A CALL FOR DIALOGUE ON DRUG TESTING

In contrast to some Midwestern states, the idea of widespread testing of
high school students for illegal drugs has never caught on in Nebraska.

Things change.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has placed a clear stamp of approval on
such programs, community discussion should be encouraged on whether the
programs are worthwhile.

Advocacy groups are sure to form, especially since corporations now see a
new field for profit. In fact, the Drug and Alcohol Industry Association,
made up of private drug-testing companies, already has scheduled a workshop
in Washington on July 18 for school board members and principals, according
to the New York Times.

"Drug and alcohol testing has shown to be a very effective means of
deterring drug use, and the nation's children need to live healthly and
drug-and alcohol-free lives," said Laura E. Shelton, executive director of
the association.

That's exactly what officials at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma believed
when they enacted a program of random testing.

So choir singer Lindsay Earls found herself urinating into a cup in a
school restroom stall while her teachers waited outside. Earls filed suit,
contending that the test violated her constitutional right to privacy. Her
loss in court means there are no legal barriers to mandatory random testing
for students in extracurricular activities.

Exactly why the Pottawatamie School Board in Tecumseh established its
program of drug testing remains somewhat of a puzzle. Based on the
evidence, the district does not seem to have a serious drug problem. So far
797 students have been tested. Three all athletes tested positive.

Today only about 5 percent of schools test athletes for drugs. Another 2
percent of schools test students involved in other extracurricular
activities, according to the New York Times.

Implementation of a testing program should not be undertaken lightly. Some
experts argue that if students banned from extracurricular activities
because of a single positive test result will find themselves shut out from
positive, beneficial alternatives to drug use. Another reason is that
testing will not be cheap. Drug testing kits cost about $30 to $60 per
individual. Added to that cost would be the staff time needed to collect
samples.

One reason why mandatory drug testing has few vocal supporters locally is
that the Lincoln School District has an active School Community
Intervention Program in which school officials notify parents when they
notice drastic changes in behavior and habits that may signal drug use. On
average, SCIP teams approve about 1,000 interventions annually.

Are existing local school anti-drug programs and policies enough? Or should
government take a more active role in detecting and deterring drug use
among students? Proactive measures by school officials to gain a sense of
community sentiment would be timely.