BUD'S STILL PEE-VED ABOUT DRUG-TESTING

Let me begin by saying this: I do not condone illegal drug use in schools.
I share the school board's concern for the safety and welfare of students
and teachers. I am sure public officials like Tommy Allen get more than
their fill of unfair criticism. I hate writing cranky, humorless letters.
Some topics, however, deserve serious examination. I read Mr. Allen's
response to recent criticism of the School Board's drug testing policy in
the 11/14/99 edition of The Record. Some of that criticism came from me. I
still think drug testing is wrong and unconstitutional. If anything, I am
more alarmed now than before.

First of all, Mr. Allen says the drug testing program is free - no cost to
the taxpayers. Who is performing these services for free? And why? And how?
I've never heard of a government program that was not financed by the
taxpayers.

Use of statistics like ``62 percent of students know somebody who uses
illegal drugs'' or ``42 percent find marijuana easier to buy than beer''
sound alarming - until you really think about them. But they do not come
close to answering my original question. What facts and data does the
school board have to suggest that the drug problem has worsened in this
county over the past few years? Not statewide, not nationwide - here, in
St. Johns County? I don't care how many kids know someone who does drugs.
Is the problem worse, better or the same, right here, right now? And based
on what measurement?

While I respect Mr. Allen's opinion, I really lose him when he blames the
high school shootings in Columbine, Mississippi, and Kentucky on illegal
drug use - and suggests that drug testing in St. Johns County will somehow
prevent such carnage from occurring here. This is an alarming connection.
First of all, I'd like to know where Mr. Allen obtained this information. I
searched all over the intenet, and could not find one article suggesting
that the protagonists in the recent rash of school murders had been taking
illegal drugs. Kip Kinkle (Oregon school murder) was on Prozac, a legal
anti-depressant; Eric Harris, (Columbine killer), is also said to have been
on legally administered antidepressants - though obviously not enough of them!

What is the source of this information? Is it printed somewhere for us all
to see? Did he hear it through the grapevine? I think it is important for
public figures to at least get their facts straight. Facts and statistics
can backfire if used with abandon. Take the following quote from Mr.
Allen's article: ``According to State, Juvenile data, we are second in the
state in the number of juveniles arrested for drug misdemeanors.'' Now,
let's look at some facts: The population of Dade County is 2.15 million;
Broward County, 1.5 million; Palm Beach County, 1.03 million. St. Johns
County has approximately 116 thousand people. These counties have
subdivisions with more people than our whole county! (OK, a little
exaggeration - but not much of one). If what Mr. Allen says is true, St.
Johns County has a greater number of teen drug arrests than at least two of
the other three counties mentioned above - despite the fact that each of
them have populations ranging from 10 to 20 times greater than ours. You'd
think we'd have made national headlines with a drug epidemic of such
massive proportions! Perhaps the cover of Time, or Newsweek, as well! The
Record must have completely missed the boat on this scoop! Of course, it
just strains belief.

As for illegal drugs being one of the primary causes of the school
shootings, well, that sounds pretty fishy too. I can't say for certain that
the student murderers in these cases were 100 percent drug free. I can say
that after hours of searching, I could not find one article suggesting that
illegal drugs played a role in these massacres. But I bet if these kids had
been surveyed, they'd have said it was ``easier to obtain semi automatic
weapons than it is to buy beer'' - or perhaps that ``three out of four
students knows someone who owns a sawed off shotgun.''

In fact, I am extremely interested in what the school board is doing to
keep kids from being massacred by confused, hormonal student killers with
guns. I understand that several practical, thoughtful measures have already
been enacted. However, peeing in a bottle before joining the cheerleading
squad is not a viable ``solution'' to this problem. Suggesting that such a
policy will do anything at all to prevent school shootings is outrageous.
It smacks of demagoguery.

Let face it - druggies will not participate in extra-curricular activities
if they know they will be tested and caught. A year from now, we'll all be
reading that the School Board wants to test every student, because the pee
from the football team and the glee club hasn't netted enough drug abusers,
and we just know they are out there...The evolution from drug testing to
``big brotherism by government'' - as Mr. Allen put's it - won't take long
at all. Drug testing without probable cause is ``big brotherism.'' Welcome
to St. Augustine, Mr. Orwell!

Finally, Mr. Allen, I think it is possible to ``manage what you can't
measure'' - or perhaps to measure differently - non-medically. Maybe it's
not as convenient as having the chemists down at the drug testing center
doing it for you, but people have been managing other people for centuries,
without the benefit of urine tests. It is performed through observation and
modification of behavior through policies, interventions, rewards and
punishments. It requires a little effort and risk taking on the part of
those in authority. But it can work.

And it beats the hell out of trampling the rights of many because of the
indiscretions of the few.