DRUG TESTS PLAN DESERVES A CHANCE

Give Jim Yancey Credit For A Bold Move

The superintendent of schools is proposing drug tests be conducted
randomly on hundreds of Marion County high school athletes this year
at an estimated cost of $40,000. His goal is simple and
straightforward -- to do something, anything, to curb a growing
teen-age drug problem in our community.

Yancey's drug-testing plan has stirred minimal public debate. Never
mind that drug testing is hardly a proven deterrent to youth drug use.
Forget that the money could certainly be used elsewhere in our
schools. The reason for the dearth of public criticism, we suspect, is
that no one really has a better idea of how to attack growing illegal
drug use among the youth of Marion County.

Just how serious is the problem? Well, a recent Florida Youth
Substance Abuse Survey found that 26 percent of Marion County
teenagers are "current" users of illegal drugs, from marijuana to
cocaine to ecstasy. That's one in every four, folks. Somebody needs to
do something.

If approved by the School Board next month, Yancey's proposal would be
minimalist to start out. It calls for conducting random drug tests on
about one-fourth of the county's 4,000 high school athletes. If a
student tests positive for an illegal drug, he or she would suspended
for seven days -- including from athletic events -- and required to
enter a counseling program. There would be follow-up drug tests
throughout his or her high school career as well.

If a student were to test positive for drugs a second time, that
athlete would be suspended from athletics for a full year and referred
to a drug-treatment program.

Refusal to submit to a test would lead to banishment from athletics
for a full year.

During the 2005-06 school year, Yancey hopes to expand the
drug-testing program to all extracurricular activities, increasing the
number of eligible students to 6,000 and the cost to up to $70,000.

Some observers say Yancey is targeting the wrong group of young
people, athletes and others who participate in after-school
activities. They say this group is less apt to use drugs than other,
less involved students. Maybe.

The reality is schools are constitutionally limited in who they can
test -- the Supreme Court ruled last year that athletes can be tested
- -- and venturing into that legal thicket could be costly and
counterproductive.

Moreover, to think that just because Johnny plays football or Jenny
plays softball means they don't do drugs is simply naive. Remember,
one in four . . . rest assured, there are athletes among the drug users.

Yancey's goal is to begin somewhere, helping someone. To think that
random drugs tests will dramatically reduced drug use among our
youngsters is probably optimistic at best. Nonetheless, we support
Yancey's plan because it will bring needed attention to a serious
community problem and because it dares to question those most would
suspect the least and who are too often afforded special treatment
because of their status as athletes.

Yes, Yancey's drug testing idea is unproven. But he says if he can
save one child, it will be worth the effort. We suspect it will save
more than that and is deserving of a chance.