Jackson drug testing: debate worth having

Jackson's school board decided last week to begin a system of randomly testing students as a condition of them participating in extracurricular activities such as sports, band competitions, debate teams and other such activities.

We understand the motive. Having a random drug screen policy in place could give students the extra incentive they need to stay clean. When presented with peer pressure, an athlete or band member can simply say, "I really can't. If I get caught, I'll be in trouble on the soccer team."

The concept is pretty straight forward.

But there are concerns about the policy.

First, are the penalties tough enough to prevent a student from using?

Two-hundred and seventy students will be tested, of the 600 or so students who will participate in extracurriculars. According to a story written by reporter Tyler Graef, students found to have improperly used a drug will be banned from participating in extracurricular activities 15 days for a first offense, 90 days for a second and a calendar year for the third.

So let's examine that for a minute.

Already, other incentives exist to not do drugs. If caught by police, a person found in possession of marijuana faces fines, or lawyer fees, that could reach into the hundreds if not over one thousand dollars. Those who are caught will find their names in the police report in the newspaper. They'll probably have to do some community service, face different types of probation. If they are found to have committed a second or third offense, they could face jail time. Teens already know this. They've seen their friends and acquaintances face the consequences.

Are we to believe that a 15-day suspension from a sport or a choir competition is a relevant deterrent, if that is the intent of the school policy? If students know going in that they have better than 50 percent chance of not being tested -- and if they were previously willing to risk the legal and financial consequences -- does it make sense that a random drug policy for a 15-day sports suspension will work as a deterrent? Maybe, maybe not.

Secondly, and oddly, Jackson's superintendent John Link (with whom we've been impressed so far in his leadership), insisted to Graef that Jackson's school district does not have a drug problem. Citing school incidents that dealt with drugs on campus, Link said the data shows that Jackson doesn't have a drug problem.

We would disagree. While incidents at school may be declining, the prevalence of drug use, particularly marijuana, is significant. This isn't a Jackson problem so much as a societal one as the use of marijuana is more commonplace with legalization in other states and the proliferation of propaganda pushing the view that the drug has earned an unwarranted reputation for being dangerous. Teens, convinced that recreational use is safe, are achieving highs from marijuana in some cases as an alternative to alcohol, which by the way the school district will not test for.

Drug use is a problem in Jackson, just like it is everywhere.

But if the superintendent believes that drug use is not a problem, then why institute a program that will test 15 percent of the student body? It seems a counterintuitive argument. We think the coaches who brought this concept to the superintendent are more aware of the prevalence of drug use by today's teens, and were genuinely concerned about it, hence the recommendation.

The story has generated a lot of fierce debate on Facebook, prompting concerns about the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The school district has checked into the legalities. Because this only applies to students who choose to be involved in other activities, it has been deemed appropriate in other districts. It's an interesting debate to have, one that would require too many words for this piece.

One argument we certainly do not agree with is that the school district did not allow time for parent/student feedback. The Southeast Missourian first reported this issue back in June. It was widely read and reported. Those concerned about the policy had plenty of time to become informed and voice their opinions on the matter.

Generally, we support anti-drug efforts, particularly for teens. Their brains are still developing, and they lack the maturity and life experiences to weigh the pros and cons of such decisions. The use of drugs is generally a peer pressure decision, and nothing good or productive comes from using drugs. We should all do our part to encourage our young people to make healthy and safe decisions.

While we have some issues with the school's policy, it will not be the end of the world for teenagers. As adults entering the workforce, they may face the same level of accountability. Many if not most employers require drug tests before employment, and some require random testing, depending on the type of job.

The debate over the topic is worth having, and we would've liked to have seen more dialogue on the topic and the specifics of the policy before it was instituted. The school board passed it unanimously. The district will need to keep an eye on the program and see if the testing has the desired effects going forward. Perhaps the district and the police department can exchange information and see if it truly drives down drug arrests and use going forward.

If the program does not prove to be successful from an analytical basis over the next handful of years, the school district should be moved to abandon it. For now, let's see how it goes. We hope that it provides the desired results.