RANDOM SCHOOL DRUG TESTS THE WRONG TACTIC IN WAR ON P

The idea of random drug testing in schools should not be discounted
simply because it has been suggested by a private consultant. It
should be discounted because it is a bad idea.

Mike Sabin, a former drug squad detective, left the police to set up
MethCon Group, a specialist consultancy which provides "awareness
presentations for students" on the dangers of methamphetamine, more
commonly known as P.

Random testing "to provide a deterrent and enable early intervention
for young abusers" was one of 21 recommendations he made to
Parliament's law and order select committee this week in a report
which he said would turn the tide on what he called "our losing battle
against methamphetamine".

His call will doubtless attract more support than it deserves on its
own merits because it plugs into a profound public anxiety about the
contribution the highly addictive drug is making to crime figures. P
use is regularly a factor in serious crime because people under its
influence are frequently unpredictable, paranoid and violent.

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that its use is increasing
although such evidence is wildly unreliable. But it is beyond dispute
that it is a deep-rooted and serious social problem.

Many practical arguments militate against the idea of random drug
testing in schools. Tests would be logistically difficult - not least
because the collection of a urine sample must be witnessed - and would
further burden hard-pressed school administrations. They are expensive
and far from 100 per cent reliable.

It's worth wondering, too, what such tests would tell us. We may be
fighting a losing battle with amphetamine but most observers agree the
marijuana battle has been lost - or won, depending on your point of
view. Yet most drug-testing regimes would detect weeks-old traces of
marijuana, while P use more than 72 hours before testing would not be
picked up. A testing regime that allows drug use to be disguised by a
spot of judicious absenteeism risks being seen as a bit of a joke.

Worst, all who returned positive test results would be labelled: for
some, it would be a badge of honour; for others, it would mean that a
single indiscretion or occasional flirtation saw them classified with
those who have serious drug problems.

Far more significant is the impact such a regime would have on the
attitudes students have to their schools, their schooling and their
teachers. By what logic should teachers be assigned the role, even if
it is only in an ancillary capacity, of presenting their pupils for
drug testing? The only reason schools make suitable testing grounds is
that the population required for testing is already assembled - and
that is no reason at all. It would be a gross, not to say grotesque,
abuse of an educational relationship to hijack it for the purposes of
advancing a health or law-enforcement aim.

The issue of drug testing in workplaces, where safety considerations
apply, is less clear-cut. It can and should be dealt with in contract
negotiations. Likewise, random breath-testing of drivers is a separate
matter. It efficacy may be open to question, but the idea that we are
under an obligation to be sober behind the wheel is not.

School pupils, however, are under contract to learn and schools to
teach them. It is unacceptable for them to be subjected to a testing
process of questionable value to advance quite another agenda.