DRUG TESTING AND PERSONAL RIGHTS

To the Editor:

Re "Justices Allow Schools Wider Use of Random Drug Tests for Pupils"
(front page, June 28):

Perhaps the worst result of this ruling is that it will teach
schoolchildren that intrusive personal searches with no basis in evidence
or even suspicion are a normal part of life in the United States. A
citizenry alert to its rights is the only bulwark of democracy, but what
our future citizens will be learning instead is acceptance of regular
government snooping.

As the father of two teenagers, I worry plenty about drugs in school, but I
worry more about the loss of freedom inherent in a population that becomes
passive about its rights.

WILLIAM S. KESSLER Seattle, June 28, 2002

To the Editor:

Not only is drug testing unnecessary (front page, June 28), but it might
achieve the opposite of the decreased drug use that its supporters are
advocating.

Extracurricular activities are the best anti-drug there is. And still, some
kids who play in the band during the week smoke pot on the weekends.
However, to terminate their membership in their weekday activity only gives
them five more open afternoons during which to engage in what was once
their weekend-only activity.

Before getting tested for drugs, a kid could play in the band Monday
through Friday and smoke marijuana on the weekend; after failing the test,
he'll have no weekday responsibilities, still smoke pot on the weekends and
possibly extend that habit to the weekdays, now that he has those
afternoons open.

SONIA VON GUTFELD New York, June 28, 2002

To the Editor:

Re "Justices Allow Schools Wider Use of Random Drug Tests for Pupils"
(front page, June 28):

If it is important to have random drug testing of students, athletes and a
wide variety of employees because drugs are illegal and because they
adversely affect performance and quality of thinking, it would seem that it
would be even more important to test the leaders and decision makers of our
country -- elected officials, judges (including Supreme Court justices) and
corporate executives.

Any impairment of their ability to think clearly and perform their job
duties in an optimal manner has a much greater impact on society than does
a similar impairment of someone with lesser responsibilities. And if the
question is legality rather than impairment, why should they not be subject
to the same scrutiny regarding their possibly illegal behavior as are less
powerful people?

MARVIN CONAN New York, June 28, 2002