HEY, TESTERS, LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE

Random drug testing is so appropriate in some sectors - those
directly related to public safety - that it should be a given. But
the schoolhouse is not one of those sectors, at least not when it
comes to students.

The federal government, though, doesn't see it that way. Thursday,
its "drug czarina" Bertha Madras, visited Pagosa Springs to discuss
the benefits of random student drug testing. The practice is seen as
a "powerful public health tool" that deters drug use among students.

The problem is, random student testing tosses presumption of
innocence straight out the window.

No matter how it's dressed up, the practice concludes students
"might" have done something, and, quite without probable cause,
demands they prove otherwise by in effect "testifying" against
themselves with their own bodily fluids.

Additionally, critics contend random testing does not reduce student
substance abuse. In 2006, Slate detailed a 2003 University of
Michigan study (a follow-up to a criticized 2002 study) that showed
random testing "is not associated with change in the number of
students who use drugs in any category."

None of this is to say random drug testing is totally indefensible.
It's just that the following defenses don't pass muster:

* If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. This is the
single most odious line of reasoning ever concocted because it misses
the point. People, including students, are not required to prove
they've done nothing wrong.

* For safety's sake. Though the safety message is appealing, at its
heart, drug testing isn't about safety. It's about control. It is
worth noting students are not police officers, airline pilots,
doctors or even teachers. They shouldn't be forced to choose between
privacy and an education.

* For their own good. A drug test could reveal a substance abuse
problem, thereby alerting parents and other responsible adults who
could help the student overcome it before it's too late.

Of all the reasons underpinning the push for randomized student drug
tests, this is the most compelling. But it still assumes a kid is
guilty, or in this case, "in need of help" without any proof and
requires him or her to demonstrate otherwise through invasive means.

If the true intent is to help students, we suggest paying better
attention to student behavior and watching for signs of drug use.
Remember, "for cause" testing is perfectly legitimate. Also, continue
to educate parents and support student addicts with an eye to
recovery. But come to grips with the fact that students don't
surrender their right of due process simply by walking through the
doors of a publicly funded institution.