SINCE WE ASKED: A DIFFERENT 'TEST' FOR STUDENTS?

When a group of Medford parents brought a petition to the school board,
asking for an official look into the possibility of randomly testing
students for drugs, they knew the suggestion would spark a debate.

So did we. That's why we made it our question last week ... and you folks
didn't fail us, as we received dozens of responses with various opinions on
the subject.

After you have had a chance to read through them, please take a moment to
answer this week's question.

But for now, we asked:

Should schools be allowed to randomly test students for drugs?

# Yes, especially students participating in sports. Random tests might help
alleviate a life long problem (and) allow parents to get their children
help. -- Dawn D., Gold Hill

# Yes. Employers have that ability. Schools should too; but with personal
rights protected and treatment options and counseling, not expulsion,
mandatory for students. -- Jackie, Talent

# Absolutely not. If adults cannot be randomly tested, then students should
not be held to standards that adults are unwilling to be held to
themselves. If parents want to drug test their children, they should take
them to their family doctor and ask for it there. -- Jamie, Medford

# Sure, test the kids -- then the teachers, then the principal, then the
school board, then the bus drivers, then ... then ... then, etc. -- Bill
S., Eagle Point

# I would be all in favor of school drug testing. If it worked. But it
doesn't. What it does do is send a strong message to kids. The message that
we adults don't trust them. The message that their word and their integrity
is worth less than their urine. The message that the government has the
right to intrude into every facet of our private lives. Ask yourself, who
would be more likely to favor random drug tests meant to ensure lockstep
purity, Jesus or Hitler? -- Greg F., Cyberspace

# Testing students should be considered when the entire drug testing
program is used from the top down first. We may not want to believe it but
it would shock everyone if the first people tested were the administrators
and civic leaders, the police and law profession, our medical
professionals, and so on. ... I have no ax to grind, just would like
everyone to take a real look at reality. Drive into any city in this land
and before you see a school, or church, or police station, you will see a
Drug Store. Every time I see a sign on a vehicle that says "Our Company
Drug Free" I want to laugh. Saving our children starts at home, if anyone
is there to spend time with them. -- D.B., Applegate

# Schools should definitely be allowed to randomly test for drugs on their
students. How else do we expect to keep our public schools safe? Although
it's ultimately up to the parents to expect more of their children. If they
don't enforce drug laws firsthand, then who else will? -- Jennifer S.,
Central Point

# Randomly testing students or employees for drugs is to assume they are
guilty and must prove their innocence. That's not American. Testing must be
limited to those who exhibit signs of drug abuse. Those who function and
perform normally should not be subject to America's new witch hunt. --
Darryl E., Eagle Point

# I don't think the school should be paying just because parents don't
trust their children. If the parents feel that strongly about it, let them
take on the responsibility and have their own children randomly tested. Do
these parents think the rest of the taxpayers are big, deep pockets? -- Don
B., Medford

# Why random drug tests? If they know there is a problem, then they know
who the problem kids are, right? Just test those kids and save the school
district some money. Either way, random or profiling, they're just asking
for huge legal problems. Hmmmm, public random drug tests. What's next,
cameras in our homes? -- Bruce, Medford

# YES!!! There are too many children in school today that are on drugs. If
the parents want them tested, they should have to pay for it. I feel that
every student should be tested at least three times a year for the sake of
the school and other students. I also feel that with open campus that adds
to the problem of drugs because every day you see these kids light up their
pot once they are off the school grounds. Closed campus for all students.
- -- Kathy M., Medford OR

# Absolutely! One more step should be added though. When a kid tests
positive for drugs then the parents or guardians should be tested also.
Kids don't get their dope just from other kids or a dealer. Might help Mom
or Dad to be more watchful. -- Alan F., Trail

# No. Drug testing has absolutely no effect on students' drug use, as shown
by the largest study ever done on the topic, which was federally funded.
Besides, shoving students into bathroom stalls while their teachers stand
outside the door listening for the sounds of urination is invasive
andembarrassing. -- Tom Angell, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, 1623
Connecticut Ave NW; Suite 300; Washington, DC 20009

# Sure, test students, but only if you also randomly drug test the teachers
and administration, parents and pastors, bus drivers and coaches, etc.
Rather than singling out students, how about we treat equally those
responsible to teach, train, guide, and influence them. The results may
enlighten us all. -- Rick B., formerly of Central Point

# NO. Random drug testing violates privacy in a most degrading fashion. It
is most effective in detecting the least-toxic substance, marijuana. Would
the concerned Medford parents prefer their children choose the
less-detectable and second most popular form of substance-abuse, huffing?
- -- Rick S., San Jose, Calif.

# I believe this is a good idea. We all want our children to be safe and
with random drug testing, I would hope this would help keep more kids away
from drugs. This might have an influence for them not to take a chance at
getting caught. -- Lisa H., Medford

# It's the parents job to monitor their kids and make sure they aren't
doing drugs. Why should taxpayers have to give up their hard earned money
to support a program to do what parents should be doing already? -- Krissy
C., Medford

# Realize that drug use is a problem, but educators should educate -- not
police -- the students. Testing general student population tramps on the
1st Amendment. -- Robert J., Phoenix

# The use of random drug testing is schools will serve no good purpose, but
will train our youth to do without their full complement of civil rights.
Given the current plans and goals of the federal government, a bunch of
adults who have been trained since school to do without their civil rights
will be more easily made compliant to the will of the government than a
bunch of adults who know and are protective of them. So indeed yes, test
them. If we truly love our President and want a real Christian America,
drug testing as training for compliance to governmental dictate can never
begin too soon. -- Laird F., Williams

# Since the publication of the definitive "Making Sense of Student Drug
Testing, Why Educators are Saying No" (January 2004) written by Fatema
Gunja, Alexandra Cox, Marsha Rosenbaum, Ph.D. and Judith Appel, JD, the key
flaws in random student drug testing have been exposed. Simply put,
evidentiary coercive interventions fail to accomplish the 'deterrence' aims
intended. The 24-page report facilitated by ACLU and the Drug Policy
Foundation discusses promising alternatives to continuing paradigms of
failure. I commend it to your readers and trust it helps inform parents and
caregivers about how best to address drug use among young people in your
community. -- Blair Anderson, Director, Educators for Sensible Drug Policy,
Christchurch, New Zealand

# By all means, YES! Maybe we can nip this drug problem in the bud before
it takes hold of them! As a mother of three, I would fully support random
drug testing in the schools; I would welcome it! -- Lisa M., Medford

# Yes, with parental consent. -- JLD, Central Point

# If there is a reasonable belief that a student or group of students are
under the influence of a controlled substance then by all means YES!!
Schools are suppose to be for education not someplace to go to "get high."
- -- Michelle, Medford