AS I SEE IT: DRUG TESTS WITHIN REASON

The recent reports that more than 50 percent of Major League Baseball
players use steroids and that amphetamines are even more popular has
created a firestorm.

What we have not read much about is that steroid use by high school seniors
in the past year is increasing and that the use of amphetamines by students
in the eighth, 10th and 12th grades is also on the rise.

Coincidence or correlation?

In the past few months, the media have set their sights on drug use among
athletes. Other stories have debated the need, legality and efficacy of
testing not only athletes for drugs but also high school students who
participate in extracurricular activities.

Although Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti recently came forward claiming
baseball's steroid problem is widespread, it is old news. Steroids made the
headlines in 1998 when Mark McGwire admitted using a steroid precursor
called androstenedione.

Former major league outfielder Chad Curtis recently told Sports Illustrated
that more players would balk at testing for amphetamines than would oppose
steroid testing. Most players don't want to be tested, while owners may be
reluctant to test them. In this case, the lawyers will decide.

Lindsay Earls is in the news, too. As a member of the Tecumseh, Okla, high
school choir, she was subjected to a mandatory drug test as a condition of
participating in the choir.

Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth, sued her high school, arguing that the
drug test violated her Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Before the end of
June, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce whether a public high school may
subject its nonathlete students to mandatory, suspicionless drug tests.
Again, the lawyers will decide.

Opponents of drug testing argue it is an invasion of privacy. There is no
doubt -- it is an invasion of privacy. But that is not the question.

The question is whether the invasion of privacy is "reasonable." Someone
should ask, "Does drug testing work?" or "Does drug testing serve as a
deterrent?" The answer clearly is "yes."

If drug testing works, is it not then reasonable to test? Shouldn't we
strive to deter steroids, amphetamines, ecstasy, marijuana, ephedrine and
alcohol use?

My 17 years of experience working with college students tells me drug
testing, combined with a well-designed prevention education program,
reduces drug use. College students tell me drug testing gives them a reason
not to use drugs. With no lawyers needed, what could be more reasonable?