BUSH'S PISS TEST

Colorado has a libertarian streak to it, and we want to keep
government out of our lives as much as we can," Sen. Steve Johnson
(R-Fort Collins) said at an April 8 conference hosted by the drug czar
in Denver to promote random drug testing for students.

But. There's always a "but." Johnson supports Bush's new program to
offer $23 million in grants to schools that implement drug testing. He
said new legislation probably is not needed to allow Colorado schools
to take the money, but he'll be happy to sponsor such legislation if
it'll help the program.

Ironically, the same day as the drug czar's event (Czar John Walters
couldn't make it himself, so he left his underlings in charge),
Colorado Republicans were falling all over themselves to endorse one
of the nation's top recreational-drug manufacturers for U.S. Senate.
"Coors on tap," a headline in the Rocky Mountain News quipped.

At the conference Johnson said, "Drugs are not a threat because they
are illegal, they are illegal because they are a threat." Cute, but
misleading. Of course drug abuse is a threat, and that goes for the
drug alcohol, too. And from 1919 to 1933, the U.S. Constitution
enshrined the prohibition of alcohol because of the threat of alcohol.
(Just ask Peter Coors, whose family business was interrupted during
this era.)

Yet the prohibition of alcohol was a greater threat to U.S. society
than the drug itself was. Prohibition spawned violent underground
markets, rising crime, police corruption, toxic and explosive brew
labs and far more dangerous forms of the drug. Thus, contrary to
Johnson's zinger, alcohol was a threat precisely because it was illegal.

Today, the same holds for the prohibition of other drugs. The U.S.
homicide rate is at least a fourth higher than it would be in the
absence of drug prohibition, estimates economist Jeffrey Miron. In
police departments across the nation, we see an increase in
militarized tactics, evidence planting and tampering, bribery,
outright drug dealing and other forms of corruption. Drugs are
produced dangerously, and the drugs themselves are far more dangerous
because of impurities and unknown potency.

Yet, as Mary Ann Solberg, deputy director of Drug Policy for the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (who works for Czar Walters),
told me at the meeting, "Alcohol is legal, and it's one of the most
abused drugs."

"Then would you support returning to the full prohibition of alcohol?"
I asked her. She said no, and I asked her why not. "Drugs are illegal
because they're a threat," right? She hemmed and hawed, then finally
said, "At this point it's moot." In other words, we all like Pete
Coors just fine, even though he manufactures "one of the most abused
drugs." Good, upstanding citizen, Johnson's fellow Republican
Coors-"an outstanding public servant," as Governor Owens said of him
(according to the News).

And yet I think Solberg, though completely misguided in her
endorsement of modern prohibition, is sincerely concerned with the
well-being of children. (Solberg's main problem is that she wants to
treat all adults as if they were children.) Even though I oppose
federal funding of any propaganda campaign, the latest ONDCP ads have
a pretty good message: Parents should be more involved with their
children, and friends shouldn't stand idly by and watch as friends
spiral into drug abuse.

I was happy to hear that random drug testing never involves the
police. Instead, students who test positive for drug use may face
counseling, community service and loss of extracurricular activity.
The program is billed as early intervention, not punishment.

A couple of speakers presented evidence that random drug testing is
associated with less drug use. However, that does not mean that drug
testing is necessary to curb drug use. Some of the evidence presented
suggests drug use can be reduced without testing. It seems that a
community culture in which parents, school employees and student
leaders discourage drug use is most important.

Is random drug testing coming to a school near you? In 2002, the U.S.
Supreme Court approved random drug tests for students in all
extracurricular activities. Students in the general population may not
be randomly tested, though they can be tested based on "reasonable
suspicion." David Evans, executive director of the Drug Free Schools
Coalition, said Colorado law allows testing at least for athletes, and
probably for students in all extracurricular activities.

The rationale for testing "only" students in extracurricular
activities is that participation is voluntary. However, parents are
still forced to pay for such activities, whether their students
participate in them or not.

The more paranoid among us wonder whether this is just a stepping
stone to mandatory testing for all students, and then adults, too.
(Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to collect
your bodily fluids.)

One option I discussed with Evans is to simply allow uppity parents to
opt out of random drug testing without losing access to activities.
Even better would be to leave this as a family matter. Surely we can
pursue "family values" just fine without the "help" of Bush and his
czar.