WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE DRUG USE?

Ms. Katy Rose has it backwards in "Drug tests too high a price for
loss of freedom," Letters, May10.

Those being tested are not "paying" a price, they are "earning" trust.

She also mentioned that the U.S. Constitution is a "stumbling block"
in our quest to curb crime. The Constitution sets the limits and
standards for laws enacted by our government, thus it protects the
citizens. If anything, it's a "stumbling block" to the formation of a
government of sheer tyranny in which drug offenders are offered a
bullet to the head (as in China) not offered repeated rehabilitation.

As for the "actions of a small handful of Hawai'i teachers," what is
an unacceptable number of teachers using illegal drugs? A sensible
parent would think one is unacceptable.

Ms. Rose wrote, "Random drug testing does not prove that a teacher is
a danger to students during school hours." and further wrote, "It
does not prove that the teacher is a drug addict who needs help."

It sure does. A positive drug test proves the person tested is a
danger to students during school hours and a danger to the public.
Remember Mr. Keith Keone Kiilau, Mr. Chris Dichoso Santos and Mr.
Byron Say who destroyed the life of Lisa J. Wilson and her entire family?

It proves the person tested is a drug addict and does need help. If a
person must slither into the gutter with illegal drug producers,
smugglers and pushers, we should not entrust our children to their care.

Now for the most contemptible statement, "with the likelihood of
false positives, it appears that random drug testing does not prove
anything at all, except that we are willing to sacrifice our most
precious liberties at the drop of a hat." Please, reread that
statement and think about it. She uses that deplorable defense term,
circa OJ Simpson murder trial, "false positive." If a sample is
reported a positive result, that sample is retested. If a test is
positive, it does prove the person tested is an illegal drug user and
should not be in any position of authority over your children.

What liberty is being sacrificed? And if a hat is being dropped, why
all of the debate? The "dropped hat" statement generates the vision
of an immediate and instant action. If that is the case, why has it
taken months, if not years, of litigation and debate with still no
final decision in sight?

That hat has been falling for a long time.

Joseph Vrataric

Lihu'e