Opinion: Student testing helps parents to fight drugs

Your July 1 editorial, An erosion of rights, totally ignores the reality of the deadly drug epidemic that we have today in our country. It also ignores what the majority of America's parents support: the health and safety of their children.

According to a recent poll conducted by CNN, 70 percent of our nation's parents support student drug testing. Have you wondered why? Have you stopped to consider how many parents have lost their children to drugs but might have been able to save them if only they could have been forewarned through student drug testing?

As a drug prevention professional and expert on drug testing, I can tell you it is an excellent tool for detecting and deterring drug use, preventing addiction and for saving lives. The Supreme Court decision supporting student drug testing is a real boost for the young people who want to stay safe and drug-free. Now, when the drug users and pushers at their schools (and they are in every school) try to get them to use drugs, they can say no and still look cool.

You cite an invasion of privacy as a reason not to use this valuable tool. Privacy in public schools? Anyone who has ever taken a shower after physical education class knows there is no privacy in a public school. What we have now is a much better chance that our kids will graduate from school safe and drug-free, and that is a great thing!

The tone of your editorial indicates that you think there is something un-American about random searches, even when it is for the health and well-being of the public. I suppose you never fly because of these deep-seated feelings?

Why is there any question about this issue? Ask any responsible parent if he or she wants their children to use drugs. Ask those same parents if they would want to know if their child was doing drugs so they could find help for the child. This is simply a report card on whether kids are doing drugs. Parents want all the help they can get in the fight against drugs.

This decision by the Supreme Court is great for everyone, except, of course, for the drug dealers. With student drug testing, parents can now send their kids to safe schools where the emphasis will be on learning, not on peer pressure and drug use. Students will enjoy a safer environment where they can learn. It is my hope that parents and teachers in both Pinellas and Hillsborough counties will encourage their school districts to tap into the federal funds available through the No Child Left Behind Act and implement student drug testing in all of our local schools.
-- Calvina L. Fay, executive director, Drug Free America Foundation Inc., St. Petersburg

Kids don't have adult rights

Your editorial about drug testing in schools (An erosion of rights, July 1) was a lot of hogwash. It may be an erosion of rights in schools and colleges where students are of age. Younger children in lower-level schools should be treated differently. I'm sure most parents would want to know if their child tested positive for drugs.

We shouldn't treat these kids like they have the same rights as adults -- they're kids, for heaven's sake and should do what they are told. We don't need to negotiate with them regarding their curricula, we don't want their opinions on world matters -- we want them to learn math and English. Learn your times tables, learn to write and speak appropriately, then we'll talk about privacy and rights.
-- Chandler D. Mapes, Valrico

This smells of prohibition

Re: An erosion of rights, editorial, July 1.

You published an excellent editorial regarding the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling about drug testing for school children. You have certainly fulfilled your civic and professional obligation to question the government, and you did so quite eloquently.

The social climate created by urine testing under duress is very sour. Our society is harmed by such a stupid policy, and the courts shirk their responsibility by allowing such a travesty when the constitutionality of the procedure is highly questionable. As your writer pointed out, the procedure is demeaning and certainly violates the spirit and the letter of the Fourth Amendment, the age of the citizen notwithstanding. It carries the unmistakable stench of a zealous prohibition.
-- Richard Sinnott, Fort Pierce

Vouchers: They're no substitute

Re: Vouchers alone won't help education, July 2.

Both proponents and opponents of vouchers may do well by reading E.J. Dionne Jr.'s July 2 column. Both may find that Dionne's viewpoints place this educational issue in a realistic perspective with his conclusion that vouchers are no substitute for a large-scale effort to improve the public schools.
-- Russell Lee Johnson, St. Petersburg

The cost of not improving education

I read with some amusement the Times' announcement that (surprise!) a good education costs money (Class size amendment carries hefty price tag, June 28). Our elected officials are quick to point out they are faithful watchdogs on our government purse strings (unless it is to favor a contributor to their party's political fund). What they are loath to mention is the cost of not improving education.

When one considers that these schoolchildren are our future taxpayers, whom we will depend on for security in our retirement, it behooves us to give them the best possible means to survive in tomorrow's world. Can we do this when high school graduates have to have pictures on fast food cash registers in order to recognize a hamburger, and are so poor in math that the machine has to tell them the correct change? Teachers' colleges are begging for applicants because college-bound students perceive teaching as a thankless, low-paying job. And sadly, they're right! At the same time, disillusioned idealists are leaving the teaching profession for less demanding, higher-paying jobs. It is condemning of our Legislature to me that often teachers are the ones paying for things we were promised would be taken care of by our benevolent lottery. I am ashamed at the poor standing our state has in education. I would rather businesses move to Florida because of an intelligent, well-trained work force than for cheap labor and low taxes. Isn't it time to treat our children fairly?
-- Garry Spencer, Tampa

Thank goodness for school choice

Thank goodness the Pinellas County School Board is giving school choice a chance. It's about time.

I grew up in Pinellas County. My wife -- a former teacher -- and I are now raising two boys in Pinellas County. That doesn't leave us a lot of time to analyze the subtle political nuances of the teachers union's relationship with Gov. Bush and the state education establishment. I don't think it really matters who wins the next round of "I care more about the children." What does concern me is my kids and their education.

I want to have a say in where my children attend school. No child in Pinellas County should be sentenced to an underperforming school by an accident of geography. I also believe that by being made to compete for students, bad schools will be forced to improve.

I know some folks don't like school choice. I know it presents some logistical challenges. But I don't care. The bottom line is that all our kids in Pinellas County will benefit from this opportunity.

I've never met superintendent Howard Hinesley or the members of the school board, but I'd like to thank them for giving school choice a chance.
-- Bill Hervey, Palm Harbor

SUVs are stupid, not sexy

Re: The thrill is gone, June 28.

So fickle American consumers are dropping minivans in embarrassment and rushing lemming-like to SUVs for a new thrill?

Get a grip, kiddies. The ad guys manipulate you to think "sexy" when all the extra gas guzzled and the extra pollution caused by so many unnecessary, large, inefficient vehicles is just plain stupid.

Want a thrill? Get the U.S. Congress and the American auto industry to re-think the "success" of their caving in to Bush administration pressures by voting against increasing fuel-efficiency. Get them to support alternatives to single person vehicles (support Amtrak, for example).

Imagine not sucking up boatloads of crude for so many inefficient vehicles, not losing all the jobs and money foreign automakers will get by developing sophisticated new technologies in hybrid cars that cut smog and carbon emissions by half. Imagine not projecting the wrong image of America (as energy hogs) abroad. That would be a real thrill!
-- Nancy Corson Carter, St. Petersburg

Develop a world-class rail system

One definition of a "democracy" can be one in which the government promotes the general welfare and well-being of its citizens. One way for this definition to be realized is for Congress to ensure that Amtrak is not only fully funded, but is also further developed into a world-class national railway system, one even superior to those in Europe and Japan.

It is within the American identity and history that a sense of independence is rooted in exploration and adventure. Thus a more efficient national rail system will permit average Americans to travel and to wander about their nation. By extension, a better rail system will boost national tourism, thereby increasing regional business development.

As a result of Sept. 11, many have pondered what can be done to strengthen connections between America's vast and diverse communities. Funding and expanding Amtrak is one powerful way to accomplish this.
-- Rodrick Colbert, Tampa

For fuel-efficient travel: trains

Re: Government shouldn't feed Amtrak, June 26.

Robert J. Samuelson asks: "What's the justification for subsidizing it?"

First of all, the subsidy for rail travel is very small compared to the subsidy for air travel and highway travel. Second, trains are much more fuel-efficient than either motor vehicles or aircraft.

The article Is this any way to run a railroad? in the Dec. 3, 2001, issue of Time magazine showed that federal spending in 2000 was less than $1-billion for railroads, but was $13-billion for airports and a whopping $30-billion for highways. I believe the city, county and state subsidy of highway travel is even more than the federal subsidy because these smaller governments are responsible for building and maintaining city, county and state roads, and, in addition, they are responsible for policing all roads. I believe the total annual subsidy for highway travel is at least $100-billion -- more than 100 times as much as the railroad subsidy!

In this day of energy shortages, we should encourage the use of railroads because they use less than one-tenth as much fuel per mile per ton of payload as motor vehicles or aircraft. Trains are more efficient because of their low-friction steel wheels and low-drag, slim shape.

I suggest we remove the subsidies from air and highway travel. The Time article said that each $1-billion of highway subsidy equates to one penny per gallon of motor fuel. If my estimate is correct, we would need to increase the motor fuel taxes (local and federal) by a total of at least one dollar per gallon to remove the highway subsidy. If we did this, people would drive less, use trains more, and this would greatly reduce our need for oil.
-- Jack Gregg, Largo

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675. They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page