STUDENT DRUG-TESTING: CONSTITUTIONAL, AND A SMART SCHOOL TACTIC

Lars Larsen's letter of Sept. 21 ["Random drug tests would usurp
constitutional rights"] included erroneous information.

He claimed "the state board has not yet published [the Virginia SDT
Guidelines]." But in fact they were issued this past July in a memo to
every school superintendent in Virginia. They are available at the link
pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/PC/DrugTestingGuidelines.pdf.

Larsen suggested student drug-testing was of questionable
constitutionality. However, the Virginia SDT Guidelines were developed
jointly with the Virginia attorney general's office for the specific
purpose of assuring they would fully comply with the Virginia and U.S.
constitutions.

He quoted the losing side of a Supreme Court decision. The minority
justices' discredited ideas were rejected by the majority who approved RSDT
on a health/safety rationale. The majority ruling stated, "The Court
concludes that the [school's drug-testing] Policy effectively serves the
School District's interest in protecting its students' safety and health."

He asked what happens if students refuse to submit to testing. In most SDT
programs, the kid is treated as if he tested positive, banned from
activities and assigned counseling until he submits. But he is not simply
abandoned to possible dangerous drug involvement, and he would not be
suspended from school or punished in any way.

Random student drug-testing is legal, effective, and popular. It is one of
the fastest-growing drug-prevention strategies being adopted in schools
throughout America. People can learn the true facts about student drug
testing at studentdrugtesting.org.

DeForest Rathbone

Great Falls