Marijuana Policy Project

WHITEFISH — Cheerleaders, band members, ball players, kids on the speech and debate team — any student participating in extracurricular activities — would pee in a cup under a random drug testing plan being considered at Whitefish High School.

"We're just discussing what's possible," said school Superintendent Jerry House. "We're trying to do what's right for the kids. You can't make good decisions unless you're willing to learn about an issue, so that's what we're doing — we're listening, and we're learning."

So far, what he's learning is that random drug testing of teens is a remarkably murky and divisive proposal. On the one side is a gathering of coaches, teachers and concerned citizens who "want to give these kids another opportunity to ‘just say no,' " in the words of athletic director Jackie Fuller. "We've been researching this for some time now as coaches, about six years now, and we're convinced it's the right thing to do."

On the other side are people who question the impact of random testing, who worry it will turn some kids away from healthy activities and might send a message that it's OK to presume people guilty until proven innocent.

"I'm pleased they're trying to do something," said counselor Steve Bryson. "That, I think we can all agree on. We don't want our kids using drugs. But this sort of random testing isn't necessarily the answer. It's appealing because it seems easy, but we have to use our heads here."

One major impetus for this latest discussion was a survey showing that more than 90 percent of Whitefish High School students had tried marijuana.

It was shocking, to say the least. And it was absolutely untrue.

The survey, it seems, had been misread, and in fact the percentage was less than half of what was initially reported, which puts Whitefish High right about average for Montana and the nation. The drug problem here, it turns out, is statistically no worse than anywhere else.

But the ball, House said, had started rolling, and the corrected survey did not slow it down one bit.

"We've had other problems," House said. "Last fall, seven of our nine sports programs had issues with partying, drug and alcohol use. One solution is to blanket the programs with random testing."

The plan, as written, emphasizes that extracurricular activities are a privilege rather than a right — students participating have "volunteered" to subject themselves to a higher degree of supervision.

By joining a club or team, the policy states, students "have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy."

If enacted, each student — and parent — would sign a consent form before joining an activity. All kids then would submit to urine tests.

Throughout the season, a portion of participants would be randomly selected to undergo additional drug tests. If a result came back positive for drugs, the student would be tested again, just to be sure.

Then, if the positive result was confirmed, parents would be called and meetings held.

The student would be given a choice: Leave the team for that season and the next, or go through a substance-abuse program with weekly drug tests, and be suspended from the team for 15 days.

A second positive test would bring a 40-day suspension from extracurricular activities. A third strike and the student would be out.

Test results would not be public, but House admits that, in a small school such as Whitefish, a 15-day absence would be hard to miss.

And that, Bryson said, is only the beginning of the problems with a random drug testing program for teens. Now a private counselor in Whitefish, Bryson is former director of professional services for a chemical dependency center.

In some settings, he said, drug testing makes sense. But random testing on teens does not.

"Testing should be done with cause," he said. "We should always presume innocence rather than guilt, unless we have cause not to. None of us wants to be accused, or to have people rifling through our private lives on a fishing expedition."

Surely, he said, some kids will be deterred, and some will be caught and turned around. But others will choose to abandon group activities — activities that are proved to reduce drug use.

Occasional drug users — for whom school and sports are a primary focus — might become higher-level users once away from the support of the team, "and it's the highest-risk kids who will drift away, exactly the ones you want to keep involved in healthy group activities."

He worries students might turn to more dangerous drugs that are less detectable — alcohol, methamphetamine and ecstasy all bleed from the system in a couple of days, while marijuana, for instance, can linger a full month.

And some students will shy away from the "humiliation" of exposing themselves and peeing in front of someone, Bryson said, and some will simply refuse on principle, "because they or their parents value the Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments."

In fact, the Montana Constitution contains remarkably strong privacy protections, much stronger than Washington state's, where courts ruled "suspicionless urine testing" as unconstitutional.

"This kind of approach creates divisions," Bryson said, and undermines the culture of respect and trust teachers try to establish with students. "Random testing is based in suspicion, and there can be no trust in a relationship grounded in suspicion."

He recommends more drug education, more counseling, even a cause-based drug testing policy "that really reaches out to kids, gets at the underlying problems, and doesn't close the door on them. What we don't need is a message of 'You used, you're busted, you're out, and we're disappointed in you.' "

The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't like random testing for teens, Bryson said, and neither does the National Association of Social Workers. The American Association for Addiction Professionals doesn't support it, nor does the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence. The American Public Health Association, too, "they're all completely against it," Bryson said.

"What few studies have been done are largely inconclusive, but they seem to suggest it just doesn't work. Students who are randomly tested had overall similar rates of drug use compared to those who aren't tested."

Fuller simply isn't buying that argument. She's seen the drug problems, seen the wreckage left behind in teens' lives.

She's even seen kids leave group activities because they can't stand the drug pressure.

"I know this isn't the end-all," she said of the testing plan. "I know people have concerns. But from my point of view, there really isn't any downside to it at all."

As to kids leaving activities, or turning to less detectable drugs: "I just don't think that will happen. I think if anything, more kids will join teams because there will be a safe culture there, a guarantee of no drug pressure."

Fuller hopes to couple the random testing with more education, especially in younger grades, and with more counseling for those in trouble.

All that will prove expensive, House said, but he added that private citizens have pledged to pay the cost of random drug testing, at least initially.

"It's a positive movement," Fuller said. "It's positive, not punitive. It forces kids to make a choice — what lifestyle do I want? They have to choose."

As to the notion of guilt before innocence, Fuller pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled random testing of high school athletes is constitutional, even if some states have adopted stricter privacy standards.

"Really," she said, "that's not my call. But I don't think there are any privacy problems. If you aren't using, then you have nothing to worry about. It's that simple. Stay clean and you're fine."

The real issue, Fuller said, is one of personal responsibility. Students make a contract with coaches and team members, and should be expected to honor that contract.

"Drug use is illegal," Fuller said. "That's all anyone should need to hear."

But Whitefish is bound to hear much, much more in coming weeks. At a recent community forum, about 250 people turned out to discuss the proposed policy. And an April 22 school board workshop is expected to bring even more public comment.

The earliest the board could vote, House said, is May 13, the next scheduled meeting.

"I can't wait," said Mike Ferda. "We need to get this to a vote."

Ferda is a cop, a coach, a parent and a school board member, and is keenly interested in the ongoing debate.

"I've waited 15 years for the parents and the teachers and the students of this town to get engaged on the issue of drugs and alcohol," he said. "I applaud the discussion, and I welcome everyone's opinion.

"No matter what happens, this is a plus, because we're finally all talking about our kids and their future. That's what matters."