TESTING STUDENTS FOR DRUGS IS NEITHER SOLUTION NOR BARGAIN

Students in Southwest Allen County Schools will be turning in more
than just their homework this school year. Thanks to the district's
new drug-testing policy, students will soon be required to randomly
submit their urine to school authorities for mandatory drug
screening. Chances are, however, this latest 'test' may be more than
its proponents bargained for.

Though couched by advocates as a silver bullet in the ongoing battle
to curb teen drug use, random student drug testing is often
ineffective and costly, and it opens a Pandora's box of serious
ethical questions. That's according to the only federally
commissioned study ever to assess the efficacy of student drug
testing on a national basis. The study, conducted by the University
of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, found no difference in
the level of illegal drug use between students in schools that test
for illicit drugs and those in schools that do not.

'Drug testing of students in schools does not deter use,' said the
University of Michigan news release summarizing the findings of the
four-year study, which was later published in the Journal of School
Health. 'At each grade level studied - 8, 10 and 12 - the
investigators found virtually identical rates of drug use in schools
that have drug testing and the schools that do not.'

More recently, a comprehensive review by Britain's Joseph Rowntree
Foundation also gave student drug testing a failing grade. Its
report, published in February, noted that objective evidence
supporting the effectiveness of random student drug testing is
'remarkably thin,' and warned that the policy could do greater harm than good.

That's because, according to the report, student drug testing
'undermines trust between pupils and staff,' and, in some cases,
'encourages pupils to switch from the use of cannabis . . . that can
be traced a relatively long time after use, to drugs that are cleared
from the body much more quickly, including heroin.' In other words,
if you're looking for a surefire way to persuade little Johnny to
switch from pot to binge drinking or crank, look no further than
student drug testing.

Some experts also say they're concerned that suspending students who
test positive for drugs from participating in extracurricular
activities may cause students undue and long-term harm. According to
Professor Howard Taras, chairman of the American Academy of
Pediatrics Committee on School Health, '[Drug] screening may decrease
involvement in extracurricular activities among students who
regularly use or have once used drugs. Without such engagement in
healthy activities, adolescents are more likely to drop out of
school, become pregnant, join gangs, pursue substance abuse and
engage in other risky behaviors.'

Lastly, student drug testing does not come cheap. For example, school
officials in Dublin, Ohio, recently jettisoned the school's
$35,000-per-year drug-testing program because it proved to be
anything but cost-effective. Of the 1,473 students tested, only 11
tested positive for illegal drugs. That's a cost of $3,200 per
positive student - hardly the sort of price tag that can be justified
in an era of local and federal belt-tightening.

While rising rates of alcohol and substance abuse among young people
is alarming, suspicionless student drug testing is not the answer. It
is a humiliating, invasive practice that runs contrary to the
principles of due process. It compels teens to submit evidence
against themselves and to forfeit their privacy rights as a necessary
requirement for attending school. Rather than presuming our
schoolchildren innocent of illicit activity, suspicionless drug
testing presumes them guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Is
this truly the message we wish to send to young people?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Armentano is a senior policy analyst for the NORML (National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) Foundation in Washington, D.C.
- ---