DRUG TESTS AT SCHOOLS NOT CORRECT SOLUTION

NO PARENT would be happy to see a child's school take a nonchalant or
apathetic attitude towards illicit drug use by students or teachers,
for that matter. But there should be a limit to how proactive a school
should be in combating drug use, and that limit should be reached well
before a school starts thinking about random drug tests.

A handful of private schools in two Australian states now have drug
policies which allow the schools to conduct random drug tests. Geelong
College, in Victoria, announced last year that it would introduce
random drug testing of students suspected of using illegal drugs,
along with other measures such as room searches. Melbourne Grammar
recently followed suit, announcing that it would conduct random urine
testing of students previously caught using drugs, as an alternative
to expulsion. And St Andrew's Cathedral School, in Sydney, is
considering a similar policy.

To some, the adoption of such policies might seem an appropriate
response to a social scourge for which solutions have proved elusive.
But nothing is ever as easy as it appears. And this ''solution'' is
less than simple on several counts.

First, there is the question of workability. As we have seen with
drug-testing in sport, a test, however scrupulously administered, is
open to frequent legal challenge. The banning or suspension of
sporting figures on the basis of drug tests has proved notoriously
difficult, and with each new test devised the legal mire deepens.

The reliability of many drug tests is far from satisfying. As a
scientist from one major Sydney hospital toxicology department said
this week, commonly used urine tests could not distinguish between
heroin and a codeine-based pain reliever, or between speed and a nasal
decongestant.

Given the growing litigiousness of Australian parents (in one recent
case parents are suing a principal for disciplining their child for an
alleged misdemeanour which occurred off school property) it would be a
brave school which attempted random testing merely because it
suspected certain students might be using drugs.

What drugs would be tested for? Just cannabis? What about cocaine,
heroin, amphetamines, alcohol, or some of the other drugs which find
their way into a playground, including prescription behavioural drugs?

And why stop at the students? Shouldn't teachers be breath-tested as
they come in the door each day? Shouldn't they be tested for a range
of illicit drugs too? Drug use does not stop with teenagers. Up to 40
per cent of Australians admit to having used one or more kinds of
illicit drug during their lifetimes. For the vast majority,
drug-taking is a transitory thing.

If we wanted to go right overboard we could adopt the recommendation
of Prime Minister John Howard's right-hand man on drug policy,
Salvation Army Major Brian Watters, who chairs the Australian National
Council on Drugs. Major Watters suggested earlier this month that
public servants and politicians involved in drafting or implementing
drug policies should be subject to random urine and blood tests. The
suggestion was quickly squashed by the Federal Government its
zero-tolerance leanings apparently have limits after all but the fact
that the suggestion was made, by a man entrusted with helping steer
Australia's drug-control strategies, shows how quickly and easily the
notion of drug testing can be taken to ridiculous extremes.

It is true that there are certain professions in which drug or alcohol
testing is already a condition of employment. Certain police forces
have such policies, as do airlines and other transport companies where
the safety of large numbers of people depend on the ability of drivers
or pilots to safely operate machinery. But these are and should be
isolated and warranted examples. They should not be used to create a
standard.

The principal of the Sydney school considering drug tests says he sees
random testing as an alternative to expulsion. This is a worthy
sentiment expulsion should always be a last resort but the
''alternative'' under consideration is not worthy. It is not worthy of
a society that places value on privacy and due process for children as
well as for adults.