Drug Testing Doesn't Work

Drug testing of the American public has been steadily broadening over the past 20 years, from soldiers to grocery baggers to school students. Yet, according to the two major studies that have been conducted on student testing, it doesn't actually reduce drug use.

"Of most importance, drug testing still is found not to be associated with students' reported illicit drug use - even random testing that potentially subjects the entire student body," determined the authors of the most recent study.

It seems like common sense that if students are warned they could be caught getting high any day in school, they'd be less likely to risk it. And supporters argue that this random chance "gives kids a reason to say no."

But teens are notorious for assuming that nothing bad will happen to them. Sure, some people get caught, but "not me," is the reasoning. In addition, a student who chooses to do drugs already has more than a random chance of getting caught.

And since most schools test only students who do something more than just show up for class - like join an after-school club, park on campus, or play a sport - kids can avoid the activities rather than quit puffing. Testing may not change much more of the equation than that.

Such are the findings of two major studies. The first looked at 76,000 students in eighth, 10th, and 12th grades in hundreds of schools. It was conducted by the University of Michigan.

That study compared the rates of drug use in schools that did some type of drug testing to schools that did not. There was no statistically significant difference.

That hasn't stopped President Bush from sounding an upbeat note. He has asked for "new funding to continue our aggressive, communitybased strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs . . . Drug testing in our schools has proven to be an effective part of this effort."

Pressed for evidence to support the administration's bid to increase funds for testing, drug officials challenge the Michigan study's methodology. Drug czar John Walters has called for "detailed pre- and post-random testing data"; that is, a study of the rate of drug use at a school before a random testing program was initiated and then again afterward.

Such a study is currently underway with federal funds, but it comes with a built-in flaw. Drug-use rates are obtained in questionnaires that school administrators give to students. If the administrators are asking students about their drug-use habits while they have the power to randomly test them, how honest can we expect the students to be, no matter what anonymity they're promised?

Naturally, the $766 million drug-testing industry isn't ready to give up on testing students, for which it charges between $14 and $30 a cupful of pee. Melissa Moskal, executive director of the 1,300-member Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association, pointed me to a preliminary study that she likes better than Michigan's and that Walters also frequently references.

The study is funded by the Department of Education and its lead author is Robert DuPont, a former White House drug official. DuPont's study, which he calls "descriptive," chose nine schools that met certain criteria, the first of which was, "The student drug testing program's apparent success."

The study's methodology appears to add to the slant. Rather than gathering information from students and analyzing it, DuPont relies on a questionnaire that asks how effective administrators think their random drug-testing program is.

The results won't be ready soon, but let's venture a prediction: Random drug testing will come out looking good.