JUST SAY NO TO DRUG TESTING

Several Supreme Court justices appeared to suggest last week that the best
way to stamp out drug use at high schools across the nation was to randomly
test all students in competitive extracurricular groups for drugs. That
strikes us as both an excessive and ineffective way to identify drug users.

The court is considering an argument by a rural Oklahoma school district
that wants to subject all students in competitive after-school activities
to random drug tests. If the court agrees,

24 million high school students who participate in extracurricular
activities could be asked by school officials to provide a urine sample in
the name of fighting drug abuse.

The court ruled in 1995 that student athletes could be tested, creating an
exception to the general rule that authorities must have some specific
reason to suspect wrongdoing before searching someone. One of the arguments
proffered by the court was that students who routinely strip naked in a
locker room have a lower expectation of privacy than other students.

That argument is dubious, but it sets the stage for much broader drug
testing: If you can test athletes, why not members of the drama club?

"Do you think any school in the United States does not have a drug
problem?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked rhetorically during last week's
hearing. Scalia has indicated that he would support broader testing.

But he asked the wrong question. Certainly every high school has some
students who use drugs. But how big a problem does that constitute? Does it
warrant a dragnet that might subject millions of innocent students to
intrusive, degrading drug tests?

Furthermore, the proposed standard targets the students who are least
likely to abuse drugs. If you want to stamp out drug use at the high school
level, do you go after the debaters, chess players, band members, model UN
participants and all the other students who are motivated enough to
participate in extracurricular activities?

You almost certainly would have better luck testing all the students who
don't get involved in extracurricular activities.

The willingness of the court to consider wholesale urine tests for millions
of high school students suggests that some justices take the rights of
minors more lightly than those of adults. But Fourth Amendment protections
against unreasonable searches and seizures surely should extend to high
school students as well as adults.

Those who advocate such widespread drug testing want to use a sledgehammer
to kill a flea. And in so doing, they run the risk of discouraging millions
of students from participating in after-school activities.

We hope cooler heads prevail on the court and the Oklahoma model is rejected.