SUBSIDIZED STUDENT DRUG TESTING BILL 'ONE HECK OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE'

A Republican congressman said on Thursday he plans to introduce a bill that
would give schools financial and technical assistance to conduct random
student drug tests, but critics call the measure "one heck of a slippery
slope."

"As long as there is a demand for illegal drugs, there will be dealers eager
to make a profit selling drugs to our children," said Rep. John Peterson
(R-Pa.). "We must focus on reducing demand, and one of the most effective
ways to accomplish this is through random drug testing."

Peterson is a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America,
and he supports a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of
public schools to require random drug tests of students who participate in
extracurricular activities. On June 27, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that
the schools' interest in combating drug use outweighs an individual's right
to privacy.

Peterson said that schools get some funding through the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools program, but he added, "This funding is limited and many schools
lack the technical expertise to start up these programs.

"While schools have access to some funding, my legislation will give schools
additional resources to develop and implement random drug testing programs,"
he said.

Peterson's bill would authorize $100 million in grants and technical
assistance to help schools develop and implement student drug-testing
programs, and it would help school districts tap into funds available for
drug testing through the No Child Left Behind Act.

It would also provide drug and alcohol prevention programs for students,
parents and teachers, as well as offer assistance programs for students in
need of counseling or treatment.

The measure would include guidelines to ensure the accuracy of drug-testing
methods, the confidentiality of student test results, and parental control.
Local communities, however, would be responsible for implementing their own
drug testing policy.

Critics Object

But allowing the federal government to subsidize student drug testing angers
critics.

The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which filed a
brief before the Supreme Court arguing against random drug testing in
schools, said the measure is "one heck of a slippery slope."

"There's a term that's oft used in Washington, D.C., and in legal
circles...but in this case it seems awfully applicable to describe this
[situation], said Allan St. Pierre, executive director of NORML. "If it's
not a slippery slope, [it] at least would be a pretty steep angle of
repose," he said.

According to St. Pierre, over a 10-year period, the courts have broadened
drug testing "from a very narrow group of students to, in the latest court
decision, any of those which would seek any extracurricular activity - from
the chess club to Future Farmers of America to student athletics."

St. Pierre said the lure of federal money might prompt states and
municipalities to "move in a direction that they might not otherwise go."

In addition, St. Pierre said, the bill encourages the "abdication of
parents' and children's responsibility."

"Parents, any parent in America, can go into any drug store or a WalMart and
buy a drug test, and it is completely within their purview and prerogative
to drug test their children in the morning [and] in the afternoon," he said.
"That is absolutely not a function of the federal government. And taxpayer
dollars should not be used in such a situation."

The National Education Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief
against student drug testing in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, also
opposes to the measure, although the NEA said the anticipated bill "does
seem to be addressing one of the concerns that we have over the cost of
doing such tests."

However, "our opposition to this blanket drug testing goes far beyond that,"
Lyons said.

"Extracurricular activity students, for example, are least likely to be
involved in such things, and just because this now may be legal under the
ruling from the Supreme Court, does not mean it's a good idea," she said.
"We would hope that there would be more effective ways of dealing with drug
problems that may exist."

Lyons believes that educators ought to spend their time educating.

Joyce Nalepka, president of Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge, applauded
Peterson's efforts.

"I wholeheartedly support Congressman Peterson. We would be so lucky if
everyone stood as tall as he has on this issue," she said.

Her organization first began pushing for student drug testing in 1986 when
First Lady Nancy Reagan was honorary chairman of Drug Free Kids, Nalepka
said. Mrs. Reagan passed a resolution in support of drug testing, "and it
has virtually taken all this time to get the legislation passed," Nalepka
added.

Her organization has been working on drug prevention since 1977, with the
goal of ridding schools of drugs.

She pointed out that drug testing is working in the military, with drug use
reduced to less than one percent. "And of all places we should have a
drug-free environment is in our schools," Nalepka said, adding that her
organization considers drug testing to be "prevention intervention."

"It is not for punishment. It's to help the kids get off drugs and give
non-using kids an even stronger reason to say 'no,'" she concluded.

Peterson's bill will be introduced in the coming weeks, according his
spokesman.