Random drug testing in schools

I welcome the discussion on student drug testing in the UK, but the July editorial1 arguing that random drug testing in schools is a poor method of identifying and supporting children who use illicit drugs overlooks some major points on the potential efficacy of this practice.

Gerada and Gilvarry argue that drug testing would detract us from overall drug prevention and make finding out about student drug use difficult. Quite the opposite, however, is likely to happen. The point of student drug testing is to ‘deter and refer’ — deter drug use from happening in the first place and refer troubled children to help.

Counter to media images, drug use among children does not start with a dodgy character on a street corner offering young people drugs. On the contrary, drug use and addiction is spread from peer-to-peer, friend-to-friend. Drug testing therefore gives children a legitimate reason to say no to drugs when they are offered them. Last year that could have helped the 62% of 15-year olds who said they were offered drugs in the UK.2

Additionally, drug testing is not meant to catch the child who ‘everyone knows’ is using drugs. We all know who those children are — they're the ones who are not involved in school activities, who arrive at school with dilated pupils and frequently suffer major academic difficulties. Those children need our immediate help. However, student drug testing targets the children that are often much more difficult to detect. Thus, a main purpose of random testing is to get those who have yet to show symptoms of their drug use the help they need before their ‘recreational fun’ turns into dependence or addiction. ‘Help’ does not entail prison or jail time. Instead, the family's privacy is respected and the child is referred to, for example, a counsellor or doctor. Consequences entail being denied involvement in sports or other extra curricular activities during the treatment period and until the child tests negative for drugs.

Research and experiences has shown that this ‘carrot and stick’ method works: After 2 years of a drug-testing programme, Hunterdon Central High School in New Jersey, US, saw significant reductions in 20 out of 28 drug-use categories, including a drop in cocaine use by 18-year olds from 13% to 4%.3 Researchers in the state of Oregon found that ‘… a policy of random drug testing surveillance appears to have significantly reduced recent drug use among adolescent athletes’ at a large secondary school.4

I am not implying that drug testing is the catch-all solution to the UK's drug problem (a problem that manifested itself in a quarter of all 15-year olds last year2). Rather, if local support for the programme exists, student drug testing can be used as a part of — not a substitute for — comprehensive drug prevention curricula and treatment availability in schools. At a time when the UK holds the dubious honour of the most drugged country in Europe, we cannot afford to write off this potential solution just yet.

• © British Journal of General Practice, 2005.