Friday, April 4, 2008

Drug testing opposition grows in Flower Mound

By Brody Mulligan of Brody Blog

Students at Flower Mound High School participating in any extracurricular activities (and any student with a parking permit) will be given "the privacy of a stall" to provide a urine sample, should they be selected for a random drug test as part of Lewisville ISD's new drug testing program.

In what may be one of the most far-reaching applications of random student drug testing since a divided United States Supreme Court upheld the practice in 2002, Lewisville ISD's new aggressive, $437,787 campaign to combat teen drug use is meant to deter and decrease use, along with providing counseling for students already using illegal drugs, according to the Lewisville ISD.

Led by Daniel Delott, a senior at Flower Mound High School, a growing coalition of students and parents opposed to the testing say the school district's campaign is more like a crusade. Mr. Delott and his supporters have established a website, www.endLISDdrugtesting.com, which has gathered nearly 400 "signatures" for an online petition demanding a withdrawal of the policy, whose ranks increase day-by-day.

"Our school alone has had several students kill themselves under the influence of alcohol. Plenty have died from drunk driving. Drug tests increase alcohol abuse, so putting two and two together...I see a huge safety problem," Mr. Delott said.

The proof, they say, lies in the numbers.

Several major studies--one sampling over 75,000 students nationwide--found drug testing programs have no significant effect on drug use among students--which has been steadily declining in recent years.

In a March 2007 issue of the journal Pediatrics, The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended against drug testing teens at home or school, citing, among other things, a concern that drug tests may lead to increased alcohol abuse.

Students and their parents must sign a consent form authorizing testing if they wish to remain eligible to park at school and participate in anything from chess club to track.

Mr. Delott questioned the school district's sincerity regarding the elimination of drug use among athletes, citing a Powerpoint presentation exhibited to students and parents that outlined the substances to be screened, from marijuana to xanax to heroin, in which there was no mention of steroids.

Beyond numbers, opponents of the policy question its legality. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the 2002 Supreme Court case, the majority found that the Fourth Amendment was not violated because a test among athletes and others involved in extracurricular activities was a "reasonable" balance of privacy rights against the government's interest in drug abuse.

The dissenting minority, voting against allowing school drug testing, cited notable facts: "Nationwide, students who participate in extracurricular activities are significantly less likely to develop substance abuse problems than [their] less involved peers," adding that such policies "invade the privacy of students who need deterrence least, and [risk] steering students at greater risk for substance abuse away from extracurricular involvement that may palliate drug problems."

The heated debate has produced mixed rulings in various state courts; many long, costly legal battles ensnare public policy groups and school districts, as the appeal systems in each state weigh the provisions within their own constitution.

At the heart of a possible legal argument is the requirement that a student requesting a parking permit consent to random drug testing; The Supreme Court's ruling did not authorize testing the general student body, and specifically ruled that a school district's legal right to drug testing is restricted to students involved in extracurricular activities.

An increasing number of lawsuits are being brought before state courts challenging similar policies under state law. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down a school district's drug testing policy there, citing the state constitution protected students from a test without any probable cause. Last month, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that random drug tests are unconstitutional, again citing the state constitution.

Though Mr. Delott has acknowledged the possibility of a lawsuit, he stated it would only be considered as a last resort. The matter has not been argued before the Texas Supreme Court. The most recent ruling before a State Court of Law in 2003 upheld drug testing programs; the decision was never appealed.

Social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace are rife with criticism regarding the district's policies, and many students are actively speaking out on the internet, creating groups to deliver news and information and organize students from several campuses. One student is reportedly distributing anti-testing stickers throughout schools in the district, and plans to continue doing so.

Ironically, the fundamental catalyst fueling the increasingly frustrated opposition--communication--is also what Mr. Delott believes is most important to truly address the issue of drug abuse.

"If [they're] spending time, money, and effort on our drug issue, I believe it's communication that will yield the best results without torturing students and insulting their parents. I don't know anyone who would protest a communicative approach to preventing and dealing with drugs in our schools."

When asked about the group's continuing efforts and plans for future courses of action, Mr. Delott replied, "we're just getting started."

Messages left with public relations staff for the Lewisville ISD seeking comment on the petition were not immediately returned.

See more stories in:

• Drugs / Alcohol
• Lewisville ISD

Comments