WALLACE: TRUST, TRUTH AND DRUG TESTING TEENS

President Bush's call for increased federal funding of school drug testing
programs has already reignited debate over the efficacy and ethics of
intrusive remedies for a country at war with drugs. Given the easy
availability of illegal substances, and their widespread use by teens, it's
a debate worth watching.

Random drug testing in schools began with student athletes and a "pay to
play" philosophy holding that participation in sports is a privilege
extended on the condition of abstinence from substance use. In a practice
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, this privilege principle quickly migrated
to other competitive activities, from cheering to chess. And now, in its
latest iteration, drug testing is being applied more broadly to students
enrolled in some private and parochial schools.

The current debate, anchored on one side by conservatives and on the other
by civil libertarians, threads age-old arguments of privacy with newfangled
applications of technology poised to detect and designed to deter. In the
middle remain a vast number of "undecideds" and the fundamental question of
effectiveness.

And here the data conflict.

* University of Michigan researchers found virtually identical rates of
drug use in the schools that have drug testing and the schools that do not
(although a study author concedes that one "could design a drug testing
program that could deter drug use").

* A Ball State University/Indiana University researcher reported that 73
percent of Indiana high school principals with random drug testing programs
in their schools reported a decrease in drug usage (compared to a period
without such a program) among students subject to the policy.

Supporters of random drug testing argue both the ethics (if we expect
students to study and test them to find out, can't we also expect them to
remain drug-free and test them to make sure?) and the outcomes (the Office
of National Drug Control Policy cites the results of drug testing programs
in Oregon and New Jersey as proof positive that they work).

They also note the positive role that testing can play by giving young
people "an out," blunting negative peer pressure with the threat of being
caught. Not enforcement but, rather, reinforcement.

Detractors, on the other hand, claim that such programs are ineffective as
deterrents and fly in the face of civics classes on the appropriate balance
between authority and individual rights.

"In Making Sense of Student Drug Testing, Why Educators are Saying No," the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Drug Policy Alliance maintain
that not only is testing ineffective in deterring young people from using
drugs, it also can undermine relationships of trust between adults and
children. While that could be true, Teens Today research from SADD and
Liberty Mutual Group suggests that the undermining may already be well
underway: while 95 percent of parents say they trust their teens in making
decisions about drugs, only 28 percent of teens report being completely
honest with parents on the issue. And that says nothing of the often
elaborate steps teens will take to conceal, not just lie about, their drug use.

In more than a few families, evasion blends with obfuscation -- commencing
a high-stakes game of cat and mouse that pits parents against teens and
cripples the very trust and truth on which those relationships are based.

What seems to be lost in this debate is the perspective of those with the
most at stake: the students themselves. Encouragingly, most teens (70
percent) say they are concerned about drug use. Yet, understandably, many
see drug testing as a violation, not so much of civil liberties as much as
of trust -- at least absent some evidence of wrongdoing. They also seem to
doubt its saliency as a deterrent, even when applied by Mom or Dad.

In one Teens Today study, only 8 percent of students said that testing by
parents would be effective in keeping them away from drugs, while 93
percent indicated that other parental measures would be effective.

The good news in all of this is that young people recognize the dangers of
drug use and seem to share adults' urgency in finding answers that keep
teens safe. The better news is a solution that's been right in front of us
all along: parents who talk regularly with their children about drugs.

According to Teens Today, adolescents in grades 6-12 say that parents are
their biggest influence not to use drugs. And the methods they report as
most effective are, perhaps, the simplest: discuss the dangers and explain
the expectations. Indeed, teens who have open and honest communication with
their parents are more likely to avoid drugs, to try to live up to their
parents' expectations regarding drug use, and to say that their parents'
methods of keeping them away from drugs are effective. These teens also
report that they are less likely to use drugs when their parents make clear
that such behavior won't be tolerated.

Whatever the outcome of the spirited public discourse over random drug
testing in schools, a surer bet may be some not-so-random drug prevention
at home. Open communication and clear expectations are already proven
deterrents to drug use among teens -- just ask them. So too is good
old-fashioned vigilance.

After all, while the cat's away ...

( Stephen Wallace, national chairman and chief executive officer of SADD,
Inc., has broad experience as a school psychologist and adolescent counselor. )