RIDDING SCHOOLS OF DRUGS A PRIORITY

The Drug Foundation this week has criticised the use of police
drug-sniffing dogs in schools.

This was in response to news three Wellington schools had called in
the canine cavalry in a "desperate" bid to stem the school drug tide.

The foundation said bringing in the dogs created mistrust between
pupils and schools, not to mention a climate of fear.

Oh, please.

What the dogs actually do is send a message that drugs will not be
tolerated in schools.

The only people betraying a trust are those students dumb enough to
bring drugs to school.

As much as we like to believe schools are merely a place to learn,
focused solely on the education of our young ones, the fact is
teachers and principals are de facto parents, looking after our
children in our absence.

Why should junior criminals be allowed to get away with behaviour at
school that wouldn't be tolerated in the home?

Or, why should junior criminals be allowed to bring bad habits that
are tolerated, or even encouraged at home to school in the vicinity of
your children?

What if wasn't drugs? What if it was guns.

Would the same people have a problem with climates of "fear" and
"mistrust" if schools had to clamp down on firearms?

Marijuana was once said to be a "gateway" drug, meaning it was seen as
the first step on the path to hard drug use.

Similarly, drug use can be seen as a gateway crime, leading to even
heavier offending.

It needs to be nipped in the bud. Schools shouldn't have to tolerate
drug use and should feel free to actively discourage it.

The Drug Foundation says the most effective tool would be to "empower
kids to make good choices".

Wouldn't the world where that would work be a nice place to
live?

Good on those schools for calling in the drug dogs, for acting quickly
on a perceived problem, despite the fact it would surely see their
names in headlines next to the word "drugs".

Ask yourself, if you were forced to choose, what would you rather see
in schools: drug dogs, or drug dealers?