HALF-BAKED DRUG RULING

Bruce Fein defends the Supreme Court's latest drug-war exemption to the
Constitution by claiming the Fourth Amendment "speaks in chiaroscuro" and
drug-test failure is "not chimerical" ("Anti-drug successes and
protections," Commentary, Monday). Mr. Fein's vocabulary is impressive, but
his arguments are irrelevant.

Student involvement in extracurricular activities has been shown to reduce
drug use. Such activities keep kids busy during the hours they are most
likely to get into trouble. Forcing students to undergo degrading urine
tests as a prerequisite will only discourage their participation in such
activities.

Drug testing also may compel users of relatively harmless marijuana to
switch to harder drugs to avoid testing positive. Despite a short- lived
high, marijuana is the only drug that stays in the body long enough to make
urinalysis a deterrent. Marijuana's organic metabolites are fat-soluble and
can linger for days.

Synthetic drugs are water-soluble and exit the body quickly. A student who
takes ecstasy, methamphetamine or cocaine Friday night will likely test
clean Monday morning. If you think students don't know this, think again.
Anyone capable of running a search on the Internet can find out how to
thwart a drug test. Drug testing profiteers do not readily volunteer this
information, for obvious reasons.

The most commonly abused drug and the one most closely associated with
violent behavior is almost impossible to detect with urinalysis. That drug
is alcohol, and it takes far more student lives every year than all illegal
drugs combined.

Instead of wasting money on counterproductive drug tests, schools should
invest in reality-based drug education.

ROBERT SHARPE

Program officer

Drug Policy Alliance

Washington
------------------------------------------
Of the Supreme Court's decision to allow suspicionless drug testing of
students participating in extracurricular activities, Bruce Fein wrote:
"'Unreasonable searches and seizures' are prohibited [by the Constitution];
but no specific clues are provided to demarcate the reasonable from the
unreasonable."

Mr. Fein neglected to quote from the remainder of the Fourth Amendment,
which goes on to read: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

How can a legitimate warrant be issued for the search of randomly chosen
persons who have, so far as anyone knows, done nothing wrong?

It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to find some Rube Goldberg- like
mechanism by which current political axes can be ground. It is the duty of
the court to stand up for the Constitution. This it failed to do, and no
amount of lawyeresque rationalization is going to change that.

RAY ALDRIDGE

Fort Walton Beach, Fla.