GIVE CREDIT WHERE IT'S DUE

The local school board and town council are taking heat over impending
decisions related to youths and illegal substances. In each instance,
the criticisms are undeserved.

In the case of School District No. 8 (Kootenay Lake) trustees poised
to adopt a drug and alcohol policy more than a year in the making are
under attack from the District Parent Advisory Council.

'The DPAC is disappointed,' claims chairman Lenora Trenaman, in a
statement read during last week's board meeting in Creston, that the
"primary emphasis is punishment and not educating and supporting our
children,"

A similar kind of skewed logic led to Ottawa introducing the Youth
Criminal Justice Act nearly two years ago, on the premise that too
many punks were doing time for running afoul of the law. Since then,
penal units are closing down and unemployment among prison guards is
going up -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as there
isn't as much need for them.

But the ill-fated YCJA is resulting in tender-aged yet hard-hearted
miscreants, like the 15- year-old who killed Chya Saleh of Winnipeg
with a single blow to the head with a billiard ball stuffed in a sock
getting off scot-free. Citing the new young offender legislation, the
judge recently sentenced Saleh's murderer to one - count 'em, one -
day in jail,

Once upon a time in this land, breaking the law or breaking the rules
carried with it a suitable consequence; if local school trustees are
willing to reinforce that premise, get out of their way.

The DPAC says the proposed policy will alienate students from their
school and that "suspensions and expulsions do not maintain a
connection." It prefers an alternative "that promotes education,
awareness and safety."

Well, it says here that any student who shows up for class drunk or
high deserves to be alienated, at least for a spell, for the safety of
everyone else, and to teach them to think twice before doing it again.

In fact, the district policy as it stands is far from harsh, allowing
a first-time offender to return to school as soon as a "plan of
action" that "may include some form of restitution" is agreed upon
with parents and staff. Repeat offenders are suspended only until they
meet with parents and staff "to develop some form of drug and alcohol
intervention" (that sounds suspiciously like promoting student
"safety" to me), and "pending a meeting of the discipline committee.'

Even teenaged traffickers who are "suspended indefinitely" and
referred to the discipline committee to "apply the consequences" are
given a program. (Isn't that "maintaining a connection" to their school?)

The DPAC quotes Dr. David Hersh of Nelson as calling the proposed
policy "a document that will be as effective as abstinence education
is for sexuality". Hmmm, I didn't realize there even was such a thing
as abstinence education in the public school system these days. In any
event, that's quite the inadvertent endorsement from the good doctor;
I'm not certain about the effect of abstinence on sexuality, but it's
a guarantee against HIV and other STDs, not to mention the heartbreak
of unwanted pregnancy and abortion. And isn't that the objective?

As for providing drug and alcohol "awareness" instead of punishment,
why does it have to be either/or? Provincial curriculum already
includes an emphasis on the perils of under-age drinking, impaired
driving and the use of illicit drugs through the Career and Personal
Planning program. The new policy merely spells out the repercussions
for those who ignore the warnings.

What sort of message is being sent to students who take their
schooling seriously if the pot-head in the next seat is being
tolerated so as not to offend his or her sensibilities?

The dilemma facing town council about whether to share a road safety
grant with graduating teens is not quite so cut and dried. As grad
committee co-sponsor David Falconer shrewdly points out (see story
page 1), ICBC put up the money to reward the town for collectively
reducing its number of auto accidents during a certain period; perhaps
"rewarding" Grade 12 students for steering clear of drugs and alcohol
for one night isn't too far off track under the circumstances.

Then again, what if one of those publicly subsidized dry grad-goers
goes out and gets plastered the next night (or week, or month) and
takes his or her life - or even worse, some one else's - on the way
home? How about stipulating the grant recipients express some form of
accountability or pledge not to drink and drive on any night, or have
the Grade 12s undertake a school-wide substance-free promotion in
advance of grad season to reinforce among all students the concept
that staying sober and having fun don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Whatever council decides, don't give them hell for stepping back from
an issue to engage in thoughtful debate in an effort to get it right
the first time.

Politicians in general have a reputation for weak-kneed policies and
snap decisions made without weighing all the angles. If we in this
valley have elected officials willing to stand up and break that mould
on occasion, give them credit where it's due.