Give Jim Yancey Credit For A Bold Move

The superintendent of schools is proposing drug tests be conducted randomly on hundreds of Marion County high school athletes this year at an estimated cost of $40,000.  His goal is simple and straightforward -- to do something, anything, to curb a growing teen-age drug problem in our community. 

Yancey's drug-testing plan has stirred minimal public debate.  Never mind that drug testing is hardly a proven deterrent to youth drug use.  Forget that the money could certainly be used elsewhere in our schools.  The reason for the dearth of public criticism, we suspect, is that no one really has a better idea of how to attack growing illegal drug use among the youth of Marion County. 

Just how serious is the problem? Well, a recent Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey found that 26 percent of Marion County teenagers are "current" users of illegal drugs, from marijuana to cocaine to ecstasy.  That's one in every four, folks.  Somebody needs to do something. 

If approved by the School Board next month, Yancey's proposal would be minimalist to start out.  It calls for conducting random drug tests on about one-fourth of the county's 4,000 high school athletes.  If a student tests positive for an illegal drug, he or she would suspended for seven days -- including from athletic events -- and required to enter a counseling program.  There would be follow-up drug tests throughout his or her high school career as well. 

If a student were to test positive for drugs a second time, that athlete would be suspended from athletics for a full year and referred to a drug-treatment program. 

Refusal to submit to a test would lead to banishment from athletics for a full year. 

During the 2005-06 school year, Yancey hopes to expand the drug-testing program to all extracurricular activities, increasing the number of eligible students to 6,000 and the cost to up to $70,000. 

Some observers say Yancey is targeting the wrong group of young people, athletes and others who participate in after-school activities.  They say this group is less apt to use drugs than other, less involved students.  Maybe. 

The reality is schools are constitutionally limited in who they can test -- the Supreme Court ruled last year that athletes can be tested - -- and venturing into that legal thicket could be costly and counterproductive. 

Moreover, to think that just because Johnny plays football or Jenny plays softball means they don't do drugs is simply naive.  Remember, one in four .  .  .  rest assured, there are athletes among the drug users. 

Yancey's goal is to begin somewhere, helping someone.  To think that random drugs tests will dramatically reduced drug use among our youngsters is probably optimistic at best.  Nonetheless, we support Yancey's plan because it will bring needed attention to a serious community problem and because it dares to question those most would suspect the least and who are too often afforded special treatment because of their status as athletes. 

Yes, Yancey's drug testing idea is unproven.  But he says if he can save one child, it will be worth the effort.  We suspect it will save more than that and is deserving of a chance.