DRUG-TESTING A COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE WAY OF DEALING WITH STUDENT DRUG ABUSE?

To the Editor:

In Sunday's editorial, Executive Editor Mike J. McCormick opined, "We
support Thursday's ruling handed down by the court. It won't be popular in
the face of many, especially those who have a tendency to buy, sell and use
illegal drugs."

It also won't be popular with those who revere the Constitution, and who
think that our hard-won liberties are worth preserving.

But aside from that, have you considered that drug-testing might be a
counter-productive way of dealing with student drug abuse?

Consider this: students who are involved with drugs must now decide whether
band or chess club is more important to them than doing drugs. Any kid who
has a problem with drugs is just going to quit these extracurricular
activities, rather than risk getting caught, which will leave him with even
more time to get involved with crime and violence. Better to have him keep
playing in the band, where at least some of his friends won't be drug-addled.

And consider this: drug-testing tends to make drug abusers move from
marijuana to harder drugs. Why? Because only marijuana stays in the system
long enough to show up in a urine test. Other, more dangerous drugs clear
out of the body overnight, including heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, meth, and
even alcohol, the drug that kills more students than all the illegal ones
put together.

Drug testing is bad because it teaches students that the Constitution means
nothing, and because it drives at-risk students into even riskier behavior.

It's both anti-American and stupid.

Ray Aldridge

(former Oklahoman)

Ft. Walton Beach, Fla.