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