SHOULD STUDENTS BE RANDOMLY TESTED FOR DRUGS?

NO: It's Costly, Humiliating and Not a Deterrent

Today, Atlanta will host the Office of National Drug Control Policy
student drug testing tour. Atlanta is the site of the third of four
summits at which the White House will peddle its nationwide student
drug testing agenda. But although they will be getting the hard sell
complete with offers of federal funding, I urge Atlanta educators and
parents to consider the very real dangers of student drug testing:

Random drug testing does not deter drug use. The same large survey
President Bush cited (www.monitoringthefuture.org) that showed
declines in illegal drug use this year also compared 76,000 students
in schools with and without drug testing. It turned out there was no
difference in illegal drug use among students from both sets of
schools. Because at this point only 5 percent of American schools use
drug testing, Bush's crediting these programs for reductions is a big
leap of faith.

Random drug testing alienates students. Students must be observed (by
a teacher or other adult) as they urinate to be sure the sample is
their own. It is a humiliating violation of privacy. Testing can also
have the unanticipated effect of keeping students from participating
in after-school, extracurricular programs -- activities that would
fill their time during the peak teenage drug-using hours of 3-6 p.m.

A student in Tulia, Texas, summed it up: "I know lots of kids who
don't want to get into sports . . . because they don't want to get
drug tested. That's one of the reasons I'm not into any [activity].
I'm on medication, so I would always test positive, and then they
would have to ask me about my medication, and I would be
embarrassed."

Drug testing is expensive and inefficient. As in Atlanta, school
districts across the country are in financial crisis. The millions of
dollars proposed for random drug testing could be used more wisely,
having a material rather than symbolic impact on high school drug abuse.

School administrators in Dublin, Ohio, for example, calculated that
their $35,000 per year drug-testing program was not cost-efficient. Of
1,473 students tested at $24 each, 11 tested positive, for a total
cost of $3,200 per "positive" student. They canceled the program and,
with the savings, were able to hire a full-time counselor and provide
prevention programs that reached all 3,581 students.

Some will argue that students need drug testing to help them say "no."
But in 2003, the "State of Our Nation's Youth" survey found that,
contrary to popular belief, most teens are not pressured to use drugs.
The same survey found, much to the surprise of many parents, that 75
percent of teenagers actually enjoy spending time with their parents.
Trusting, open relationships with parents and other adults have been
proven to decrease teen drug use.

Unfortunately, drug testing actually has the effect of undermining
parental influence, forcing adults to say to teenagers, in essence, "I
don't trust you."

Random drug testing may seem a panacea, but it is fraught with social,
emotional and financial problems. Before we leap into a program that
uses students as guinea pigs, we should examine the many
repercussions, pitfalls and alternatives.