Editorials
Wednesday, April 16, 1997

Supreme Court sets limit
on drug testing

THE Supreme Court has struck a much-needed blow for privacy on the issue of drug testing. By an 8-1 vote, the justices ruled that state and local governments cannot require candidates for public office to pass a drug test.

The significance of the ruling, made in a case from Georgia, goes well beyond political candidates. It is the first time that the high court has drawn a line to demonstrate that there are limits beyond which drug testing cannot be conducted. In three previous decisions the court had upheld mandatory or random testing without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing. These cases involved railroad workers, customs agents and student athletes in public schools.

With regard to the railroad workers and customs agents, the justification was public health and safety. Railroad workers on drugs could cause accidents. Customs agents enforce anti-drug laws. In the case of athletes, the justification was public concern over drug use by youth. This case was different, because it involved government-sponsored drug testing of adults whose jobs are not directly related to public health and safety. The law was challenged in 1994 by three Libertarian candidates.

Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out that Georgia had produced no evidence that the state's elected officials used drugs and those officials usually do not perform work that is related to safety considerations. "The need revealed, in short, is symbolic," she said. The court found this was not adequate justification for diminishing personal privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Concern about drugs has led some people to favor unlimited testing. But this is no more sensible than allowing the police to enter anyone's home without a warrant. The right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed in the Constitution. A drug test is a search. By striking down the Georgia law, the court has declared that there must be a compelling reason to force people to submit to drug tests.

Juvenile justice

FAMILY Court Judge Darryl Choy has determined that 18-year-old Gabriel Kealoha was a "law violator" in causing the death of an off-duty police officer who was thrown 33 feet from the H-1 freeway viaduct last October. Unfortunately, the judge's ruling is hidden from public scrutiny. The proceeding was conducted behind closed doors. The case illustrates the need for the Legislature to end secret adjudication of serious crimes in Family Court.

Planes for Taiwan

DURING the 1992 election campaign, then-President George Bush approved a $4 billion sale of 150 advanced F-16 fighter planes to Taiwan. China protested that the sale violated a 1982 agreement under which the U.S. agreed to limit and eventually phase out its arms sales to Taiwan.

That ambiguous 1982 agreement shouldn't prevent Washington from helping Taiwan strengthen its defenses while China builds up its military strength.



Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO


John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher


David Shapiro, Managing Editor


Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor


Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors


A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor



Text Site Directory:
[News] [Business] [Features] [Sports] [Editorial] [Community]
[Info] [Letter to Editor] [Stylebook] [Feedback]


© 1997 Honolulu Star-Bulletin
http://starbulletin.com