Pubdate: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Copyright: 2002 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Author: Judy Shepps Battle Note: Judy Shepps Battle is an addictions specialist and consultant based in New Jersey. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) FOURTH AMENDMENT UNDER FIRE? A Chance To Choose Wisely On Random Drug Testing Late last month, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state's responsibility for maintaining discipline, health and safety in children outweighs the Fourth Amendment guarantee of reasonable grounds for search and seizure. The court's 5-4 vote upheld the student activities testing policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Okla., School District, which required all middle and high school students "to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity." With this decision, a portion of America's youth have been stripped of a fundamental Constitutional right. Moreover, such drug testing is quite likely to discourage participation in activities proven to be effective drug prevention tools. Fortunately, school districts have a choice about whether to wield this power; they can "just say no" to authorizing random drug tests without probable cause that a drug violation actually exists. There are many good reasons to make this decision. Research shows that participation in extracurricular activities helps reduce student involvement in risky activities, such as drug use, by reducing their after-school free time. Extracurricular activities are also shown to lessen the drop-out rate and reduce incidence of juvenile crime. Many teens say that if random drug testing is initiated, they would quit these valuable programs. This is not because they use drugs and are afraid of being caught, but they simply object to the arbitrary wielding of power by the school system. They rightfully ask why they are being singled out when their teachers and administrators are not subjected to such testing. Students are not alone in questioning the wisdom of this policy. Taxpayers may well ask if the enormous cost of individual drug testing -- $30 to $60 dollars per kit per child -- is worth straining school district budgets and if this allocation will compromise the goal of a well-rounded education for their children. Extracurricular activities are traditionally vulnerable at budget crunch times. Ultimately, school districts will realize that random drug testing does not address the No. 1 drug school kids use -- alcohol. Nine out of ten students experiment with alcohol before graduation from high school. Many of these experiences result in drunk driving and sexual activities. Some students will advance from experimentation to dependence to addiction. Parents can only hope that existing alcohol- and tobacco-use prevention money will not be diverted to drug-testing kit purchases. "Pee tests" (as kids call them) do not test for alcohol or steroids or nicotine -- all harmful substances used by many teens. Any expanded drug-testing programs should test those kids who we firmly believe have substance-abuse problems. Once identified, we should use additional funds for treatment of both the student and family. While it is surely good to have drug-free schools, it is equally important that families and communities also be drug free. Healthy growth for children begins with adults modeling appropriate behaviors. The Supreme Court ruling offers school districts a powerful but potentially destructive tool. May they learn to use it -- or refuse to use it -- wisely. - --- MAP posted-by: Ariel