DRUG-TESTING STUDENTS WRONG

In his op ed piece of Jan. 4, Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney Peter Carlisle
argues for random drug testing of our students. We are all concerned about
teenage drug use, but widespread drug testing is not the way to address this
problem.

While Mr. Carlisle describes drug testing as a way "to promote an
environment where students can grow, learn and thrive," in reality, drug
testing will do just the opposite.

It will create an adversarial environment in which the teachers become an
extension of law enforcement, and students may turn to more harmful drugs
such as ice that remain in their systems for a shorter time than milder
substances such as marijuana. And as for alcohol, used by over 80 percent of
high school students, well, that won't be tested for at all.

It is telling that the Tecumseh, Okla., drug-testing policy, which was
upheld in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (the Earls case cited by Mr.
Carlisle) is nearly unprecedented among the nation's school districts. Only
about 3 percent of the approximately 15,000 U.S. school districts currently
drug-test some portion of their students.

Suspicionless drug testing has in fact been avoided by major urban school
districts. These school districts do not downplay the dangers posed by
alcohol and other drugs. Nor do they concede defeat in the face of drug use.
Rather, the vast majority of the country's school administrators --
particularly those presiding over the districts hardest hit by drugs --
recognize that drug testing is not the answer, or even a positive response,
to the problem of student drug use.

Most school districts have rejected drug testing as a false and costly
panacea. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in the Earls case, we
must demand that our schools establish and strengthen programs that nurture
students' self-confidence and provide them with the skills necessary to
develop into strong, independent-thinking adults prepared to live productive
lives.

As educators and researchers have long acknowledged, adolescent drug use
often has less to do with drugs per se than with the lack of life options
and family supports for many of today's youth. Instead of squandering
precious school funds, sowing seeds of distrust between students and
teachers, and raising the bar for extracurricular participation through
suspicionless drug testing, schools should invest resources in making
after-school extracurricular activities as accessible and attractive as
possible for all students.

Drug testing would cost an estimated $15 to $30 per student. How could we
justify spending money on such a punitive scheme when our schools are
hurting for textbooks, maintenance and other basics?

The Supreme Court decision not only ignored the reasoned opinions of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, social
workers and others that school drug testing is unlikely to accomplish its
stated goal of reducing substance abuse among students, it seriously eroded
the U.S. Constitution. Now, more than ever, parents, teachers and school
administrators need to resist blanket drug-testing schemes and opt for
programs that will help our young people thrive.

Unfortunately, the Earls decision is part of an alarming trend to disregard
the right to privacy and bodily integrity in the name of the war on drugs.
Indeed, with respect to drug testing, society appears ready to create a
"drug exception" to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Recent proposals by Senate President Robert Bunda, Gov. Linda Lingle and the
Honolulu prosecutor for drug-testing students should serve as a wake-up call
for parents and teachers alike to actively oppose drug-testing policies by
our schools and develop positive, creative and honest drug education
programs in their stead. Rather than testing students, schools should act in
the best interests of their students and support programs that provide
honest, science-based information on drug use and abuse.

Suspicionless drug testing of students achieves none of these objectives,
leaving students more, not less vulnerable, to drug abuse.