STUDENT DRUG TESTING IS NOT THE ANSWER

Pewaukee High School announced last week that the first year of its
drug-testing program had yielded three positive results for drugs.
Several other school districts have expressed interest in
implementing similar plans.

I hope they will reconsider and that the Pewaukee School District,
despite its three "successes," will think about ending its program.

Few, if any, would question the aim of reducing the use of drugs, or
alcohol and tobacco, by adolescents. What I question is random,
suspicionless drug testing as a means of doing so.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school districts may
conduct drug tests of students who participate in extracurricular
activities without probable cause - that is, without any reason to
suspect the student is using drugs. Most adults would balk at being
randomly ordered to urinate within sound or sight of a monitor.
However, teenagers' privacy apparently is not valued.

A drug-testing program is likely to produce two different reactions
among those tested: increased resentment of authority or, worse,
sheeplike compliance after hearing the rote phrase, "If you have
nothing to hide, why should it bother you?" That is a frightening
attitude to instill in our future citizens unless we are preparing
them to live in a police state.

Like most people, a Supreme Court majority felt that stopping teen
drug use overrides civil liberties concerns. Here's a more convincing
reason to avoid random drug testing: It doesn't work. In fact, it is
probably counterproductive.

In 2003, researchers partly funded by the government's National
Institute on Drug Abuse published the first large-scale study of the
effects of school drug testing. They found that it had no impact on
student drug use.

But ineffectiveness is not why groups including the American Academy
of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association and the
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence signed a
friend-of-the-court brief in the 2002 case.

They felt compelled, in the words of the brief, "to resist measures,
however well-intentioned, that are inconsistent with" the objective
of preventing teenage drug abuse - in other words, because drug
testing can be counterproductive.

Studies have shown what common sense suggests: Teens participating in
athletics or extracurricular activities are a relatively low-risk
group for drug use. Pewaukee High could be examining the urine of
Chess Club and Pep Squad members when the students in real danger are
hanging around the parking lot.

The most obvious way extracurricular participation protects students
is by keeping them busy and supervised. The period between the end of
the school day and parents' arrival home is the most dangerous time
for teens, when a disproportionate amount of dangerous behavior,
including drug use, happens.

That's not the only way extracurricular activities help keep students
away from drugs. Those who participate get social support from other
motivated students and from faculty they get to know outside the classroom.

What might happen when schools institute a drug-testing requirement
for participation in after-school activities? Some students will
refuse to participate in the activities, and those most likely to
skip it are precisely the ones activities would help most - the kids
on the margins who aren't already involved and motivated. Those with
something to hide will avoid the very programs.

If drug testing worked, it might be worth the privacy loss and the
cost ($1,000 per positive result in Pewaukee). But research shows it
fails to reduce student drug use, and experts in child health and
substance abuse believe it does harm.

There are effective education, prevention and treatment programs out
there. We should demand our schools find them, instead of wasting
money on the appearance of doing something about drug use.