Since last year's orientation and the tuition and other fees consultation, the drug-free campus program has been a topic of discussion. It is the university's move to adhere to the government's Philippine Anti-Illegal Drugs Strategy, aiming to eradicate the country’s drug problem. However, some question its intent. The concern is valid, as it has only been three years since the term of the mind behind the bloody drug war, former President Rodrigo Duterte. Maybe the school's program would also be punitive, with the probability of the university expelling students who test positive. Concerns on data privacy were also raised, as to whether the drug status of the student will be shared with others, especially with law enforcement agencies, causing their arrests and imprisonment. Is AdNU’s approach genuinely about helping students, or is it just another punitive measure waiting to happen?

The university emphasizes its non-punitive approach to those who test positive. Instead, as the Director of Student Affairs, Mr. Sonny Virtus, said in his opening remarks at last Saturday's anti-illegal drugs seminar, the university's approach will be holistic and caring to those people who use drugs. The drug-free program involves different institutions inside the university, all to prevent students from using illegal drugs or giving interventions to students who already started using these drugs. However, while the program has good intentions, several concerns can be seen popping out of it when magnified.

First, the program's lack of presumption of innocence is there. Even if the policy states that refusing to undergo drug testing does not imply guilt, the requirement to justify their absence with a formal letter signed by their parents or guardians may suggest otherwise. It's important to note that there is a population of students from outside the city who live in apartments, boarding houses, and bed spaces when classes are in session. If these students become ill and there is no guardian available to sign their formal letter, will they be excused from any penalties? The burden of proof currently falls on the students, which can lead to unfair assumptions about their behavior.

Additionally, the penalty for being unable to undergo random testing leaps in severity for every offense. From mere community service for the first offense, it jumps to a very severe penalty for the second offense, which is non-readmission. This can be seen as too punitive in a supposed-to-be holistic and caring program and could disproportionately affect students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who face difficulties in following school policies due to external factors. The penalties for the following offenses should be reviewed to not be seen as a way to punish students who due to circumstances cannot be able to participate in the said program.

Another critical concern is the lack of emphasis on student autonomy when it comes to random drug testing, as pointed out by the now-Lideratos Internal Vice President Ma. Deloris Macalino on her opinion regarding the mandatory drug testing during the Miting de Avance. Although the policy frames the tests as random and mandatory, the lack of a clear and transparent process for students to voluntarily opt in or out, without facing penalties, raises questions about how much control students have over their participation. Even if students may refuse testing under specific circumstances, requiring formal letters from guardians suggests a lack of decision-making, particularly for students who are legally adults and should be able to make decisions about their bodies and health independently. This mandatory nature of testing, combined with the potential consequences of refusal, places undue pressure on students and may undermine the principle of voluntary consent. After all, mandatory drug testing is not a tried and tested method to reduce drug dependence and use in and of itself.

While the university consulted last year’s freshmen and sophomores about the drug-free campus policy and informed this year’s enrollees about the same policy last orientation seminar, it looks like it is still not enough for students to understand the intent and the gravity this program entails. Given that the students may undergo tests without fully understanding the policy itself, the information dissemination campaigns should be stronger: the AdNU Drug-Free Campus Committee should earn the trust of the student body regarding this program, as prevalent notions and stigmas surrounding substance use and misuse are still present in the student population. It is also worth noting that even if the full document of the guidelines on random drug testing is sent to every student via email, one still needs to ask for permission to view the file, defeating the purpose of sending the email to inform the students about the policy as a whole. These guidelines could be posted on the Google Classroom stream, to reach a bigger number of students. The university should bombard students with clear, accessible information through social media, email, and in-person events—not waiting for them to request access or figure things out on their own.

Going back, the jokes on the Freedom Wall may not intend harm, but they inadvertently reinforce the idea that people who use drugs should not be seen as individuals in need of help and that they are outcasts of society. Additionally, some individuals who were selected for random drug tests told others about being chosen, which defeats the purpose of the test being random and anonymous. These instances demonstrate that students still do not fully comprehend the seriousness of the situation and the program, highlighting a further need for the committee to inform the student body about it.

Students like us are also required to take part in these endeavors, but the university should meet us halfway. Given the program’s potential consequences, it’s sad that more hasn’t been done to ensure every student understands the policy. Attendance in information dissemination campaigns is encouraged to clear out any concerns and questions one might have about the program. Last Saturday's seminar could have been a prime avenue for discourse, but the turnout was dismal, showing that most students either didn’t know or didn’t care about attending. 

The program has good intentions, as I have seen with my own two eyes how illegal substances make a person, a family, and a community less safe and secure. While I am one with the university in ensuring a safe and drug-free university for the betterment of all stakeholders, the university should still do more to earn student's confidence in the program. Students, in turn, should be informed participants and do our part in ensuring that we understand the policy and that our questions will be clarified by the authorities. A program built on poor communication and punitive measures is not the answer. After all, this program hinges on trust, both in the student’s involvement in activities about the drug-free campus policy and officers' assurance that the program focuses on care and rehabilitation and not punishment or control.