DRUG TESTS FOR TEENS EXPANDED

The Supreme Court Rules High Schools Can Test Students Who Are Involved In
After-School Activities.

The Supreme Court rules high schools can test students who are involved in
after-school activities. Drug testing isn't just for the jocks anymore.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that any public high school student
who signs up for the marching band or cheerleading or some other
extracurricular activity can be required to submit to random urine tests.

The 5-4 decision said that the schools' desire to ferret out drug abusers
outweighs the students' right to privacy. A 1995 decision had allowed drug
testing just for student athletes.

So far, only one public school administration in Florida, Lee County in
southwest Florida, conducts drug tests of children in non-sports programs,
said Wayne Blanton of the Florida Association of School Boards.

Lee officials initiated their random drug testing more than a year ago, he
said.

But now that the highest court in the country says it's all right, others
may join Lee County, he said.

"I think people have steered clear of it until now because there hasn't
been any court guidelines," he said. "I think this ruling is going to clear
that up, and I suspect you're going to see a lot more school boards
interested in it now."

However, some Tampa Bay school officials said they have two good reasons
not to set up such a testing program. One is the cost. The other is that
they see no need to take such a potentially controversial test.

"It's really a question of trust," explained Pinellas County schools
spokesman Ron Stone. "It's a very expensive proposition, and unless there's
been some cause for suspicion, I don't see us doing it."

Ray Gadd, who oversees psychological services for the Pasco County School
District, said Pasco prefers a "heavy prevention and education approach."
Drug testing for extracurricular participants would be too expensive.

"It's an idea that deserves further study, but I don't see us jumping into
the fray," he said.

In May, a parochial school, Clearwater Central Catholic High, announced
that it would begin randomly testing students for drugs and alcohol.
Parents of children who attend the private school had mixed reactions to
the Supreme Court's recent decision.

Carol Treshler, whose son, Tim, was a sophomore at Clearwater Central
Catholic, said she did not support random testing at public schools. Tim,
16, adamantly opposed the policy and printed up hundreds of copies of a
letter denouncing it.

"My whole deal is that it's random. If you have a kid that has drugs on his
possession, put him somewhere where he can get help," his mother said.
Teens may also try dangerous methods of intoxication, such as sniffing
glue, that may not show up on the tests, she said.

Some parents support the policy because it takes the responsibility out of
their hands, where it belongs, she said.

Mary-Anne Goodrid, whose son attends Clearwater Central Catholic, said her
major issue with the testing is that the policy singles out students and
doesn't apply to everyone on campus.

"If there's student drug testing, it should be schoolwide," Goodrid said.

The decision gives school leaders a free hand to test students who
participate in competitive after-school activities or teams -- more than
half the estimated 14 million American high school students.

Though it stopped short of permitting random drug tests for any student,
several justices indicated they are interested in that subject, too.

"We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular
activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school
district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug
use," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin
Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen Breyer.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a dissent, said the "program upheld today
is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse."

The ruling is a follow-up to a 1995 case in which the Supreme Court allowed
random urine tests for student athletes. In that case, the court found that
the school had a pervasive drug problem and that athletes were among the
users. The court also found that athletes had less expectation of privacy.

Thomas said students who "participate in competitive extracurricular
activities voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrusions on
their privacy as do athletes."

Breyer, who provided the crucial fifth vote for the ruling, wrote
separately to say that he hopes the testing reduces peer pressure and
"addresses a serious national problem."

"It offers the adolescent a nonthreatening reason to decline his friend's
drug-use invitations, namely that he intends to play baseball, participate
in debate, join the band or engage in any one of a half-dozen useful,
interesting and important activities," he wrote.

The ruling was a loss for a former Oklahoma high school honor student who
competed on an academic quiz team and sang in the choir. Lindsay Earls, a
self-described "goody two-shoes," tested negative but sued over what she
called a humiliating and accusatory policy.

She said Thursday was "a sad day for students in America."

Outraged civil libertarians said the ruling will likely discourage children
from participating in the very extracurricular activities that might keep
them away from drugs.

But advocates of drug testing hailed the decision as the right step toward
cleaning up public schools.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., said the court's ruling will not hurt the privacy
of students. The testing, he said, "is only burdensome on those who want to
waste their lives getting high."

- -- Staff writers Lorri Helfand, Matthew Waite and Stephen C. Hegarty
contributed to this report, which contains information from the Associated
Press.