Pubdate: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 Source: Springfield News-Leader (MO) Copyright: 2006 The Springfield News-Leader Contact: http://www.springfieldnews-leader.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1129 Author: Sarah Overstreet Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test) RANDOM SCHOOL DRUG TESTS MAY CURB ABUSE, BUT AT WHAT COST? This has been a tough one to call, in some regards. The aunt, friend and scaredy-cat bones in me have been spatting with the freedom-loving ones. The argument started a few years ago when school systems around southwest Missouri began adopting random drug-testing policies for students, and it flared up again when the Branson district recently announced it was following suit. All kids in grades 7-12 who want to participate in some extracurricular activities, or park in the school lot, will be subject. Part of me wants to speak as someone who taught kids in these grades and as one whose teenage family member almost killed herself -- just 15 minutes before school started -- by drinking Everclear and taking drugs with pals. That part of me wants to speak as someone who, in her teens, sometimes used all the good judgment of a dog going after an unwatched steak. We didn't do drugs in high school, but I could probably have killed myself at 17, when two of my friends and I went out with our first bottle of Jack Daniels on New Year's Eve. I was in the middle of the truck seat, so when the bottle was passed, I got double the amount. The driver, of course, could have killed people. You want kids to be safe. And even though Branson's random testing doesn't screen for steroids or alcohol, it will find marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine and opiates. As astonishingly easy as it is for kids to get these drugs, this kind of random testing may deter them from trying. (I say "may" with not that much confidence. My experience is that with a kid determined to do something, the only thing that will stop him is duct-taping him to a kitchen chair and standing watch.) The other side is the George Schultz part of me that wants to say just what he did when former President Ronald Reagan decided to require all federal employees to take drug tests. Schultz just said no. No peeing in a cup for him. He hadn't given anyone any reason to suspect him of drug use. The former secretary of state realized that we have a constitutional right, guaranteed us by our Fourth Amendment, against unwarranted search and seizure, and this means even our bodily fluids: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Forcing kids to take random drug tests is the hump of the camel under the tent: the nose is already there for many employees. And why kids? Don't they have any Fourth Amendment rights? If you think there's an exclusion for them, refresh your high school civics and read Amendment IV. Who is it next? Elderly drivers, because their medication might make them drowsy? Ditto allergy sufferers? Most of the Branson kids our reporter questioned about the new policy didn't object to it. If the school -- and its neighbors in Hollister, Ava, Logan-Rogersville, Reeds Spring, Billings, Bolivar, Bradleyville, Marshfield, Sparta and others -- is so keen on making policies, here's one I wish they'd make: While handing out urine cups (at $20,000 a year), require a civics review course to remind students of the invasions of privacy the British put up with, leading them to come here and start this nation. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman