On Monday night Butler School District became the third in our county to adopt a mandatory, in-school random drug testing policy.

It’s a move we expected. But what’s been said — and what data tells us so far about these types of programs — doesn’t sooth our concerns.

We think there are questions left to answer regarding why district officials feel this program is necessary and what they believe it will accomplish.

Why is this program necessary?

This question should be the easiest for district officials to answer. Either there is a drug problem at Butler schools, or there is not. According to state data, the answer is no.

According to the 2017 Pennsylvania Youth Survey (PAYS) about 18 percent of students in Butler County say they’ve tried marijuana; 5.3 percent say they’ve tried prescription narcotics; and about 3.5 percent say they’ve tried inhalants or hallucinogens.

Things like cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine are consigned to fractions of a percent when it comes to use by Butler County students, according to PAYS data. All of this is in line with statewide averages.

We’re not dismissing these data points as insignificant. Anyone who decides using these substances is worth the risk deserves to get help — especially young people.

Which leads to our next question.

Is this policy the most effective (and cost-effective) way to help students avoid risky behavior?

Again the answer appears to be no. And again, you don’t have to take our word for it.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has opposed widespread in-school drug testing since 2015, because of “limited evidence of efficacy and potential risks associated” with the programs.

Similarly, the National Institutes on Drug Abuse advises against using the policies as stand-alone responses to a drug problem, citing research that shows “mixed results.”

A 2013 study that reviewed 14 years of data found that the programs were associated with “moderately lower marijuana use,” but increased the use of more dangerous illicit drugs.

Another study that same year found that while the programs had a short-term deterrent effect among students being tested, there was no wider effect on the student body or long-term change in either students’ drug use or intention to use drugs in the future.

One year later, another study found that drug testing had no effect at all on drug use among students.

Of course, none of this has stopped the rise of in-school drug testing policies elsewhere. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of 2016 more than 37 percent — 1-in-3 public high schools — had instituted policies like the one Butler has adopted.

Is there any indication that the students who would be tested are particularly at-risk for drug abuse and addiction?

For years, studies have indicated a link between sports participation and greater alcohol use among adolescents. And while it certainly makes sense to argue that teenage drivers deserve more scrutiny, those same studies have come to murky conclusions when it comes to extracurricular activities and illicit drugs. What is the reasoning behind casting such a wide net?

Is the district prepared to answer these questions and prove their case in court?

They can certainly ignore this editorial. But it’s a bit more difficult to ignore a judge’s injunction.

And while most people know about the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision declaring these programs constitutional, fewer seem to be familiar with a 2003 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that sets two requirements for districts that want to use random drug testing policies.

First, they must show evidence that the district actually has a drug problem. Second, they must prove the testing actually works.

Is the district prepared to do these things; to answer these questions?