Drug policy is ill-advised

Last week, I attended the Whitefish School Board meeting regarding the proposed policy of random student drug testing all high school students involved in extracurricular activities.

Extracurricular activities include but are not limited to sports, band, speech and debate, student council, key club, choir, drama, honor society and the student paper.

The proposed policy was drafted by the Drug Testing Committee with little to no input from students, parents or the community. The school board required the proposed policy to be made available to the community for review and comment.

The draft policy and statement from the committee can be found online on the Whitefish School District Web site. In addition, there will be a community forum on April 7 at 7 p.m. in the Whitefish Middle School auditorium.

The next scheduled school board meeting will take place the following night, Tuesday, at 7 p.m. at the middle school. The Whitefish School District Board of Trustees is comprised of citizens elected to represent the community in setting district policies. The community forum and school board meeting will be a good opportunity for the public to discuss and comment on this important policy proposal.

I feel adopting the proposed policy is ill-advised for many reasons. First, the only federally funded, peer-reviewed study conducted on the topic to date compared 94,000 students in nearly 900 American schools with and without a drug testing program, and found virtually no difference in illegal drug use.

Furthermore, such astute organizations as the American Academy of Pediatrics have adopted policy statements stating, "Involuntary testing is not appropriate in adolescents with decisional capacity — even with parental consent — and should be performed only if there are strong medical or legal reasons to do so."

A drug testing program similar to that proposed in Whitefish was recently struck down in Washington state. "The Washington Supreme Court unanimously found that Wahkiakum School District's policy of suspicionless urine testing for students who participate in extracurricular activities is unconstitutional."

It should be noted that the Washington state privacy right is less stringent than that specified in Montana's constitution, which states in Article II Section 10: "The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest."

Is the Drug Testing Committee's proposed invasion of privacy a "compelling state interest?" You may be sure that courts will eventually be called upon to render that judgment.

I believe that subjecting students to random drug testing is degrading and can undermine trust between students and teachers. Other thoughts to consider: Drug testing can result in false positives. Suspicionless random drug testing sends a message to students that they are guilty until proven innocent.

Drug testing may deter at-risk students from participating in extracurricular activities, which are proven means of helping students stay out of trouble with drugs. And drug testing may have unintended consequences, such as students drinking more alcohol. (I was told students would not be tested for alcohol due to the additional cost.)

According to Safety First, a group that promotes a "reality based approach to teens and drugs," "There are proven alternatives to drug testing that emphasize education, discussion, counseling and extracurricular activities, and that build trust between students and adults."

What is legal is not always good policy. Good public policy comes from involvement and participation by a wide cross-section of the community. I also believe we need to listen to the people who will be impacted most by this policy, the students.

Our school district should be a leader in enacting drug-abuse prevention policies that actually work, and that do not expose the district to costly legal actions.

Sandra McDonald is a resident of Whitefish.