SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT EXPAND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT DRUG TESTING

Unconstitutional: Students Are Being Asked To Shed Their Rights At The
Schoolhouse Door.

Re: your March 20 article, "Court considers expanded school drug tests":

It's the druggies vs. the squares all over again. Only this time, in the
view of the U.S. Supreme Court, the druggies include all high- school-age
students in America.

The week before last, the justices strongly hinted that they would uphold
mandatory drug testing of high school students as constitutional.

The Bill of Rights is not supposed to be a flexible document. In matters of
public safety, the court has rightfully made rulings that have altered its
intent. To trample on the Fourth Amendment in the name of the war on drugs
is lunacy.

That our high court views the Bill of Rights as a fluid document is more
unsettling than random surveys showing that drug use among high school
seniors is on the rise for the umpteenth time.

The Supreme Court once stated that "students do not shed their
constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door." Sadly enough in 2002, this
is no longer so.

When we are willing to strip young people of their rights, we are not
treating them as individual beings. Rather, we are dealing with them as
extensions of their parents, unable to function in the world until they
magically "get it" on their 18th birthday or their high school graduation
or when they move out of the house.

Justice Anthony Kennedy derisively spoke of "the drug culture" and "druggie
schools" during the hearings. That he saw no problem using these labels in
a public Supreme Court hearing reveals an extreme misunderstanding of the
realities of drug use in the United States. It could be reasonably argued
that we are a drug-addicted society.

It is not a stretch to imagine Justice Kennedy lamenting the scourge of
drugs in society over a martini in the court chambers. That the court would
consider the threat of a school-administered drug test as a viable cog in
the drug prevention wheel, fit for public schools, is laughable.

The biggest threat to these affronts on civil rights are those who
understand the meaning of the Constitution. Many teen-agers today, if told
they were going to be drug tested, would submit. They would fear getting in
trouble or going against what authority tells them.

Most would simply figure that since they do not use drugs, they may as well
just go ahead and do it. This is precisely how rights are lost. The ones
refusing to be tested, disobedient, if you will, would show a greater
understanding of these rights so many have died to preserve.

A teen-ager with his or her sense about him and a strong moral compass will
make the right choice and not use illicit drugs. This is the reality for
most high-school-age kids. They resist these temptations. For those who
choose to use drugs, it is doubtful that drug testing would thwart these
decisions.

Drug use and abuse are far more complex than holding a drug test over
someone's head. Besides, we have seen this whole drug-war mentality and its
results. Another element to this is that people in favor of mandatory drug
testing will tell you in the next breath that they are against big government.

That our Supreme Court would rule in favor of such dubious logic is
symptomatic of a lack of reverence for the Bill of Rights. In the past few
months, we have heard so much about freedom and liberty and how we need to
fight for it and preserve the American way. Let us hope that our Supreme
Court will see teen-agers as among those worthy of these liberties. Perhaps
then the kids won't be so alienated.