DRUG TEST PROPOSAL IS A WASTE

What a noble idea. It would be great if there was that one perfect way of
accomplishing that goal. But there isn't, and the proposal to start drug
testing student-athletes isn't the answer.

The Polk County School Board is voting today on a new policy that starts
drug testing athletes this spring. The funding comes from a $236,000
federal grant.

Drug testing athletes is, at best, government paternalism gone awry -- the
idea that only a government program can solve a problem -- and, at its
worst, a feel-good idea that accomplishes nothing. Actually, the civil
liberty and privacy issues involved are worse, but let's save the personal
freedom issue for later.

There are so many things wrong with the drug testing of athletes, it's hard
to decide where to begin. So let's start with this:

DRUG TESTING DOES NOT WORK.

A University of Michigan study, the largest ever conducted on drug testing,
took place between 1998-2001. Based on data from 76,000 students, it found
no difference in the rates of drug use between schools that have drug
testing and schools that do not.

In fact, schools that have drug testing had a higher percentage. In schools
with drug testing, 21 percent of seniors admitted to illicit drug use and
37 percent admitted to marijuana use. For schools without drug testing, the
percentages were slightly lower, 19 percent and 36 percent, respectively.

So right off the bat, it is questionable whether there will actually be any
reduction with testing. And in an era in which it's hard to find money to
fund many educational programs, is this the best way to used scarce resources?

What's even worse about the drug testing is the targeting of
student-athletes. Drug tests, even if the courts allow them, are
self-incrimination. On the streets, there are safeguards against illegal
searches, but police do have some leeway by using probable cause. In
targeting student-athletes, there is less probable cause than with the
general student body.

A 1995 study done by the Department of Health and Human Services shows
students who spend no time in extracurricular activities are 49 percent
more likely to have used drugs. And while it has been 13 years, a 1991
study found that 92 percent of sports participants do not use drugs.

In a story that ran in The Ledger on Monday, Dave Hallock, the executive
director of Families of Polk County, said athletes are a good target
because they influence other students and because of the safety issue that
could arise if an athlete is under the influence of drugs.

If they influence other students, they're a positive influence. Consider a
study done by the North Carolina High School Athletic Association in the
'90s over a three-year period. The GPA for athletes was nearly a point
higher, and they missed half as many days. Even more, the dropout rate was
0.7 percent for athletes and 8.98 percent for non-athletes, while the
graduation rate was 99.56 for athletes and 94.66 for non-athletes.

Since drug abuse is considered to be a cause of dropouts, maybe we should
be testing non-athletes. At least there would be a stronger case for
probable cause.

There are plenty of studies that show how high school athletes get better
grades, are less likely to drink, smoke and use drugs and are less likely
to get in trouble. So how do we reward them? We automatically assume
they're guilty and make them pee in a cup.

As for safety, where are the rash of injuries because athletes are getting
high or drunk before a game? Sounds like somebody has If safety was such a
high priority, steroids would be part of the equation. A case for steroid
testing might be more easily made, but the prohibitive cost keeps it from
being considered.

But I guess we're only concerned about safety when we can afford it.

There are other concerns.

Where is the money going to come from after the grant money runs out?

What about privacy? If there is testing and all of a sudden a star athlete
isn't playing, there's going to be questions. Is the athlete hurt, sick,
having personal problems -- or is he or she at the Mark Wilcox Center for
drug education and assessment for 10 days?

Accuracy is questionable. Over-the-counter decongestants may produce
positive results for amphetamines; codeine can produce a positive result
for heroin; poppy seeds can produce positive results for opiates.

And don't forget, this is the information age. There are websites that tell
you how to pass a drug test.

Then there's the mentality of officials who don't seem to be giving much
thought to the fourth (unreasonable searches) and fifth
(self-incrimination) amendments. And don't start throwing arguments about
how athletics are a privilege. I don't think our Founding Fathers would
agree that we should give up basic rights so we can play high school sports.

Board member Margaret Lofton, who supports drug testing, told The Ledger in
Monday's story that "maybe 15 years ago I wouldn't feel the same way I do
today. But our world has changed so drastically. It's sad to me that we
ever have to do this."

So is that it? When a problem doesn't go away and frustration builds, then
it's OK for the government to come in with a heavy hand and start stepping
on rights?

I could be cynical and say that officials know that drug testing athletes
won't have any effect on drug abuse. That they're just doing feel-good
politics to ease their conscience, which is the worst kind of politics.

But I won't. I'll accept the idea that they honestly think it will help
with the drug problem. However, the ends don't justify the means, and in
this case, we won't be anywhere near the end they're hoping to reach.