Pubdate: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 Source: Ventura County Star (CA) Copyright: 2002, The E.W. Scripps Co. Contact: http://www.staronline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/479 Author: Marcell Brickey Note: Marcell Brickey of Oxnard is a teacher of language arts at Fremont Intermediate School in Oxnard. Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n000/a028.html Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT EXPAND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT DRUG TESTING Unconstitutional: Students Are Being Asked To Shed Their Rights At The Schoolhouse Door. Re: your March 20 article, "Court considers expanded school drug tests": It's the druggies vs. the squares all over again. Only this time, in the view of the U.S. Supreme Court, the druggies include all high- school-age students in America. The week before last, the justices strongly hinted that they would uphold mandatory drug testing of high school students as constitutional. The Bill of Rights is not supposed to be a flexible document. In matters of public safety, the court has rightfully made rulings that have altered its intent. To trample on the Fourth Amendment in the name of the war on drugs is lunacy. That our high court views the Bill of Rights as a fluid document is more unsettling than random surveys showing that drug use among high school seniors is on the rise for the umpteenth time. The Supreme Court once stated that "students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door." Sadly enough in 2002, this is no longer so. When we are willing to strip young people of their rights, we are not treating them as individual beings. Rather, we are dealing with them as extensions of their parents, unable to function in the world until they magically "get it" on their 18th birthday or their high school graduation or when they move out of the house. Justice Anthony Kennedy derisively spoke of "the drug culture" and "druggie schools" during the hearings. That he saw no problem using these labels in a public Supreme Court hearing reveals an extreme misunderstanding of the realities of drug use in the United States. It could be reasonably argued that we are a drug-addicted society. It is not a stretch to imagine Justice Kennedy lamenting the scourge of drugs in society over a martini in the court chambers. That the court would consider the threat of a school-administered drug test as a viable cog in the drug prevention wheel, fit for public schools, is laughable. The biggest threat to these affronts on civil rights are those who understand the meaning of the Constitution. Many teen-agers today, if told they were going to be drug tested, would submit. They would fear getting in trouble or going against what authority tells them. Most would simply figure that since they do not use drugs, they may as well just go ahead and do it. This is precisely how rights are lost. The ones refusing to be tested, disobedient, if you will, would show a greater understanding of these rights so many have died to preserve. A teen-ager with his or her sense about him and a strong moral compass will make the right choice and not use illicit drugs. This is the reality for most high-school-age kids. They resist these temptations. For those who choose to use drugs, it is doubtful that drug testing would thwart these decisions. Drug use and abuse are far more complex than holding a drug test over someone's head. Besides, we have seen this whole drug-war mentality and its results. Another element to this is that people in favor of mandatory drug testing will tell you in the next breath that they are against big government. That our Supreme Court would rule in favor of such dubious logic is symptomatic of a lack of reverence for the Bill of Rights. In the past few months, we have heard so much about freedom and liberty and how we need to fight for it and preserve the American way. Let us hope that our Supreme Court will see teen-agers as among those worthy of these liberties. Perhaps then the kids won't be so alienated. - --- MAP posted-by: Ariel