SCHOOL DRUG TESTS CROSS THE LINE

SCHOOLS are right to be concerned at the prospect that their students
might be using or trafficking drugs.

They are wrong to try to deal with the issue by instituting physical
surveillance that includes testing students' urine samples for illicit
drugs.

The principal of Melbourne Grammar, Mr Paul Sheahan, has said that
students at his school who are given a second chance after being
caught using drugs might be required to take regular urine tests. The
tests would be paid for by parents and repeat offences would lead to
expulsion.

Mr Sheahan said the proposed policy, which has not yet been ratified
by his school council, also would include counselling and
rehabilitation.

If the plan is approved, Melbourne Grammar will become only the second
school in Australia to adopt compulsory drug testing; Geelong Grammar
made a similar announcement in October.

Mr Sheahan has stressed that this is not a punitive measure, but one
designed to help struggling adolescents negotiate a risky period in
their lives. There are times when young people need strong external
support if they are to exercise self-control and sound judgment.

Compulsory testing regimes, however, are not support; they are
policing.

There might be students who are grateful for that; Mr Sheahan says he
heard of a boy asking to stay on such a regime because it helped him
say no to those who were trying to lure him back on to drugs.

But, on balance, such programs carry more potential for harm than
good. They breach students' privacy, cannot but hurt attempts to build
a mutual sense of trust between students and teachers, and label any
student who is subjected to them. Such testing is way beyond the
bounds of appropriate supervision by schools.

Schools' anxiety about problems in this area of teenage life is
understandable. Young people are mentally, emotionally and physically
more susceptible than their elders to the ill-effects of even "soft"
drugs such as marijuana, which is now known to trigger schizophrenia
in some vulnerable individuals. News that drugs are on campus is
likely to alarm parents, who probably recall the subversive effects of
peer influence on their own adolescence and fear that their children
might be hurt by contact with users. But urine tests are a simplistic
response to a complex issue.

If drug trafficking becomes a major problem in a school, it is a
matter for the police, but if the problem is not of that level of
seriousness, testing is unjustifiably invasive.

Students found to be casual users should be dealt with through
counselling and normal disciplinary measures.

If they fail to respond, schools still have their ultimate sanction:
expulsion.