Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: Enid News & Eagle (OK)
Copyright: Enid News & Eagle 2002
Contact:  http://www.enidnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2012

MAKING A DENT IN TEEN DRUG USE

Recent Supreme Court decision could lower rates among our youths. Sometimes 
it takes what may seem like extreme measures to solve really knotty and 
dangerous social problems that arise from time to time. For that reason 
alone, we think the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing random drug 
testing of some high school teens is a good decision.

Yes, it is still another invasion of an individual's privacy, but if we are 
ever going to make a noticeable and permanent dent in drug usage among 
teens we are going to have to do more than we have been doing.

The Supreme Court ruling pertains only to those teens who participate in 
high school extracurricular activities, which includes band, chorus, the 
debate club, the taxidermy club, or whatever.

Some years ago the high court ruled in favor of drug testing for high 
school athletes.

Why test just the kids who participate in extracurricular activities? Well, 
for one reason these kids are seen as role models of sorts by their peers. 
To have the best debater and/or the football quarterback on drugs would 
send the wrong message to the rest of the student body.

And participating in these extracurricular activities should be viewed as a 
privilege, not a right. Consequently, those who participate should be held 
to the highest standards.

Knowing that they may be the next target of a random drug test, and knowing 
that a positive test could prevent them from participating in their 
favorite school activity, will persuade most of these students not to use 
drugs.

The high court ruling was the final word in a civil suit brought by a 
Tecumseh high school honor student - Lindsay Earls - who was a member of 
the school choir and who described herself as "Miss Goody Two-Shoes." She 
had implied that singling her out for a drug test not only invaded her 
privacy but somehow implied that she was doing something wrong.

In the first place teens who do not use drugs have nothing to fear. We fail 
to see how Miss Earls' privacy is somehow being compromised, and she should 
not view the tests as anything more than that - a test.

The test does not imply that she is doing anything wrong.

We realize not everyone agrees with that view - not even the Supreme Court 
justices. In fact, four of the nine justices dissented.

But, as we said in the beginning, sometimes other measures are needed to 
solve especially knotty social problems. We hope the random testing helps.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth