Straight Stuff

DRUG TESTING CRITERIA SHOULD BE NARROWER

LAST MONTH, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the latest school
drug-testing case. During questioning, the justices gave the impression
that they now are prepared to open the way to much broader use of such tests.

There are some things I hope they'll consider before they do.

As a parent, former high school coach and teacher, and someone
professionally involved in drug and alcohol treatment for more than 20
years, I'm as concerned as anyone about young people using drugs. I've seen
the damage substance abuse can do. But expanded drug testing is an overly
simple answer to a complex issue, and it creates serious problems of its own.

Since we're talking about schools, let's put it in terms of the lessons it
will teach.

Expanded testing will teach our kids that we will allow the actions of a
few to roll back the civil liberties of everyone.

It teaches that we must now prove ourselves drug-free - eroding basic
rights of presumed innocence and probable cause. It teaches a whole
generation, during their most formative years, that Americans are under
suspicion - always.

Ultimately, expanded testing teaches the lesson that our society is
governed by policies based on a "quick-fix" approach. And for all that will
be lost, and all the money that will be spent, the policy still won't end
drug use among kids.

The argument seems compelling. We tell ourselves that if students know
they'll be tested, they won't use alcohol or other drugs. For some, this
may be true. But young people, like adults, already are aware that some
activities are risky - yet they engage in them anyway. Expanded drug
testing just won't eliminate these temptations.

And there are other problems. Common tests don't screen many drugs popular
with young people today, including LSD, "designer drugs" such as ecstasy,
and experimental compounds available on the Internet - making them more
inviting. And even if tests covered all drugs, many students believe that
rich kids or star athletes are likely to be given more room when caught
than those less wealthy or talented.

Let's be clear. I'm not saying we shouldn't use drug tests in schools. What
I'm saying is rather than expand this kind of activity, we should narrow
it. We can spend the savings training teachers, administrators and other
school staff to recognize behaviors commonly associated with drug use -
then use testing to rule out the presence of drugs. In other words, we
should use testing to "rule out," rather than "rule in," use and abuse.

The signs of drug use are not mysterious. For years, law enforcement
officials have been trained to recognize them. Some Oregon school districts
already have trained teachers in this area of expertise.

And while there's no perfect guide, trained professionals generally can
distinguish eccentric behaviors and adolescent acting-out from evidence of
possible drug use. Once this distinction is made, drug testing can help
break through denial or dishonesty.

Like expanded drug testing, more focused efforts won't eliminate all teen
drug use. But behaviorally based monitoring, backed up with testing, could
be very effective - without harm to society.

"Rule-out" testing will teach our kids the most important lesson of all:
that we'll take the time and effort to create thoughtful approaches to
complicated problems. This year, the Supreme Court can teach them that lesson.

- - The opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer. As
Serenity Lane's statewide coordinator of employer services, Jerry Gjesvold
helps companies across Oregon create and manage their drug-free workplace
policies and programs. More information is available on the Serenity Lane
Web site at www.serenitylane.org.