THE TESTING SHORTFALL

We can't accurately check inmates for drugs, so why probe students?

Alabama Corrections Commissioner Donal Campbell says he's concerned about
the accuracy of drug tests administered to prisoners.

Prisoners are tested because of how the corrections system works - or
rather doesn't work. Some criminologists say it's sometimes as easy to get
drugs inside prison as outside.

But it's not drug use per se that's at issue. No, it's the "false positive"
results that occasionally show up. That means a test incorrectly indicates
a prisoner has been using drugs.

Cold medicines, prescription drugs and other substances can screw up test
results. Sometimes the tests themselves unaccountably break down.

Problem is, the prison system uses the same test to re-test prisoners who
show up positive. Who's to say the test results aren't skewed again?

Some labs and employers require a medical review of test results. But not
the Department of Corrections. It's too expensive.

All of which works against prisoners who would be eligible for parole -
except for having a positive drug test. And Alabama needs to parole
nonviolent offenders if it is to keep its prison system census at levels
that won't compel federal intervention.

So Campbell has decided to review the DOC's entire drug-testing process.

But there's another issue the "false positives" raise - one that has
nothing to do with the Department of Corrections.

Some school systems, in their misguided zeal, are drug-testing students who
drive cars to school or participate in extracurricular activities (since
the Supreme Court won't allow random testing of all students).

What if even one of those students shows a "false positive" on his or her
drug test? What if they have to "prove" their innocence? What if schools,
like the prison system, take short-cuts in re-testing or requiring medical
reviews?

What, in other words, if we didn't treat students like criminals - since we
can't apparently be sure of accuracy in the first place?