DRUG DOGS WOULDN'T INVADE STUDENTS' PRIVACY AT ALL

The Editor,

"War on drugs has opposite effect," the Now letters, Nov. 16.

My letter pertains to the controversy over the possible use of
drug-sniffing dogs to search for drugs in public schools. This is not a
violation of privacy, as some claim. A locker, or any other place where one
may stash one's drugs in a public school is public property. If the police
are to be denied access into schools to do their jobs, how can one justify
allowing police into any other building? If the police were proposing
random house checks that would be different. That would be a violation of
privacy. Citizens of this country are guaranteed certain places of personal
privacy, which are not to be in the public's eye. Only if it can be legally
justified can police be granted entrance.

Public schools are the public's responsibility. Schools exist with the
intention of providing the general public with education. In order to
learn, one must be taught in a safe environment. I would much rather see a
dog walking the halls being controlled by a police officer than see a
student controlled by drugs walk my way.

I commend those involved who are working at finding solutions to the
current societal problems. However, this will not solve problems
surrounding drug use or limit its use. When someone deals with drugs, the
majority of this time is spent off school property. There are many other
places where one can sell and use drugs. Having drug sniffing dogs is a
good way to limit use in schools, however, it alone will be a waste of time
and money. To get to the root of the problem we must look at why one begins
to use drugs in the first place. Keep coming up with innovative tactics,
but don't put your mind or conscience at rest now. The problem is only growing.

Donnie MacMillan, Semiahmoo secondary