Parent supports drug testing (04/02/08)

To the editor:

Several weeks ago when I read Steven Blowers' letter concerning the proposed drug testing at the high school, I was somewhat confused about his position that the proposal would "take away student's rights." Rights to what? If I understand Dr. Long's position, the policy would target the random drug testing of athletes and students driving to school. It would not involve the entire student body. I personally see nothing wrong with this policy if the school's budget can support the testing process.

If my memory serves me correctly, athletes sign a code of conduct when they begin to participate in a sport. Part of the code of conduct is that the athlete remains drug/alcohol free. Part of the responsibility of driving a vehicle is to not be impaired. Does that always happen? We would like to think so, but I feel to believe that is naïve. I do not feel that we should wait until there is a drug/alcohol problem in our school to implement the drug testing policy. Mr. Alexander wants "proof" that there is a real problem. What form of proof does he want?

Schools and communities around the nation are now dealing with not only alcohol and illegal drug use among junior high and high school students, but now students are engaging in "pharm parties." These are parties where students obtain prescription drugs and then mix them together with other pills to form a type of trail mix. The pills are often mixed in a bowl or plastic bag, distributed, and ingested like M&M's. The results of this have been lethal in many cases.

There are many websites where students can order drugs online; they are not always getting the pills from home. I do agree that drug use/abuse education should begin at home. Sadly enough, that does not always happen, or the messages are conflicting. How many parents host or allow underage drinking in their home, garages or shops (graduation, prom, weekends)? How many parents allow their children to smoke?

Mr. Alexander is also opposed to Breathalyzer tests for students and states that "his kids will not attend a school that has this policy." I guess I won't have to worry about his children enrolling in a school in western Ohio. A great many of those schools have had this policy in place for years. Neither parents nor students have a problem with it. They all know that in order to enter prom, a Breathalyzer will be administered. After all, the legal drinking age is 21. That does not change for special occasions.

I feel that if an athlete wants to participate in a sport, random drug testing should be a tool that enforces a rule already put in place. It is no different than in the workplace. How many adults are randomly drug tested at their place of employment? Is that taking away their rights? No, it is enabling the employer to provide a safe workplace for the employees. Is it taking away a level of trust from the employees? I feel it does not. It is merely enforcing a company rule forbidding the use of alcohol and drugs in the workplace.

How many employees would really walk up to their employer and say, "I just wanted to let you know that I am drunk today," or, "I take or abuse drugs?" Remember, not all effects of drug use can be seen by observing someone. How many students are really going to admit alcohol/drug use?

In conclusion, I feel that random drug testing for athletes and student drivers is being proactive. Why do we have to wait for something to happen to protect other students and the community? All of our students deserve to receive an education in a drug-free, safe environment.

Karen Schwieterman

Portland[[In-content Ad]]