Citing the goal of "helping children make right choices," President Bush proposed in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address to add $23 million to a competitive grant program that supports student drug testing in schools. The proposal has put a spotlight on a June 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision to expand the use of testing and sparked new debate among educators and others around the issue.

"One of the worst decisions our children can make is to gamble their lives and futures on drugs," said Bush in the State of the Union. "The aim here is not to punish children, but to send them this message: We love you, and we don't want to lose you."

The Bush administration has seized upon the Supreme Court ruling that schools can require drug tests for any middle- or high-school student taking part in extracurricular activities, not just student athletes.

"Parents, educators -- indeed, anyone concerned about the welfare of our young people -- should welcome the high court's action," drug czar John Walters wrote in the foreword to "What You Need to Know About Drug Testing," a report published by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "It's a big step in the right direction, for it gives every school in every city and every town a powerful new tool for controlling one of the worst threats facing kids today."

The administration maintains that -- in Walters' words -- "testing has been shown to be extremely effective at reducing drug use in schools and businesses all over the country. As a deterrent, few methods work better or deliver clearer results."

According to the ONDCP report, some schools that have done drug testing have anecdotally reported drops in drug use. A student survey at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, N.J., for example, reported declines in 20 of 28 drug-use categories after random drug testing of student athletes was implemented.

But while some controlled studies have shown that testing decreases drug use in the workplace and the military, no such research exists on drug testing of adolescents, acknowledges Andrea Barthwell, M.D., ONDCP's deputy director for demand reduction. In fact, the 2003 University of Michigan Drug Testing Study -- conducted by the same researchers who run the annual Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey -- found "virtually identical" rates of illicit drug use in schools that did and did not require drug tests.

"The way that drug testing has been carried out in the schools looks very unpromising," said MTF's Lloyd Johnston. "I have no doubt that one could design a drug-testing program that could deter teen drug use, but at what monetary cost and at what cost in terms of intrusion into the privacy of our young people?"

The high cost of drug testing is just one aspect of the objections to drug testing raised by critics like the Drug Policy Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a guide published in January, Making Sense of Drug Testing, the two groups said that drug testing costs an average of $42 per student for initial screening alone.

"The cost of drug testing sometimes exceeds the total a school district spends on existing drug education, prevention, and counseling programs," the Making Sense guide contends. "In fact, drug testing may actually take scarce resources away from the health and treatment services necessary for students who are misusing drugs -- seriously undermining the original purpose of the drug test."

The ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance say that drug testing is ineffective, undermines trust between adults and youth, and may discourage kids from taking part in extracurricular activities and sports.

Critics add that testing could lead to more underage drinking, since most schools don't test for alcohol. The Bush administration's proposed grant program would be available for testing illicit-drug use only; Barthwell said ONDCP is constrained by its Congressional mandate to focus on illicit drugs. (In the past, however, ONDCP has said that illegal underage alcohol use also falls under its purview.)

Administration officials put a positive spin on testing, casting it as a tool for early detection and intervention. Speaking at the CADCA National Leadership Forum XIV in Washington, D.C., in January, Walters compared drug testing to inoculating kids for tuberculosis, saying that drug testing "is not about punishment."

"It must be confidential, and it must be used to get people help," Walters said. Barthwell told Join Together that the competitive grantmaking process would serve to screen out any drug-testing proposals that were punitive in nature. Testing would be useful for detecting new drug users, quantifying the extent of the problem, and reinforcing non-drug-using norms, she added.

In another case study cited by ONDCP, the Autuaga County School System in Alabama gave special ID cards -- good for discounts at local restaurants and stores -- to all students being randomly tested for drugs. In the event of a positive test, the card is revoked and the student's parent is informed. The school then leaves any further disciplinary or medical action to the parents.

In other schools, however, testing typically leads to suspension from sports and extracurricular activities or referral to some sort of assessment, intervention, or treatment program. Supporters of testing, such as the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association, emphasize that test results are not provided to law enforcement, but say that students should be barred from activities and driving to school until proven drug-free.
Critics say that these sanctions, along with the stigma of possible false-positive drug tests, constitute punishment in and of themselves. Instead of drug testing, groups like the Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU argue, schools should spend their money on after-school programs, "reality-based" drug education, counseling, and nonintrusive assessments by addiction professionals.