Drugs in schools: Kenny fails the constitution test

HAS the ghost of Eoin O’Duffy taken possession of Enda Kenny lately?

While I appreciate this one-trick pony now has to appear tough on crime, it seems his disregard for the constitution, the most basic law of the land, undermines any claims to be a guardian of the rule of law.

You reported (December 6) how the Fine Gael leader, out of concern at the apparent “widespread” dealing of ecstasy in schools, is demanding that we test pupils. There is a conflict here.

If I am to read my copy of Bunreacht na hÉireann correctly, then children are entitled to free education at primary level (Article 42) while the law as it stands also guarantees free second level education.

And all citizens are to be protected from unlawful search and seizure and to have their personal rights safeguarded (Articles 40.4 and 40.2). As I see it, the only way this system could be implemented would be to the detriment and destruction of these rights.

It is not a crime to have traces of a drug in one’s system, except alcohol, and that is while driving. Intoxication may lead to a public order offence, but the state of being intoxicated itself is no crime, whatever the substance.

Mr Kenny would wish that we test schoolgoing children for the presence of a substance in their bloodstream, even though they break no law by having it in their system. We would not be testing them, it seems, with the intent of proving any violation of the law, therefore rendering the search unwarranted.

One presumes the ultimate consequences of failing the test, or refusing to take it, would result in expulsion or suspension from school, violating the spirit and substance of Article 42.

While I have never consumed any intoxicating substance, I would still refuse to take the test on a point of principle because there is a worrying authoritarian jingle to all of this: that I should be tested to prove something that is not a crime in any statute book and shall then be deprived of a legal right for having done nothing whatever that is illegal.

Quite apart from that, I am sure it is perfectly possible for a straight A student to be able to consume ecstasy safely and not to the detriment of his or her studies or fellow pupils.

As with any drug, there are safe limits to be considered. It is as ludicrous to suggest we breath-test for alcohol, or nicotine. Generations of schoolchildren have imbibed both and suffered no ill consequences, nor have their peers. I’m sure traces remained in their system for a long time after the weekend, though. Would these youths be cast out for enjoying what most adults do themselves on a weekly basis? It is high hypocrisy, last witnessed when a Late Late Show audience thought it acceptable that two students were expelled from a secondary school for secretly smoking a joint. That would not have happened if it had been a cigarette. Why is one drug socially acceptable and another not?

It saddens me to admit I voted for Fine Gael in the last election, if this is the kind of tripe its leader insists on spouting — it would appear to be part of a wider swing to right in European politics.

I implore the Government to appreciate the violation of basic liberty that Kenny’s proposal represents and to attack it vociferously on those grounds. It may save the Supreme Court the job. That of course takes for granted a big ask: Kenny getting elected somehow in 2012 and pushing through this mad-hatter’s plan to criminalise our youth.

I shall be writing to my local TDs about this and I urge everyone else to do the same. We must not let it seem such draconian measures have widespread popular support.

James G Cussen

Carrigcastle

Lismire

Newmarket

Co Cork