?
Does the student identify contents using vernacular indicating THC – “dab pen,” “wax,” “honey,” etc.?
How was the prohibited item discovered – i.e. during an investigation into another potential SCOC violation?
Is the student in possession of any other paraphernalia?

8. For Questions or Help
Campus Hearing Officer Christi Wilbur Brent Brummet