In February 2000, Hunterdon expanded its testing policy to include students who were involved in any extracurricular activity or who held a campus parking permit. On behalf of several students, the ACLU filed suit in state court to block the new policy.
In a separate case, decided in June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar drug testing policy in the Tecumseh, Oklahoma Independent School District.
Even after the Supreme Court's decision in the Oklahoma case, the Hunterdon case proceeded through New Jersey courts. The ACLU's lawyers argued that the New Jersey Constitution provided students with more protection than the U.S. Constitution.
An appellate court disagreed, and upheld the Hunterdon policy in an August 2002 decision. The Hunterdon case was appealed, and argued before the New Jersey State Supreme Court in February 2003. A decision is pending.
Hunterdon is one of about a dozen districts in New Jersey to mandate such tests. Unlike most schools that perform drug tests, however, Hunterdon uses an oral swab to test saliva.
With the help of teacher Will Richardson, Principal Lisa Brady, and moderator John Anastasio, POV invited six Hunterdon juniors and seniors — Jackie McMahon, Kate Murphy, Matthew Harcarik, Patrick Meyer, Stephanie Leon, and Ryan Cahalan — to watch "Larry v. Lockney" and to share their views on drug testing.
Read the transcript and listen to audio clips »
Background
In 1997, Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey began random drug testing of student athletes, a type of policy that the U.S.
Supreme Court had upheld as constitutional in the 1995 Vernonia School District case.
In a separate case, decided in June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a similar drug testing policy in the Tecumseh, Oklahoma Independent School District.
Even after the Supreme Court's decision in the Oklahoma case, the Hunterdon case proceeded through New Jersey courts. The ACLU's lawyers argued that the New Jersey Constitution provided students with more protection than the U.S. Constitution.
An appellate court disagreed, and upheld the Hunterdon policy in an August 2002 decision. The Hunterdon case was appealed, and argued before the New Jersey State Supreme Court in February 2003. A decision is pending.
Hunterdon is one of about a dozen districts in New Jersey to mandate such tests. Unlike most schools that perform drug tests, however, Hunterdon uses an oral swab to test saliva.
With the help of teacher Will Richardson, Principal Lisa Brady, and moderator John Anastasio, POV invited six Hunterdon juniors and seniors -- Jackie McMahon, Kate Murphy, Matthew Harcarik, Patrick Meyer, Stephanie Leon, and Ryan Cahalan -- to watch "Larry v. Lockney" and to share their views on drug testing.
Read the transcript and listen to audio clips »
2
John Anastasio, Moderator: Has anybody here had any experience of being in class with someone who might have been under the influence? Has it distracted you?
Kate Murphy: Well, I know I've been in class with people who were drunk and/or high. It hasn't really been much of a distraction. I mean, they're there, you ignore them. If they do something ridiculous, the teacher will kick them out of class or something. I mean, it wasn't, like, harmful to my learning experience or anything.
Patrick Meyer: Going along with what Kate said, I have found that I've been in class, and people have been obviously on drugs. And they behave the same way that someone would if they didn't get enough sleep. It's not distracting at all. They sit in the back, they don't make a fuss, they don't say anything. So it's more detrimental to their experience than to mine.
John: In one of the scenes in the film, one of the girls mentions, I believe, that she could smell the person in front of her and know that they had been using a drug. Has anybody noticed that? Can you do that? I thought it rather odd that they could smell it, unless it was something that was obviously smokable.
Stephanie Leon: Well, I had one kid in my class that was abusing cough syrup, and cough syrup smells like cherries, so I could smell it. And that was a big distraction, because, I guess when you're on cough syrup, I don't know, he was really disruptive.
John: Well, you've mentioned that you've known that people have been under the influence of one drug or another in your class. So I will assume that you all feel -- or do you all feel -- that there is a problem with drugs in your school?
Matt Harcarik: I've never had an experience with any of the drugs here. I've heard the rumors that Central is a big drug school, but I've never seen anyone using drugs. I've never actually seen drugs on the campus, and even though I've
heard stories about it, I've never seen it with my eyes, and this leads me to believe that more of it is rumor than is actually truth. I feel that maybe the rumor's taken over and there's not really a lot of truth going around at Central.
Kate: I have to disagree with a lot of what Matt said. I know there's a lot of drug use at this school, but I'm not sure whether drug testing is going to help that problem. There's so many people that do drugs, and I think we only test ten percent of the kids, so the people that do do drugs figure that their chances of getting caught are minimal, and they don't stop doing drugs.
John: That was going to be my next question, if, in your opinion, drug testing is a deterrent? Does it prevent substance abuse? Has it worked here at all? Would it have worked, had it been as successful as they thought it was going to be in Texas?
Students: Random drug testing?
John: There was a difference, wasn't there? Explain the difference to the folks who haven't seen the film yet.
Ryan Cahalan: The drug testing procedure that took place at Lockney High was that all the students had their names called and were mandatorily drug tested, given urinalysis, which is also different from Hunterdon, where they give you a mouth swab drug test. And after that, they said they had a bingo raffle, which is more similar to how Hunterdon Central drug-tests students. But still, here at Hunterdon Central, you have to be in a sports club or an after-school club, or have a parking spot... Basically any privilege you have other than attending, you know, regular classes, can make you eligible for randomized testing, whereas at Lockney it was anyone.
Kate: Wouldn't that be kind of self-defeating, too, because the students that really do have problems, you usually don't see them participating in after-school clubs? Except for the seniors that have the parking spots. I mean, wouldn't the point be to get these kids and help these kids when they're freshmen, or very young, or just getting into the drugs? There's a few drug users that have parking spots, and they might get tested, but you're only targeting a small percentage of the problem.
John: Kate's thrown out a good one there, and that is the challenge to you all to come up with what you think might work. And what kind of education, what kind of messages have you gotten? Do you think it's been adequate? Do you know too much about it?
Matt: I feel that the drug education here has definitely been adequate. I've definitely been educated over all four years here about drugs and the effects of drugs and the dangers and everything else about them. But as to what Kate said before about the drug testing policy, and how the drug users are the ones who are not participating, I feel that even if it's a random drug test, it's more of a deterrent. Even the chance of getting caught, it may be slim, but there's still that possibility that if you want to join a sport, or have a parking spot your senior year, it's that deterrent that's going to make you stop. And if you really want it that badly, and it may sound somewhat odd, if you want that club position really badly or anything like that, it's just a deterrent, and it's supposed to help kids, and not so much invade their privacy.
Stephanie: I agree with Matt. Doing nothing is basically condoning it, I think. And there's only so much you can do in terms of education. We know all the risks, and stuff like that, and kids still choose to do it. The honesty policy doesn't work, unfortunately, with kids. People lie. People say they're not on drugs when they are. Since the honesty policy doesn't work, I think the next step is drug testing, whether it be random or mandatory. I don't know which one would be better. But I think that at the least it should be random drug testing, just because it shows the kids that you care. Both for the kids that are on drugs, and are maybe using it as a call for help, and for the kids that aren't on drugs, and feel like their education is being compromised because they have to sit in class with people that are on drugs.
Kate: On the contrary, I've never heard a single kid say, 'I'm not going to smoke pot this weekend because I'm afraid of getting drug tested.' I heard kids talking about it when they first introduced the program, but everybody forgot about it within a couple of weeks. Instead, what we need to do is -- you can tell what kids are having problems with drugs, because their grades are dropping off, or because of the way they're acting. I think the kid who might smoke weed once or twice a year isn't so much the problem as the kids that really are having problems, and you're not going to find them by randomly testing kids. You need to find who's got the problem and help them, instead of punishing them.
Patrick: I feel that one of the major downfalls of the drug education at Hunterdon Central, and I'm sure it's pretty similar in high schools around America, is that a lot of their big thrust is 'Say No.' It's almost like a taboo, like drugs are this whole realm which no human may traverse. I don't think that's a very healthy way to approach it, because when kids do experiment with drugs, and teenagers will experiment with drugs, the whole teenage attitude is rebellion and disobeying parents and figures of authority. So it creates this guilt trip. So it's almost like teenagers are going to experiment with drugs to parody or cliché the things that they learned in health class, or from their parents. So I think a more comprehensive and less dated, and more reality-based education on drugs would probably be a lot more beneficial. Almost like the criminal law class. They bring in criminals to speak with them, like one-on-one, it's like
an interactive experience. So I think something along those lines would be a lot more beneficial.
Jackie McMahon: I certainly don't see the new policy as a deterrent at all. First, because of the procedure. It's using a cotton swab, which detects, I think, drug use within how many hours? For, I mean, the past day. Most kids are doing their drug use over the weekend, and with a urinary test, a urine test, you can detect it from far back, you know? The drug user who really likes drugs and really loves to do them, first of all, isn't going to join a club, because they're smarter than that, so I just don't understand how it could even deter the kids with the problem.
John: Larry Tannahill himself says, "There are times when we need to use a firm hand, but we do not need to rule with an iron fist. Our children deserve the respect that we ourselves should have. Earning respect does not mean peeing in a cup." Do you think that the drug testing that went on there, and the drug testing that goes on here, is disrespectful to young people?
Kate: I remember when we were watching the video, the one girl was speaking into the camera, about how she felt humiliated by having to pee in a cup. I think the drug testing, it kind of accuses everyone of being on drugs, and it's like, 'Now we're going to test you, just to prove that you are on drugs.' That's the kind of attitude that it appears to me to take, and I think rather than targeting everyone we need to focus on the real problems.
3
John: Let's talk about that issue of trust. Does trust outweigh the drug problem? Do you feel that we show a lot of mistrust by trying to test students, or not?
Patrick: I feel that the random drug testing program at our school, it almost has like a witch-hunt vibe to it. It has an accusatory feel to it, and it gives the impression that the administration doesn't trust us. I feel that if there's been sufficient evidence that a kid has been abusing drugs, he should get help, but the random drug testing does feel like a breach of trust.
Stephanie: I mean, I consider a drug problem at least one kid on drugs. That's a problem. Obviously, we have more than one kid that's on drugs. And you can't trust kids -- if kids are on drugs at our school, and we know that there are, there's proof that there are, why should they still trust the kids? I don't understand that. It's more a question of responsibility. The school is responsible for us between the hours of 7:30 and 2:00, just like our parents are responsible for us when we get out of school. So if our parents are responsible for us out of school, and our parents are taking the initiative out of school, in school the school should be taking the initiative to make sure we're okay, health wise, in
well being and education.
Patrick: If the school's responsible for us from 7:00 to 2:00 during the day, if we're not doing drugs during school, they're not responsible for us, for our drug use.
Stephanie: But how can they be sure that we're not doing it in school? I mean, I know kids that do drugs in between classes, in the bathroom. It is possible. So why wouldn't they test for that, especially since we pointed out that the cotton swab test is really effective within the last couple of hours. So if you test someone at 2:00, and they come up positive, they were doing drugs in school.
Jackie: Even if it is to target the kids who are doing drugs in school, then their method is very inefficient, because there are so many kids doing it on the weekend, so they're only sifting out the drug users that are taking the risk of doing it in the bathroom, or doing it behind a building. It's just not efficient enough to just sift out the kids who are smoking on the premises, or doing whatever they're doing. I think that the new procedure doesn't really get all the drug users. And one of the biggest problems I have with it is that it only targets the kids who are participating in their clubs, and participating in their activities, and that definitely is a breach of trust.
Ryan: It's not so much an issue of trust. I don't think that word should even come into play with the relationship between the faculty and students and Board of Ed, etc., but one of responsibility. And I think that if a student is a recreational drug user, and if he likes to smoke marijuana on the weekends, and consume alcoholic beverages, and whatever else he wants to do, and can maintain good grades, and not have disruptive behavior in a classroom environment, and go through high school successfully, then that's not a problem at all. As long as he's taking care of himself, and is fully willing to accept whatever responsibility may fall on him with the law, if he's doing anything illegal. Obviously, we know marijuana's illegal. I don't think there's any real law about chugging Robitussin. Personally, I haven't seen anyone drinking Robitussin in school. I might laugh if I did. But aside from that, I think that there have been many successful students who have gone through Central and graduated and went on to great colleges, and many current students who have better grades than I do, and come to class high every day, or whatever. I really don't think we have a drug problem at all in this school. My personal feeling is that our school's drug use is on the exact level as any other progressive school in a well-to-do type of area. And really when we say 'drug problem,' and 'drug abuse,' you've got to understand that we're talking about two different classes of drugs here. The difference between alcohol, you know, marijuana, smaller-league recreational drugs. And then there's the kids who are doing coke and anabolic steroids, and the rest of them. They're totally different groups of people. And if I had to guess, I'd say it was close to the majority of students at Hunterdon Central have at least tried smoking pot before, and close to the majority, if not over majority, have tried alcohol before. And both of those things, underage drinking and smoking marijuana are illegal, but our arrest records aren't that bad, now, are they? And we're a blue-ribbon school of excellence, so apparently we don't have that many drunk and high kids walking around our hallways in a stupor. We seem to be doing pretty well, if you ask me.
Patrick: Going along with what Ryan said, is a little harmless, teenage experimentation so wrong? People experiment with everything in life, religion, living with different people, going to college, I don't know, maybe that wasn't the greatest analogy ever. But for some kids, maybe they want to experience some kind of different consciousness. And as long as it doesn't interfere with their health, or whatever goals they want to achieve. I mean, everybody in their life will experiment with something, at some point in time. It's the teenage way, I guess.
John: Patrick and Ryan, you've come down on the side [in a sense], of Mrs. Tannahill. She seemed to think that there wasn't much of a drug problem, because students were doing so well.
Ryan: A lot of what they were concerned about in Lockney seemed to be cocaine. There had been a drug bust in Lockney, I think 11 people were arrested. And that was really what sparked the drug testing policy. But really, I didn't see any correlation between the arrests in the town of Lockney and the students at Lockney High. All of the people interviewed -- the students especially -- weren't talking about cocaine. They didn't mention it. They said, 'If someone comes into class smelling like smoke, or if a kid comes to class drunk,' but really where this whole thing came from in Lockney is that the police and the Board of Ed and parents around the community were worried about a cocaine issue, and it turned into an every-drug issue.
Jackie: I think it still has to go back to the whole responsibility thing. The school -- they're our parents when we're here, and they really need to make sure that they're not liable for the accidents that can take place if someone's on drugs. And I understand that that's what they're trying to do with the drug testing at school. But with the Lockney case, it seemed to me that there was a problem with adults, and with the arrests that Ryan was referring to, the majority of the arrests were adults. And it seems to me that towns just need some education about drugs, or more education than there is. I mean, we go through the program, but I'm not sure that that's enough, and I'm not sure that drug testing would solve that.
Kate: The thing is, you're targeting just the kids. And if it's a problem that goes beyond the kids, I mean, I'm sure most of the people who are dealing the cocaine aren't kids. Aren't they the root of the problem? Shouldn't we be focusing on where this is coming from, and not just targeting the kids?
John: So what you're saying is that the problem is not really a school problem, it's a society problem. Is that it?
Patrick: Going along with what Kate said, a lot of the searches and seizures in school, you know, bringing drug dogs in to search lockers, and catching kids on a lottery drug test basis, we're really not getting to the root of the problem. I mean, finding a dime bag of weed in a kid's locker, that's not really solving the drug problem, that kid can just go out and buy another one. If the school would work in affiliation with the police and try and target the people that are supplying, that would be a lot more beneficiary, I think.
Stephanie: I don't think you can compare a school and a community. The school is responsible for us, and it's responsible not only for our education, but for our health while we're in their building on their premises. We are, or a majority of us are, under 18, and our parents are responsible for the things that we do, but the school is too, if we're on school grounds. So the school needs to watch their own back, at the same time they're watching out for the kids' well being and health.
Matt: I definitely have to agree. When you go to school, you give up and you accept certain rights. One of them could be privacy. In this case, it's used as a safeguard for the community. And although we may not be getting to the root of the problem, like Pat and Kate said, we're getting closer. And I think that by eliminating maybe one or two, it shows the community and the students that the school and the parents are concerned. They're concerned for the students' well being, they're concerned for the faculty's well being, they're concerned for the community's well being.
John: You bring up the issue of rights, and I think it's probably time to talk about that. Let's take a look at the side of the government in this, and let's explore the issue of personal rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees us certain rights, it says that we will be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Do you think that what went on in Lockney, or what goes on here at Hunterdon Central, constitutes unreasonable search and seizure?
Patrick: I understand that when you attend a public or private education system, you do have to sacrifice or compromise some of your rights. Obviously, with the First Amendment, freedom of speech and everything, you can't be a complete vulgarian in school. But I think that they should be a little more lenient -- you know, school systems and administrations -- on violating or compromising the Bill of Rights inside a classroom. Because how is it so different, a vice-principal with a drug-sniffing dog breaking into my locker, from a Hessian and a Tory breaking open my tea chest looking for British contraband. You know, where do you draw the line? And I would just like to apologize for my previous application of the word "beneficiary" in the wrong context, to all of our grammar-savvy listeners.
John: It's interesting that you brought up the analogy of the tea chest, because that was part of the film, wasn't it? They talked about that. How do the rest of you feel about the Fourth Amendment and how it's applied, or not applied, in this case?
Kate: When you're taking away a student's Fourth Amendment rights, you're pretty much taking away their citizenry. I mean, I know they deny stuff to minors, but they're not things that we're guaranteed. We're not guaranteed that we can buy cigarettes in the Constitution. We're not guaranteed the right to buy alcohol, or enter a bar, but we are guaranteed the right to privacy. Not to sound like a raging anarchist or anything, but drug testing, I think, is one
step closer to a police state. And that's pretty much what the Constitution was set up to avoid.
4
Matthew: Well, in defense of the school, I think that before they can drug test you, you have to sign a consent form. And I think that's the preservation of the Fourth Amendment right there by the school.
Stephanie: Also, the Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. I don't see this as unreasonable at all, because it's obvious that teenagers do drugs, and there is a drug problem, and we need to fix that problem. Just like they brought up in the POV special, at an airport, we're all searched, you go through metal detectors, sometimes you have to be patted down for weapons. It's not unreasonable. We have recent terrorists, so it's not
unreasonable to think everyone's a terrorist. We have kids with drug problems, so it's not unreasonable to think that it's a possibility that the majority of kids are on drugs. Don't we have to protect our kids by doing that?
Kate: When, Ryan, Pat, and I were watching the movie, the general consensus was that the airport analogy was absolutely inapplicable. Because number one, you're not legally forced to go to an airport. It's a choice. At Central, if you don't sign the consent form you can't participate in after-school activities, and aren't after-school activities a basic part of education? I mean, you're basically denying yourself that. I'm in Amnesty International at school, and I know that if Amnesty wasn't a part of my life, it's just such a big deal to me that I don't think I should have to give up my privacy in order to be part of it.
Stephanie: I don't agree, Kate. I think that we're definitely guaranteed an education, and I think that after-school activities, sports, and clubs and parking spots and stuff, I think that's a privilege. I mean, if we get detention, we don't have the right to go the club instead of detention. We have to go and serve our punishment. If you get caught doing something a lot worse, you could be not allowed to have your parking spot. If you have a parking violation, your parking spot is taken away. That's a privilege.
Patrick: I pose the question that don't you think after-school activities in themselves are a convenient and healthy deterrent of drugs?
Kate: I don't know, I think a lot of the jocks do drugs, but that's just my own opinion.
Ryan: If I may step in, I'm going to go ahead out on a limb here and say that the student athletes at Hunterdon Central really don't mess around with drugs at all. Basically, what I've heard is that they're generally kind of afraid
of anything that's not beer.
Stephanie: Beer's a drug.
John: We're getting a lot of different ideas and opinions here on what constitutes a drug and what constitutes abuse. We've talked about steroids, we've talked about marijuana, we've talked about taking cough syrup, we've talked about the problem of cocaine in Lockney. What do you consider to be a dangerous drug? How do you feel about the level of drug abuse, or the drugs that are being used? Which ones do you feel are dangerous, and do you feel that any of them are not dangerous?
Ryan: I'm going to cite Harvard professor Dr. Timothy Leary, who classified drugs into two different categories, the psychoactive and the opposite of that, the blackout drugs. So you can say right there that if there's two divisions, there's the drugs that are either stimulants that get your brain working, and there's also the drugs like barbituates, heroin, opiates, things like that, on any far end of the spectrum, the more serious drugs with more intense effects. Those drugs tend to be harmful, obviously, that's why they're hard to come by, or have stricter penalties, or whatever. But when it comes down to it, I think that, in the center spectrum -- which is all we're concerned about, basically, at Hunterdon Central -- there's not a big problem with heroin at Central, there's not a problem with kids tripping on acid in the hallways, there's not a cocaine problem or anything like that. It's basically just alcohol, marijuana, caffeine. And there's kids all over who are going to try everything. It's like what Pat said with the teenage attitude, and broadening your horizons to different levels of consciousness or whatever. But aside from that, most people just have that core schedule of, 'It's Friday night, let's drink some beer.' Or a bunch of guys will go out together and say, 'Well, let's smoke a little marijuana' or whatever. They're not kids that are going out and revolve their lives around drug abuse, and 'I'm going to quit my job and sit in the gutter all weekend and drink beer, I don't want to do anything.' That's not how Central students are. Usually none of them actually have what I would call 'a problem.'
Matthew: But a drug is still a drug, and you can still get addicted to alcohol, or you can still get addicted to marijuana, and in this case...
John: We seem to have some disagreement here.
Matthew: What, you can't get addicted to alcohol, or marijuana?
Kate: You can't get addicted to marijuana.
Matthew: You can't? It's impossible? (incredulous)
Kate: Pretty much, yeah.
Matthew: Impossible! (incredulous)
Ryan: There are two forms of addiction to anything, there's physical addiction and mental addiction. You have a drug like heroin, once heroin enters your bloodstream, it's in your system, your cell membranes and receptors start to change, and after that your body becomes physically addicted. And then there's things like addiction to marijuana or whatever, and people say, 'Oh my God, I need it,' people bug out. It's just a regular mental addiction, and it can be to anything. You could be addicted to Twix bars, or watching a certain TV show, chocolate, anything like that. There's no proof anywhere, after about a century of laboratory testing, that marijuana is physically addictive in any way.
John: Okay, we have just a few moments left in the program. We're going to go around with this one more time. Jackie, you have a comment?
Jackie: Yeah. I mean, I think the problem is there, I think the drug problem definitely is there. But I think that the method, the way we're doing it, would be a lot better if we focused more on education, or we focused on getting people who are at the source of it, who are really supplying and giving the kids the drugs, if we got those guys out first. By going and having everyone sign a paper that requires them to be pulled out of their classes to participate in this, I don't think that's really as effective as it could be.
Matthew: I think until we find a better method, such as the ones proposed here today, I think random drug testing is going to have to do. And even though I sometimes agree with the fact that the method may be bad, I feel it's a good deterrent. And, you know, just to respond to one thing that was said today, about how if we neutralize the people dealing -- then you're just going to have the people that want it left. And that's an entire problem in itself, because if those people want it, then they're going to become the ones that start dealing it. It's just one cycle that goes around. I feel that until a better method comes around, random drug testing is the way to go here at Central.
Stephanie: I think the war on drugs is absolutely necessary. I don't know if the word 'war' is the right word, but I honestly don't think, like Pat said earlier, that they're trying to weed out the bad seeds. I don't think anyone's trying to weed anyone out or pick anyone off. The goal of the school and the goal of the community as a whole is to help these kids. I honestly don't think the school's out to kick these kids out, or put them in jail, or quarantine them forever, or something. I think they're out to get them counseling, or get them into a drug program, to motivate them to get themselves off of drugs and onto better things.
Kate: I actually, in a sense, have to agree with Matt here, because I think that when there is a demand for something you're always going to have a supply, so rather than knocking out the supply, you need to get rid of the demand for it. And I think our own antidrug programs need to be improved, rather than saying, 'drugs are bad, drugs are bad, drugs are bad,' and having kids go and try them and realize, 'hey, they're not that bad,' I think we just need to change our educational programs, and that's where the solution to this problem is going to be found, not the random drug testing.
Patrick: Real quick. I don't think we would ever be able to, realistically, get rid of the demand for drugs. I mean, Prohibition proved that. They got rid of the supply of the alcohol, for the most part, but the demand was so great that they bootlegged alcohol. So I don't think that we will ever get rid of a demand for drugs in America.