DRUG TESTS VS. CONSTITUTION

Lockney should be ashamed of itself for not coming to the side of
Larry Tannahill, whose son stands to be branded with a big orange "D"
because of a well-intentioned but totally misguided battle in the drug
wars that are tearing this country apart and filling our prisons with
people who commit victimless crimes.

Last week, Lockney students from grade six through 12 began submitting
to mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco tests at random - along with
administrators and teachers. How humiliating.

Tannahill pulled his son out of school, rather than subject the
sixth-grader to a denial of his constitutional right to "be secure in
(our) persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation."

Lockney authorities agree with Tannahill that the community isn't
suffering a major drug problem.

Instead of being satisfied, however, they launch a fishing expedition
that sends a chilling message about just how far the state has gone in
slowly but surely stripping away our rights - especially our right to
privacy.

And what's the big rush? An Amarillo federal judge is sitting on a
ruling in a similar case out of Tulia last year. Judge Mary Lou
Robinson has indicated she believes mandatory testing is
unconstitutional but has yet to make her findings official.

A favorable ruling would hand Lockney a green light. Waiting for
what's likely to be an unfavorable ruling would have saved a lot of
time, money and negative attention.

"They are violating our civil rights," Tannahill said in a news story.
"I didn't sign (the consent form) because of my beliefs. And it's
my son who is paying the price."

Trying to spin fuzz into gold, school Superintendent Raymond Lusk
claimed: "We are not looking at this as a punitive policy. We want to
emphasize the positive aspect of it."

The only "positive" is that it does give kids a handy tool to resist
temptation. But is that enough to justify the loss of a constitutional
right that plays such a crucial role in keeping a police state at bay?

And where does Mr. Lusk get off saying it's not punishment when
those who fail the test - or those whose parents have guts enough to
stand up and buck the tide in a small community - are subjected to
in-school suspension and required to dress in jail-orange as they go
around cleaning up trash on the grounds? It would be one thing if a
child actually tested positive. But it's quite another if he's out
there being condemned and ridiculed because his father happens to
believe in the Constitution. That probably explains why one girl
begged her reluctant parents to sign the form.

Drug testing is for a good purpose, while the dangers it poses are
abstract and easy to overlook.

Every stick has two ends. Mandatory testing softens the eternal
vigilance we must maintain if we expect to keep the freedom we fought
for and are so rightfully proud of.

What does it communicate to our young when no one - not even their
parents - is willing to speak out against the governmental octopus
that is slowly engulfing and smothering us?

We somehow tend to think drugs were invented by hippies 40 years ago.
Yet prior to the early 1900s, 20 percent of the American public was
doing everything from marijuana and peyote to opium, heroin and
cocaine on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, Coca-Cola derived its
name from cocaine being one of the prime ingredients in the original
formula.

After the government cracked down (no pun intended) and started
outlawing drugs - largely because Prohibition was going out of
business and the huge, corrupt bureaucracy created to control alcohol
needed another means of gainful employment - it took a long time
before drug use declined significantly in this country.

The decline wasnB4t accomplished through mandatory testing,
"profiling," pretext stops, the confiscation of private property
without due process or any of the other draconian measures being
employed to stanch the flow of drugs today. It was accomplished the
same way we've cut tobacco use by a third in the past 30 years:
education - a constant barrage of information on the hazards nicotine
poses to our health and welfare.

Lockney should back off its social engineering program and wait for
the Tulia ruling. Short of that, it should take its cues from the
private sector.

Enlightened employers - mine included - solved the problem of drug and
alcohol use on the job without resorting to end runs on the
Constitution.

Employees sign a form agreeing to take a drug test if and when their
behavior indicates there might be a problem. It's called probable
cause.

The Lockney school board exempted themselves from the policy they're
imposing on everyone else. They deal with a lot of complicated issues
in a multi-million-dollar school district that runs on taxpayer money.

They should be tested too.

(Richard Orr is a Herald staff writer. He can be reached at
806-296-1360 or via e-mail at: richard@texasonline.net)