Pubdate: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Copyright: 2004 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) DRUGS AND CHILDREN Student Drug Testing No Silver Bullet President Bush's State of the Union message last month had little to say about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Not that his speech didn't include unsubstantiated claims and wrongheaded policy; it's just that this year, some of them were aimed at schoolchildren in the latest effort to get them to "just say no" to illegal drugs. Citing recent declines in illegal drug use among teenagers, Bush credited random drug testing. He then proposed $23 million for schools opting to use what federal drug czar John Walters touts as a "silver bullet." Following the president's address, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., introduced a bill that would provide grants, under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, to schools that randomly test students for drugs. These proposals are based on false premises and hollow promises. Research and experience tell us instead that: - -- Random drug testing does not deter drug use. The same large survey Bush cited (www.monitoringthefuture.org) that showed declines in illegal drug use this year also compared schools with and without drug testing. It turned out there was no difference in illegal drug use among students from both sets of schools. Because only 5 percent of American schools use drug testing (according to a study in the Journal of School Health), Bush's crediting these programs for reductions is a big leap of faith. - -- Random drug testing alienates students. Students must be observed (by a teacher or other adult) as they urinate to be sure the sample is their own. The collection of a specimen is a humiliating violation of privacy, especially embarrassing for an adolescent. Testing can have the unanticipated effect of keeping students from participating in after-school, extracurricular programs -- activities that would fill their time during the peak teenage drug-using hours of 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. A student in Tulia, Texas, summed it up: "I know lots of kids who don't want to get into sports ... because they don't want to get drug tested. That's one of the reasons I'm not into any [activity]. I'm on medication, so I would always test positive, and then they would have to ask me about my medication, and I would be embarrassed. And what if I'm on my period? I would be too embarrassed." - -- Drug testing is expensive and inefficient. School districts across the country are in financial crisis. The millions of dollars proposed for random drug testing could be used more wisely, having a real rather than symbolic impact on high school drug abuse. School administrators in Dublin, Ohio, calculated that their $35,000 per year drug-testing program was not cost-efficient. Of 1,473 students tested, at $24 each, 11 tested positive, for a total cost of $3,200 per "positive" student. They canceled the program, and with the savings were able to hire a full-time counselor and provide prevention programs that reached all 3,581 students. - -- Testing is not the best way to detect problems with alcohol and other drugs. Though it may provide a false sense of security among school officials and parents, who believe it tells which students abuse drugs, in fact testing detects only a tiny fraction of users, many of them without problems, and misses too many who are in trouble. If we are truly intent on helping students, we should listen to drug-abuse professionals who know that detection of problems requires careful attention to signs such as truancy, erratic behavior and falling grades. Some will argue that students need drug testing to help them say "no." But in 2003, the "State of Our Nation's Youth" survey found that, contrary to popular belief, most teens are not pressured to use drugs. The same survey found, much to the surprise of many parents, that 75 percent of teenagers actually enjoy spending time with their parents, and feel they have a good relationship with them. Indeed, these relationships built on trust with parents, teachers and other caring adults account for the well-being of teenagers. Drug testing actually has the effect of undermining parental influence, forcing adults to say, in essence, "I don't trust you," to teenagers. As young adults, teenagers need to know we expect them to learn how to take responsibility for their health. They need science-based drug education, counseling and support. If they don't learn to make wise decisions about alcohol and other drugs in high school, how will they enter the post-high school world as responsible adults? Random drug testing may seem a panacea, but it is fraught with social, emotional and financial problems. Before we leap into a program that uses students as guinea pigs, we should examine the many repercussions, pitfalls and alternatives to random drug testing. Marsha Rosenbaum is a medical sociologist and mother of two young adults who directs the Safety First project (www.safety1st.org) of the Drug Policy Alliance in San Francisco (www.drugpolicy.org). - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom