DRUG TESTING STUDENTS CAUSES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing the case of Lindsay Earls
vs. Tecumseh High School.

Ms. Earls was attending high school in the small town of Tecumseh, Okla., a
couple of years ago when she was informed that if she wished to participate
in the school choir, she would be required to undergo a drug test.

She was then ushered into the women's rest room, given a cup and told to
step into the stall.

Part of her objection to the process was the fact that as she was filling
the cup, three teachers stood outside the stall listening. She claims the
process was humiliating and unnecessary.

There is, however, a more serious issue at stake in Earls vs. Tecumseh.

If the Supreme Court sides with Tecumseh High in this hearing, it will set
a precedent that will give high schools freedom to test for drugs any
student who wishes to participate in any extracurricular activity without
parental permission.

In 1996, the court set a similar precedent that made it legal for schools
to test athletes. The Earls case would be much more wide- ranging. In
essence, it would mean that if your child wanted to participate in almost
any activity at school outside the basic curriculum, he or she could be
subjected to a drug screen without your permission. This would include
band, choir, FFA, FHA, drama, speech club, chess club and any other
activity you can imagine.

Essentially, it means that at one time or another, all high school students
will be tested.

Some of you might recall a case in Lockney a couple of years back involving
a man named Larry Tannahill. Mr. Tannahill refused to allow the Lockney
school to test his son, Brady. As a result of that refusal, Brady was
temporarily expelled from school, and Mr. Tannahill was fired from his job.

In March 2001, a federal district court in Texas struck down the Lockney
school's drug-testing policy. Similarly, in Oklahoma, the Tecumseh testing
policy was struck down by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In fact,
all across the nation, federal courts have been rejecting the notion that
schools should be able to implement broad- range testing policies in their
schools.

So why am I talking about it here?

According to Washington insiders, it is a "done deal" that the Supreme
Court will reverse the decision made by the 10th Court of Appeals and
support Tecumseh's right to test students who wish to participate in
extracurricular activities of any kind.

In fact, according to some sources, Republicans have had in the works for
many years a plan to test all high school students. And this precedent, if
it passes, will include almost all students between seventh and 12th grade.
A line stealthily slipped into one of former President Clinton's education
bills a few years back, and missed at the time by the authors of the bill,
provides evidence of this plan. The line would allow schools to tap
gigantic block funds of school money to pay for testing.

In other words, money that is being used to improve the quality of
education in our schools instead would be used to pay for drug testing.

Now, I should say that I am not pro-drug use. In fact, I believe that
prolonged drug use, just like alcohol or tobacco abuse, can lead to a
number of problems for the abuser. I wonder, however, if testing is an
effective way to prevent drug use.

Testing is most effective in detecting marijuana abuse, as evidence of that
drug remains in the body for many days after use. Traces of other, more
powerful drugs, such as cocaine or ecstasy, however, are often gone by the
morning after.

Drug tests are notoriously unreliable as well, often failing to detect drug
use or providing false-positives in as many as one in 100 tests. This means
that in a school the size of Amarillo High, in any given year there is the
possibility that as many as 10 innocent students could test positive for
drugs. Imagine if it were your son or daughter who was faced with the
stigma of being labeled a drug user.

Experts agree as well that drug testing is not the best policy. In a brief
filed in support of Lindsay Earls, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Social
Workers said that "Tecumseh's policy does far more harm than good to the
community's young people - rendering them, for example, more likely to drop
out of school, less likely to be admitted to college, more likely to become
involved with crime and more likely to use drugs."

I sincerely hope the justices of the Supreme Court will side with Lindsay
Earls this week. However, I fear they will not. The conservative group of
judges currently on the bench has consistently voted a hard line where
drugs are concerned. This attitude sends the right message to kids, but at
what cost?

Are you, as a parent, ready to give schools the right to test your child
for drugs without your permission?

By the time you read this column, that question might be moot.