Any anti-drug program must help kids learn

EDITORIAL: Testing only some doesn’t addressdrug use issues in any real manner

   The Hillsborough Board of Education is studying whether or not to launch a drug testing program for students involved in extra-curricular activities, and we hope the board will move very slowly.
   The issue has been very much in the news lately because the state Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case field against Hunterdon Central High School by the American Civil Liberties Union.
   Hunterdon Central had launched a testing program in 1997 after several student athletes died as a result of drug use, so such a program seems a responsible reaction to a very serious problem.
   In arguments in the courts, the school has pointed to student surveys to show a decline in drug use among students as validation of its policy.
   While the tests used in Flemington are the relatively convenient saliva tests, using a swab of spit to detect marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines and opiates, the ACLU finds the tests disagreeable because of the focus on students involved in extra-curricular activities.
   Of course, in Hillsborough our situation is very different — we have thus far been spared the terrifying news of student drug overdoses.
   That’s not to say that Hillsborough students do not use drugs — only the most naive can believe there is no drug use here — drugs are everywhere, as are drug users.
   And that’s why we oppose such drug testing plans.
   We hope the board members studying this issue will begin by asking what they hope to accomplish: are we hoping to reduce drug use or are we hoping to prevent students involved in activities from using drugs?
   One of the arguments posed by supporters of the testing plans is that testing offers a "way out" when drugs are offered: since they will be tested, it’s easier to "just say no" at Friday night’s party.
   But testing only some students and not others also gives students a choice — they can just as easily say no to extra-curricular activities and use drugs.
   If board members want to address drug use in Hillsborough schools, then find a way to do so that reaches the students most at risk of using drugs and not let ourselves get sidetracked by focusing only on a select group.
   But if it’s the consensus that testing must be done, the board should consider what other other alternatives are being used by some districts.
   For example, the school district in Gillette, Wyo., purchased drug testing kits and made them available to parents. This allows any parent concerned about possible drug use to make the decision whether or not to test.
   And students in Ojai, Calif., have turned the table on the Hunterdon Central plan: the students used peer pressure to create a list of students in extra-curricular activities who volunteered to undergo drug testing.
   This gave the students the drug-testing excuse the Hunterdon plan relies on for success, while making participation voluntary.
   But we do applaud Athletic Director Rocky Forte’s acknowledgment that any testing must be combined with educational and medical help for students using drugs.
   Testing in not a curative approach, and the goal should always be to help students learn to live without drugs and alcohol.