Pubdate: Sat, 19 May 2007 Source: Herald Bulletin, The (Anderson, IN) Copyright: 2007 The Herald Bulletin Contact: http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3877 DRUG POLICY IS TOO PUNITIVE Alexandria's new random drug-testing policy, which takes effect this fall, is modeled on those of other school systems in the state and will include students who drive to school or participate in sports or extracurricular activities. A testing policy for the entire student body is illegal, according to Alexandria Community Schools Superintendent Jim Willey. These policies are problematic in that they concentrate on groups instead of the whole and, despite protestations from school officials, are fundamentally punitive. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Board of Education of Pottawamie vs. Earls that students who participate in extracurricular activities can be drug-tested. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled the same in Linke vs. Northwestern School Corp., also in 2002. School officials will argue that the prevalence of drugs means that the searches are not unreasonable, a part of the Fourth Amendment. It is argued that the safety of students is paramount, as is protecting them from the ravages of drugs. Alexandria's policy will test for marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines and methamphetamines. Tests will not be run for alcohol or tobacco. Willey explained that, if someone were using alcohol, the smell, along with other factors, would be a tip-off. In other words, there would be probable cause for testing someone for alcohol. School board president Thomas Gaunt insisted it isn't a punitive policy, but the punishment begins right after the first offense. Students can't drive to school for 90 days, and athletes have to give up 50 percent of games. There is also an amnesty policy for those who agree to go to counseling. It seems that punishing students and preventing them from taking advantage of school activities would exacerbate the problem by pushing students the wrong way. If they are shut out from school activities, it would follow that they would be more vulnerable to the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. We can understand schools wanting to take a proactive approach to drug prevention. We take issue with the punishment and the selectivity of the students. In the long run, this could harm students by ostracizing them from the student body. We'd like to see the counseling as the main part of the policy, not as an amnesty afterthought. The punishment should come only after continued drug-testing failures. We don't want to see the policy do more harm than good, and unless school officials sharply curtail the punishment and concentrate on counseling, that is what will happen. - --- MAP posted-by: Derek