Pubdate: Fri, 02 Apr 2004
Source: Imperial Valley Press (CA)
Copyright: 2004 Imperial Valley Press
Contact:  http://www.ivpressonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1877
Author: Marc Schanz
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

THE CUP'S HALF EMPTY

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, places and 
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated .. 
but upon probable cause."

- -- Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

I'm not one for ham-fisting, I swear.

But all I can think about right now are sterile plastic urine cups that 
some Valley student-athlete will probably soon be filling.

In the editorial that ran in Wednesday's edition, the Imperial Valley Press 
states it conditionally supports random drug testing of student athletes at 
Brawley Union High School.

The opinion, while acknowledging the tough and contentious nature of the 
issue, sidestepped the debate by emphasizing that the schools, if they 
test, should be testing for steroids in addition to recreational drugs.

That's well-meaning, but woefully mistakes the issue.

I'm sure the coaches, players, boosters or parents might think that is a 
good idea.

And maybe, when the team is selected, the members will decide to make a 
statement and voluntarily submit to steroid testing to prove they are not a 
squad of Barry Bonds clones. That would be admirable.

But being compelled is another matter.

Mao Tse-Tung once said power grows out of the barrel of a gun. There is 
nothing more compelling than blunt force, the argument goes, and that is 
the issue here.

While I respect the board's opinion, I cannot subscribe to it -- nor to the 
idea that I as a citizen and employee am represented by that stand. It is a 
position that I cannot support personally and it cuts to the core of a 
belief system I subscribe to dearly.

You don't have to take my word for it. From school districts in Guymon, 
Okla., to Matthews County, Va., administrators have abandoned student 
drug-testing plans that have been called wasteful and ineffective.

"We want schools to teach our children to think critically, not to police 
them," said Hans York, a parent and deputy sheriff in Wahkiakum, Wash., 
regarding a drug-testing initiative in his community.

Yes, I'm a civil libertarian, and you don't need to be a card-carrying 
member of the American Civil Liberties Union to say the same.

Public figures such as Ralph Nader, William F. Buckley Jr. and Republican 
Texas Congressman Ron Paul have spoken up for what random, and in many 
cases, pre-emptive drug screening is doing to our society and how it mocks 
the principles we espouse every time someone runs the flag up the 
courthouse pole in the morning.

Forget that the money being used for the legally dubious program is being 
funneled away from other more deserving prevention programs, that the BUHS 
District is exposing itself to the real chance of costly lawsuits (as 
districts in Washington, Texas, Ohio, Maryland and Oklahoma have 
discovered), or that research shows most adolescent drug use occurs between 
the hours after class and before parents arrive home from work -- the same 
hours that would be spent at football, volleyball or baseball practice.

It doesn't matter. It starts with a small lie that has spread far and wide.

I was raised on the idea if you committed a wrong, you were to expect 
consequences. Take personal responsibility for your life, otherwise, no one 
else will.

The idea that random drug testing will root out drug use from our young 
people's lives is a laughable fallacy, an ultimate insult to the power of 
free thinking minds over autocracy.

It is merely as fallacious as the idea that a quarter century of this 
country's "war on drugs" has eliminated the menace of illegal drugs from 
our communities, stopped the importation of thousands of tons of narcotics, 
nor halted the destruction of the lives of our friends, families and people 
we have never met from Colombia to Afghanistan.

Our jails and prisons are teeming with criminals who entered as addicts and 
emerge as career felons, our deficit-choked federal and state governments 
spend more than $40 billion annually on eliminating an unlimited commodity 
in a market that cannot be sated of its appetites.

How does all this affect student-athletes at the Brawley Unified School 
District?

Simple. It all starts with you, the parents and administrators who believe 
this is a good idea.

The state, through its entity the BUHSD, has determined the parents of 
children who attend schools in the district can no longer be trusted to be 
the guardians of their children's future. That responsibility is being 
taken away, handed to government, in what can only be described as 
unfettered state baby-sitting.

A climate of suspicion, mistrust and unannounced reprisal will spring up 
among our young people. Having a teacher and a coach as a confidant and 
mentor is one thing. Making the person an arm of enforcement is a step that 
will strain that bond.

This action will have the exact opposite effect as desired, driving young 
people from participating in activities that inevitably do far more to 
eliminate substance abuse from our communities than the billions of dollars 
spent propping up a militaristic solution to what is at heart a public 
health crisis, no different than tuberculosis, AIDS, obesity or alcoholism.

This country's experiment with social engineering is and will continue to 
be a colossal failure, much as the 18th Amendment to the Constitution 
failed in doing from 1919 to 1933. That was the one that made Al Capone rich.

One of Brawley High's supporters gave justification for the move, implying 
parents had failed to insure their own children were drug-free, so it is 
time for the school to step in.

This is the thinking that breeds smoking bans, seat-belt laws and 
pre-employment drug tests for more and more employers across the country 
every day, the notion that I, or my parents, cannot be trusted to take care 
of my personal safety, that not only am I negligent but must be forced by law.

The state, as opposed to you the individual, knows more about how to take 
care of you and your family than you do.

But then, it might.

Now, shut up and pee, kid.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager