DRUG TESTING TARGETS A FEW; ISSUE BROADER

I don't often find myself in agreement with the ACLU, but I'm not sold on
the idea of random drug testing that seems to be gaining favor in more
Mississippi schools.

Last week, both Pearl and Rankin County school districts announced various
forms of random testing. Officials in Rankin say their policy would be
among the strictest in the state, giving them the authority to search kids
if there is the suspicion of drugs.

Mostly, the policies at both school districts -- similar to ones in Tupelo,
Madison, Petal and other places -- call for random testing of students
involved in extracurricular activities which, some studies suggest, is the
group least likely to use drugs.

That means students participating in activities ranging from student
council to the football team could be yanked out of class at any moment and
asked to provide urine in a cup.

I find that to be a very simplistic and extremely invasive way of catching
a few while other potential offenders walk the hallways worry-free.

Whose responsibility is it?

I also find it distressing that schools have taken on this social,
loophole-filled role when I've heard more than a few in the business scream
about all the parenting duties being unwillingly thrust upon them.

My position is not to be mistaken with my view on drugs. I abhor the drug
culture and how it has been passed down the generations, made to look cool
on TV and profitable, too.

It surpasses my ability to understand why any kid would get hooked on drugs
when unequivocal failure is the only result.

I've seen personally what drugs have done to people and whole communities.
I've seen rich people lose everything. I've seen smart kids with the world
before them fall into mental illness, aided by the false euphoria of being
with the in-crowd.

But I also believe it is the parents' or guardians' responsibility to know
their kids and any change in behavior that would raise suspicion. It is not
a task that belongs in the school unless the parent role is absolutely
broken. The home is where it should rest.

That is not to suggest that school officials should not be watchful of kids
while they are under their care. If they find a kid using or selling drugs
on school grounds, they have every reason to act decisively. Erratic
student behavior certainly shouldn't be ignored because I'm not naive
enough to believe all parents want the job.

Look for probable cause

It's my view that part of these knee-jerk and reactionary drug policies
stem from our frustration and inability to rid society of this problem. We
simply don't know what to do so we create rules targeting some students,
because, quite frankly, the courts have set stringent parameters only
allowing limited testing.

Under the extracurricular test, some kids may get caught, which is good.
But what about the ones not required to provide samples while the teacher
waits outside?

The ACLU would argue that random testing is simply an invasion of privacy.
I would argue, however, that unless the schools make the fiscally
unreasonable step of testing entire student bodies over prolonged periods
of time, it is pointless to only test a few.

I want our schools safe and I want to see drugs completely wiped away from
them. If I were persuaded that this would solve the problem, I would be the
first to champion it.

Probable cause searches are more in line with my view.

The plans debated by Pearl and Rankin are no more than feel-good policies
that might help ever-so-slightly when I'm in favor of bigger steps.