Drug Sniffing Dog Proposal

Is Irrational At Best

To the Editor:

I am not especially aware of the legal issues involved with having a drug-sniffing dog (DSD) in the school system, but I can comment on the mathematical implications that would make implementing a DSD irrational. The common mistake is to focus only on the population of students who use drugs and how to reduce that population. The majority of students who do not bring drugs to school are ignored. There is no question that a DSD would discourage students from drug use on school grounds; however, not mentioned in the original Bee article is the concept of the false-positive and the effect on the nonusing student body.

Imagine being a student who has never used drugs and being investigated by a DSD that has walked past his/her locker. It is inevitable that this investigation would be seen by other students and teachers. It may seem harmless if the locker of the student turns out to be clean, but what about the teacher who sees this unfolding and happens to be writing a letter of recommendation for the student to go to college? What about the other students who will tease and contribute to rumors regarding the searched individual who was innocent? What you will find is that there will be a certain level of error, both on not catching the intended people, but also implicating the unintended.

I know the response by advocators will be that DSDs are extremely accurate and that their statistical records are documented by the police. However, Bayesian reasoning and Bayes’s Theorem can be applied to this situation. This same theorem when applied caused massive reform changes to clinical drug tests and cancer tests regulated by the FDA. Essentially, the problem lies in disregarding the false-positive. Even though it is not a formal test done in a clinical environment, bringing a DSD past a locker or car or a student is still a test that will produce a mixed bag of results and induce a surprising amount of false-positives.

Lastly, how is implementing a DSD acting in loco parentis? Do parents routinely call the police requesting their child be investigated by the canine division? If not, then wouldn’t not implenting a canine actually be acting in loco parentis? Wasn’t installing that expensive surveillance system also supposed to discourage this same problem? What about DARE? These questions are all rhetorical. These officials have a track record for implementing solutions that do not work. Invoking a DSD is simply taking advantage of current public calamity.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” —Benjamin Franklin on Proprietor Thomas Penn.

Daniel Phillips

17 Platts Hill Road, Newtown                                  July 10, 2006