MAKING A DENT IN TEEN DRUG USE

Recent Supreme Court decision could lower rates among our youths. Sometimes
it takes what may seem like extreme measures to solve really knotty and
dangerous social problems that arise from time to time. For that reason
alone, we think the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing random drug
testing of some high school teens is a good decision.

Yes, it is still another invasion of an individual's privacy, but if we are
ever going to make a noticeable and permanent dent in drug usage among
teens we are going to have to do more than we have been doing.

The Supreme Court ruling pertains only to those teens who participate in
high school extracurricular activities, which includes band, chorus, the
debate club, the taxidermy club, or whatever.

Some years ago the high court ruled in favor of drug testing for high
school athletes.

Why test just the kids who participate in extracurricular activities? Well,
for one reason these kids are seen as role models of sorts by their peers.
To have the best debater and/or the football quarterback on drugs would
send the wrong message to the rest of the student body.

And participating in these extracurricular activities should be viewed as a
privilege, not a right. Consequently, those who participate should be held
to the highest standards.

Knowing that they may be the next target of a random drug test, and knowing
that a positive test could prevent them from participating in their
favorite school activity, will persuade most of these students not to use
drugs.

The high court ruling was the final word in a civil suit brought by a
Tecumseh high school honor student - Lindsay Earls - who was a member of
the school choir and who described herself as "Miss Goody Two-Shoes." She
had implied that singling her out for a drug test not only invaded her
privacy but somehow implied that she was doing something wrong.

In the first place teens who do not use drugs have nothing to fear. We fail
to see how Miss Earls' privacy is somehow being compromised, and she should
not view the tests as anything more than that - a test.

The test does not imply that she is doing anything wrong.

We realize not everyone agrees with that view - not even the Supreme Court
justices. In fact, four of the nine justices dissented.

But, as we said in the beginning, sometimes other measures are needed to
solve especially knotty social problems. We hope the random testing helps.