SHOULD A SCHOOL TEST FOR DRUGS?

Re "Supreme Court Seems Ready to Extend School Drug Tests" (front page,
March 20):

Expanding random drug testing from only students participating in sports to
those involved in other extracurricular activities is intended to deter
drug use. However, it may deter students from participating in after-school
activities, thereby increasing the risk of drug use. Schools and
communities should adopt prevention approaches already proven effective.

Dramatic advances have been made in prevention research in recent years,
leading to the development of effective parent, school and community
programs. Respected studies have shown that the most powerful programs can
cut drug use by up to 60 percent.

We now have the arsenal of prevention approaches necessary to prevent drug
abuse. But unless it is adopted and widely used, we will not achieve the
results that it promises.

GILBERT J. BOTVIN New York, March 20, 2002 The writer is a professor of
public health and psychiatry, Weill Medical College, Cornell University.

To the Editor:

Drug testing (front page, March 20) is a tool to monitor an individual's
drug use -- no more or less. It doesn't separate drug use from drug abuse;
only a comprehensive examination by a qualified professional can make that
distinction.

The Supreme Court's apparent intention to permit schools to test students
is merely an extension of the selective drug testing that society has long
mandated in the Olympics, in professional sports and in certain workplace
situations (like testing the conductor after a train accident). Still, drug
testing of high school students might be more acceptable if it were done
with the parents' consent for students under 18.

JEFFREY ROSECAN, M.D. New York, March 21, 2002 The writer is an assistant
professor of psychiatry, Columbia University.

To the Editor:

Re "Supreme Court Seems Ready to Extend School Drug Tests" (front page,
March 20):

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's "implied slur" on the family that challenged
the drug-testing policy of an Oklahoma high school -- he told the family's
lawyer that no parent would send a child to a "druggie school" except
"maybe your client" -- was deeply troubling, not only because it was a
startling breach of decorum.

When the court first upheld school drug testing (for athletes) in 1995, it
gave weight to the fact that when the testing policy was raised at a public
meeting, few parents objected to it. Justice Kennedy's statement that those
who assert their Fourth Amendment rights must be willing to send their
children to "druggie schools" is exactly the sort of chilling assumption
that such parents face.

Justice Kennedy ought to recognize the courage of those who stand up for
their constitutional rights.

SUSAN BANDES Chicago, March 21, 2002 The writer is a professor at DePaul
University College of Law.

To the Editor:

Re "Supreme Court Seems Ready to Extend School Drug Tests" (front page,
March 20):

It is remarkable that the wing of the Supreme Court that is most concerned
with limiting federal interference with the states and individuals would be
receptive to such a powerful intrusion into our daily lives. Furthermore,
the highly tenuous connection between engaging in extracurricular
activities and drug testing seems to open an entirely new can of worms.

For example, wouldn't our roads be safer if everyone who applied for a
driver's license were tested for drug and alcohol use? Isn't saving lives
at least as important as being sober and alert during band practice?

WALTER M. LUERS Jersey City, March 20, 2002