LAWMAKERS GRAPPLE WITH TEEN DRUG USE

PIERRE - Legislators questioned on Friday whether a bill aimed at giving a
second chance to students dropped from school activities for drug
violations should treat users and dealers differently.

The bill, authored by Republican Rep. Casey Murschel of Sioux Falls, is
similar to one that failed a year ago. It would alter a 1997 law pushed by
then-Gov. Bill Janklow that requires a one-year suspension from athletics
and activities for a drug conviction. A second violation sidelines a
student for the rest of his/her school years.

"I think we are sending the wrong message to kids," Dianna Miller of Sioux
Falls, a lobbyist for the state's largest schools, said of the 1997 law.

She was among several people who spoke in favor of Murschel's proposals
during a hearing by the House State Affairs Committee.

"It's all about second chances and incentive to turn your life around. It
does all the right things," Miller said of the suggested changes.

The proposal would reduce the one-year suspension if the student agreed to
a chemical-dependency assessment and followed any recommendations,
including at least 30 hours of an education and prevention program. When
the treatment was finished, the student would be eligible. A second offense
would require a 60 hour program.

Murschel said young people who are banned from activities for a year find
it difficult to return when the time has been served.

"I believe kids will be involved in activities," Murschel said. "Do you
want them supervised or do you want them in unsupervised activities?"

Becka Mansheim, a high-school senior from Brookings, also urged the panel
to pass the changes.

"It will be the best change for South Dakota youth," she said.

Republican Rep. Matt Michels of Yankton asked if she considered drug
dealing to be worse than drug use. Mansheim said both were illegal and
shouldn't be done.

Michels indicated he would like Murchel's bill to make some distinction
between use and distribution in terms of whether a student got a second change.

Gov. Mike Rounds, who helped pass the original law as a state Senate
leader, said he's willing to talk about changes, but he wants to make sure
the law is applied the same across the state by school officials, states
attorneys and judges.

Rounds also said during a news conference Friday that he wants to make sure
there's a strong message against drug use.

"I have no interest in seeing us go soft on drugs in high schools," the
governor said. "If we can find a way to assist that person with their drug
problem, we will, but that doesn't mean we should come back and appear to
be soft or softer on the use of drugs."

Lake County States Attorney Chris Giles told the House committee that the
bill should include a reference to how students would be treated if court
diversion programs are used in their area.

A diversion program is an informal process in which an offender, usually on
a first violation, gets a chance to avoid court by following a sort of
probation. Those young people would in effect get one more chance than
juveniles who weren't given an opportunity for diversion, Giles said.

"Right now, if a young person is allowed to participate in a diversion
program, they're not subject to this law," he said.

Democrat Rep. Mel Olson of Mitchell asked whether Giles thought the law
should refer to alcohol violations as well as other drugs.

"I think there aren't many marijuana or drug users playing basketball, but
there are a lot of party boys who are," Olson said. "Frankly, I'm tired of
the double standard."

Giles said most schools have their own local policies to deal with alcohol
violations.

No one testified against the bill, but the committee chairman, Republican
Rep. Bill Peterson of Sioux Falls, had a spirited exchange with Bob
Stevens, a lobbyist for the bill who represented the South Dakota Education
Association.

Last year when the bill was debated on the House floor, Peterson gave an
impassioned speech against softening the state's message that illegal drugs
won't be tolerated. He told Stevens that if students are dropped from
activities because of drug violations, that suggests the activity didn't
keep the person from using bad behavior.

"What does this say to children who don't use drugs and engage in
extracurricular activities?" Peterson asked.

Stevens said the message is that a young person can make a mistake and get
a chance to make things right.

"Do you think it could also encourage young people to experiment with
drugs?" Peterson asked. Knowing that a 30-hour program would offer
reinstatement might make the consequences of an illegal drug act less
foreboding, he said.

"I don't think that thought process even goes through the young person's
mind," Stevens said.

Peterson persisted, asking if Stevens believed that it would be better to
learn a lesson early in life rather than later as an adult when
consequences might be even more severe.

Stevens said that was good in theory "if the punishment serves the purpose."

Although the existing law requires one year out of activities, the student
can come back after that time, Peterson said.

"There is a second chance," he said. "Often times later in life, there is
no second chance."

Michels said: "I don't think drug dealers get two chances."

Republican Rep. Chris Madsen of Spearfish asked Murschel, "At what point as
a matter of public policy, should we say enough is enough, you're off the
team, you're done?"

Murschel said: "I can understand there's a time when a kid uses up
opportunities. I don't know that that decision can be based on a number."

The bill is scheduled for further discussion on Monday in the committee.