STUDENT DRUG TESTING SUMMIT: URINE TROUBLE WITH THE FOLLICLE FOLLIES

Public school students without hair may not participate in
extracurricular activities in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Zero tolerance for hairlessness may sound arbitrary and silly. It
may function as a literal drag on competitive swimmers, who
sometimes shave their bodies to improve times. But for proponents of
school drug testing, it's a logical extension of the quest for
chemical integrity in student bodies.

A few chuckles could be heard in the audience at the Office of
National Drug Control Policy's "Student Drug Testing Summit" in
suburban Chicago earlier this week when the issue of follicle
policing was raised.

The Jefferson Parish school district, you see, uses hair testing to
check students for traces of drug use. After the program was
implemented, some athletes arrived at school without any hair to
test. Such tactics were quickly confronted with the no-hair/no-play
rule, which does not apply students with medical conditions that
cause hairlessness. Such young people are graciously offered the
opportunity to have their urine inspected instead.

Jefferson Parish District Attorney Paul Connick was at the student
drug testing summit. He pushed to the implement hair testing policy
in his local school district. Connick told of the lengths he went to
get the program in place, including forcing the issue during a
school board election. Connick said he approached school board
members in the race and said they needed to vote in favor of student
drug testing in order to have the District Attorney's support in the
election. He said all the incumbents did go on to vote for the drug
testing policy.

"You gotta use whatever trick you can," said Connick, coining what
could be an apt new motto for the ONDCP (particularly since the
office is now officially authorized to spread disinformation, see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n447/a05.html ).

There was lots of information at the so-called summit, but it hardly
seemed complete. I didn't attend every session throughout the day,
but I didn't hear any talk about a federally-funded 2003 study
published in the Journal of School Health. Described in the New York
Times as the biggest study of its kind, the research indicated that
school districts with drug testing had similar drug use rates
compared with schools that didn't test for drugs (see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n723/a01.html for the story).

At the time of the study's release, some ONDCP reps argued about
different interpretations of the data, but one of the study's
authors did not mince words when he commented on the results.

"It suggests that there isn't really an impact from drug testing as
practiced," researcher Lloyd D. Johnston told the New York Times.
"It's the kind of intervention that doesn't win the hearts and minds
of children. I don't think it brings about any constructive changes
in their attitudes about drugs or their belief in the dangers
associated with them."

Views like Johnston's were not readily apparent at the drug testing
summit. A handout from the ONDCP distributed at the summit featured
answers to frequently asked questions, but the Journal of School
Health study is not mentioned in response to the question, "Are
student drug testing programs effective at deterring use?"

To make things worse, the answer begins with misleading certainty:
"Yes, random student drug testing is effective at deterring drug
use."

So the summit was far from objective, but I did enjoy one
presentation by Bryan S. Finkle, a drug-testing authority with an
impressive page-long bio that included stints at Scotland Yard and
as past president of the International Association of Forensic
Toxicologists. Finkle gave a talk and answered questions on current
drug testing technology. Much of the conference seemed to advocate
student drug testing as a clearly good option, and Finkle didn't
explicitly contradict that notion, but he did lay out some of the
controversies and consequences in a straight forward manner.

"If you get into this business, there will be a lawsuit sooner or
later," Finkle told school administrators who were considering
student drug testing programs. He said competent drug testing labs
can be found, but not all labs are equally competent.

All types of drug testing, from urine testing to hair testing, carry
positive and negative attributes, he said, as well as weaknesses
that can be exploited. And if school districts expect accurate
results, they can't cut corners with cheap tests.

Add these issues to questions of privacy, trust and constitutional
rights, it's difficult to see how any possible benefits outweigh the
costs of student drug testing.

But I didn't hear other discussion of the ambiguities, flaws and
risks of drug testing students at the summit. I did hear many
speakers say that drug testing isn't about drawing young people into
the criminal justice system. No, no, they insisted, it's all about
saving the kiddies from brushes with the law.

Here in Illinois, where the summit was held, don't be so sure. Right
now a bill is making its way through the state legislature that
would criminalize the act of attempting to defraud a drug test (see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n402/a05.html ). If that bill
becomes law, one could imagine a situation where an enterprising
chemistry club member educates himself about ways to create false
negatives on drug tests. If he decides to experiment on himself, he
will be breaking the law. Is it farfetched to envision his
prosecution?

Perhaps, but active students in the Jefferson Parish school district
probably never imagined they could be blackballed for excessive
shaving.