Charles M. Shaddow certainly sounds like he gets it. The superintendent of schools in the North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional School District sees the many downsides of random drug testing of students. He understands that whatever gains might be made by such testing don't compensate for the sacrifices and the problems.

Unfortunately, it is a position district officials are not heeding. And we suspect more and more schools will be making the same kind of mistake.

On Tuesday, the North Hunterdon-Voorhees district approved a $1.2 million federal grant that may be used to develop some form of random drug testing of students over the next three years. This comes after the long and successful legal battle by Hunterdon Central Regional High School defending its right to conduct random drug tests on students who participate in extracurricular activities and who park cars at the school.

[continues 378 words]

Your Aug. 17 editorial on the Supreme Court's latest drug war exemption to the Constitution was right on target. Student involvement in after-school activities has been shown to reduce drug use. They keep kids busy during the hours they are most likely to get into trouble. Forcing students to undergo degrading urine tests as a prerequisite will only discourage participation in extracurricular activities.

Drug testing may also compel users of relatively harmless marijuana to switch to harder drugs to avoid testing positive. Despite a short- lived high, marijuana is the only drug that stays in the human body long enough to make urinalysis a deterrent. Marijuana's organic metabolites are fat-soluble and can linger for days.

[continues 139 words]

Thanks to an Appellate Court ruling this week, Hunterdon Central Regional High School officials have regained the lead in their quest to continue random drug-testing at the school.

But this issue could be destined for the state Supreme Court.

Here's hoping it makes it that far, because it appears the courts are the only ones that can stop the district from pushing forward with a bad policy.

While the dispute continues to be over the legalities of the testing, our concern is simply with the wisdom of it. There has yet to be any demonstrated need for it at Hunterdon Central -- something a Superior Court judge cited in opposing the testing. That was the ruling overturned by the Appellate Court. And the potential student targets of the testing are rather arbitrarily defined: those involved in extracurricular activities or who park cars on campus. What about the rest of the students? If there is a problem that needs to be stamped out or prevented, why not everyone?

[continues 123 words]

In 1999, the National Institute on Drug Abuse granted $3.6 million to the Oregon Health and Science University for the SATURN Project "to study whether or not drug testing is an effective method to prevent substance abuse among adolescent athletes" (quote from the OHSU SATURN Web site). Results, due next year, should be interesting, since OHSU is clearly on the side of the testers and is trying to find justification for the practice.

Even more interesting is the fact that NIDA made the grant in the first place. They obviously are not buying the drug-testing lobby "statistics" that have been promoted by that industry and their followers, purporting to show that random testing programs are a great boon to the war on drugs.

[continues 172 words]

So, Mr. David Evans would have you believe that random drug testing protects our children. He claims the following in his recent letter: "Drug testing is a proven and cost-effective deterrent to drug use. It is used in the military and the workplace and has proven its value." Really? What is the specific value proven?

Prior to filing a lawsuit with several other parents against Hunterdon Central over its random drug testing policy, I sat with Mr. Evans, who is an attorney; a marketing director from Roche; and a drug-testing consultant who is an expert on drug testing in the military. One of my very first questionswas: How do you know drug testing is a deterrent? It seemed too simple a solution for such a complex, human problem. And after all, if we are going to pare away the constitutional protections of our citizens, we should at least know such a scheme is necessary and fail-safe. I was told by the expert in military drug testing that:

[continues 680 words]

The United States Supreme Court acted with common sense in deciding that schools can conduct drug and alcohol testing of students. This great decision gives parents and schools a powerful tool to help children stay off drugs. This is a real boost for the kids who want to stay safe and drug-free because testing gives them a chance to say "no" when approached to use drugs. It is critical to deter drug use during school years because kids on drugs cannot learn. School administrators and parents need reasonable tools to stop drug users and drug dealers from ruining school for everyone. Drug testing is also used to help kids who need counseling.

[continues 119 words]

It may soon become a lot harder for students who use drugs or alcohol to get away with it in school.

That's because the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office and local police officers certified as Drug Recognition Experts plan to start training school nurses and district administrators how to recognize specific signs and symptoms of substance abuse among students --- and even to identify the type of drug being used.

School administrators and district student assistance counselors will receive eight hours of training in general symptoms, such as restlessness, anxiety and eyelid tremors in those using stimulants, and slurred speech, droopy eyes and disorientation in those using depressants.

[continues 553 words]