Advertisement
In January, in his State of the Union address, President Bush credited recent declines in illegal drug use among teenagers to random drug testing. He then proposed $23 million go to schools opting to use what national drug czar John Walters touts a ‘silver bullet’ and Mayor Alan Autry has vigorously supported.
I was in Fresno for the ONDCP summit on student drug testing, along with other parents, because I hoped there would be room in these gatherings for real discussion, even debate, about this well-meaning but wrongheaded approach to drug abuse prevention. As a research scientist and drug educator, I believe these proposals are based on false premises and hollow promises.
Research and experience tell us instead that random drug testing does not deter drug use. The same large survey Bush cited (www.monitoringthefuture.org ) that showed declines in illegal drug use this year also compared 76,000 students in schools with and without drug testing. It turned out there was no difference in illegal drug use among students from both sets of schools. Because at this point only 5 percent of American schools use drug testing, Bush’s crediting these programs for reductions is a big leap of faith.
Random drug testing alienates students. Students must be observed ( by a teacher or other adult ) as they urinate to be sure the sample is their own. The collection of a specimen is a humiliating violation of privacy, especially embarrassing for an adolescent. Testing can have the unanticipated effect of keeping students from participating in after-school, extracurricular programs - activities that would fill their time during the peak teenage drug-using hours of 3-6 p.m.
Testing is not the best way to detect problems with alcohol and other drugs. Though it may provide a false sense of security among school officials and parents, who believe it tells which students abuse drugs, in fact testing detects only a tiny fraction of users, many of them without problems, and misses too many who are in trouble.
Random drug testing may seem a panacea, but it is fraught with social, emotional and financial problems. Before we leap into a program that uses students as guinea pigs, we should examine the many repercussions, pitfalls and alternatives to random drug testing.
I was in Fresno for the ONDCP summit on student drug testing, along with other parents, because I hoped there would be room in these gatherings for real discussion, even debate, about this well-meaning but wrongheaded approach to drug abuse prevention. As a research scientist and drug educator, I believe these proposals are based on false premises and hollow promises.
Research and experience tell us instead that random drug testing does not deter drug use. The same large survey Bush cited (www.monitoringthefuture.org ) that showed declines in illegal drug use this year also compared 76,000 students in schools with and without drug testing. It turned out there was no difference in illegal drug use among students from both sets of schools. Because at this point only 5 percent of American schools use drug testing, Bush’s crediting these programs for reductions is a big leap of faith.
Random drug testing alienates students. Students must be observed ( by a teacher or other adult ) as they urinate to be sure the sample is their own. The collection of a specimen is a humiliating violation of privacy, especially embarrassing for an adolescent. Testing can have the unanticipated effect of keeping students from participating in after-school, extracurricular programs - activities that would fill their time during the peak teenage drug-using hours of 3-6 p.m.
Testing is not the best way to detect problems with alcohol and other drugs. Though it may provide a false sense of security among school officials and parents, who believe it tells which students abuse drugs, in fact testing detects only a tiny fraction of users, many of them without problems, and misses too many who are in trouble.
Random drug testing may seem a panacea, but it is fraught with social, emotional and financial problems. Before we leap into a program that uses students as guinea pigs, we should examine the many repercussions, pitfalls and alternatives to random drug testing.