DON'T ALLOW RANDOM STUDENT DRUG TESTING

To the editor:

We agree drug use and abuse is a serious issue and whether or not to
use drugs is among the most important decisions a young person will make.

That said, we are also strongly opposed to the policy of random,
mandatory and suspicion-less drug testing being considered by the
South Hunterdon Regional High School Board of Education.

This policy would require all students in grades seven through 12 who
participate in extracurricular activities or who have parking permits
at South Hunterdon High School to submit to random drug testing,
involving the collection and testing of their urine.

We are not alone in our opposition to mandatory drug testing in the
schools. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education
Association, the American Public Health Association, the National
Association of Social Workers as well as the National Council on
Alcohol and Drug Dependence itself are all opposed to such policies.

We oppose this policy for several reasons. The first and perhaps most
important is this policy represents a serious violation of students'
civil rights.

While there are occasions of serious danger to the safety of a
community in which civil rights must be suspended, we do not believe
this is the case for students at South Hunterdon, especially since
the students who participate in extracurricular activities are those
students who are the least likely to use drugs and alcohol.

In fact, the most dangerous times for students in terms of risk to
abuse drugs and alcohol are the hours after school and before parents
return home from work. Drug testing this group of students is
violating the civil rights of a group who are least likely to be at
serious risk.

The choice to participate in extracurricular activities should not be
accompanied by a requirement to be drug tested. Make no mistake, this
policy forces students to choose between their civil rights and their
ability to participate in meaningful school-sponsored activities.
This is a coercive policy.

Another reason we oppose this policy is it intrudes on parents'
rights to determine the best interests of their children. This policy
violates parents' right to determine the medical, emotional and
mental health needs of their children in the absence of any evidence
of a problem.

We believe parents should be responsible for their children. If the
school has a reason to suspect, on the basis of a child's behavior or
grades in school, a child has a problem (drug-related or otherwise),
they should inform the parents who can then make appropriate decisions.

Sending our children to school and allowing or encouraging our
children to be more involved with their school in the form of
extracurricular activities should not require us to relinquish our
rights as parents to make decisions regarding our children.

If parents want to have their children tested for drug use, this
option is already available to them in what we believe is the more
appropriate environment of their doctor's office.

A third reason we are opposed to this policy is it is not effective,
either in terms of deterrence or cost to the school. Mandatory,
random and suspicion-less drug testing has not been found to be
effective in deterring drug use among students.

In fact, in the only large-scale study to look at this issue, there
was no difference in terms of drug use between schools that do and do
not require drug testing.

Random drug testing has up-front and hidden costs associated with it.
It will cost money not only to carry out the screening of urine
samples, but it will cost money to train school personnel to
implement this program in a way that is least likely to seriously
harm a student.

It will cost money to defend the school against a potential lawsuit
in which a student is harmed by the violation of their
confidentiality, for example, teachers becoming aware of
medical/psychiatric conditions; students being denied the opportunity
for athletic scholarship because of a false positive drug test.

Given this is not an effective program, and the students who would be
targeted by this program are also the least at risk for drug use and
abuse, it makes more sense to us to use our scarce resources where
they would benefit more students and the more at-risk students.

There are less costly and more effective alternatives. Offering and
involving more students in extracurricular activities that would
expose them to teachers and other positive role models and would
productively occupy students at the time they are most at risk for
drug and alcohol use is just one example.

Drug tests are not infallible or harmless nor are the results
confidential. There are drug tests that are false positives. There
are drug tests that are positive because of prescription medications.

In these cases, the positive drug test would expose a medical
condition that a family would otherwise prefer to keep private.

Under the proposed policy, a positive drug test would result in the
mandatory suspension of extracurricular activities or parking
privileges, which would be punitive or at least detrimental,
especially to vulnerable students.

These consequences would also lead, at minimum, to the speculation
the student in question had tested positive for drugs, violating his
or her right to privacy and confidentiality.

At South Hunterdon, we are a small community. The school already has
a policy that allows for drug testing of students who shows signs of
alcohol or drug use, albeit conducted in the more appropriate
environment of a doctor's office.

Because of our small size, we have the unique opportunity and ability
to know our students, to build a community of trust and to involve
our students in ways that would prevent first or subsequent drug use.

We are hopeful the Board of Education will decline to pass a policy
requiring random and suspicion-less drug testing of our children. The
present policy of drug testing for cause, combined with efforts to
reach out and prevent drug use among the entire student body and,
perhaps, especially among the disenfranchised students, would show
our students we care about them to do the very best, even if it takes
a little more effort on our part.

Kathryn Hall

Jim Mastrich

Lambertville