Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should students be able to take drug tests
Mandatory drug testing for students
Should students be able to take drug tests
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Should students be able to take drug tests
Drug testing is a laboratory procedure that looks for evidence of drug consumption by analyzing urine, blood, and hair samples. If tested, you must provide a sample in front of an observer to make sure that it is not tampered with. Samples are then sent to a laboratory for analysis, after which the employer is notified of the results (Wodell 1). Exactly who should be subject to the new trend of mandatory drug tests, is the big question being raised among businesses, schools, athletes and federal government employees. Businesses feel that random drug testing of their employees will create higher productivity, save on health care costs, improve employee turnover, prevent less accidents, and improve job satisfaction. Schools are beginning to test their students in more and more regions. This time it is not just athletes, but anybody involved in any after-school activities will be tested as well. Schools feel that testing their students will give students an excuse to say no to drugs. It has also generated much controversy among employees of the federal government because employees feel that it is a violation of their right to privacy. Today 81% of large U.S. corporations engage in some type of employee drug screening, and 98% of Fortune 200 companies have drug-testing policies. On the other hand, employees are more aware of their rights. With the heightened awareness of privacy issues in the U.S, instituting a drug-testing policy can leave a company on shaky legal ground if they are not careful. Testing agencies claim that this growing trend is working to cut back on drug and alcohol abuse in the work force. According to one facility in 1987, 18.1% of those tested showed positive drug use compared to 1997, where only 5% out of fiv... ... middle of paper ... ...an a Hair Off." The Progressive May 1999: 32-36. Levy, James. "Stress at Work." Baltimore Business Journal February 24, 1997: 17-20. Peck, Jeanne Peck. "Workplace Drug Testing Now a Fact of Life." The Orlando Sentinel January 19, 1998: 20-23. Shoop, Bob. "Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights." USA Today August 1996: 15-16. "Why Drug Testing is Really Just Marijuana Testing." Marijuana News January 20, 1998: n. page. Online. Internet. 19 July 1999. Available: marijuananews.com Wodell, Russell. "The Facts About Drug Testing in the Workplace." B.C. Civil Liberties Association (1997) n.page. Online. Internet. 4 August 1999. Available: bccla.org/positions/privacy/drugtest.html "Workplace Drug Testing May Actually Promote Drug Use." The Globe Daily (1999)n. page. Online. Internet. 19 July 1999. Available: globedaily/ content/ 112398.
The chapter, Selling in Minnesota, had some disturbing information about the low wage life. As I read, I learned that every place the author went to apply, such as a Wal-Mart and a Home Depot type place called Menards, required the applicant to pass a drug test. The author went out and had to buy detox for $30, but can be up to $60. Also, I learn that 81% of employers do drug test their future employees. I don’t like this statistic, in part because I tried getting a job at Marshall Field’s restaurant and they required me to pass a drug test. Luckily, another employer called me before my scheduled drug screening (which I had planned on passing by being really sneaky and using the urine of a friend of mine), so I took that job offer and everything worked out well. The reason I don’t agree with the drug testing required to access most entry-level jobs, is because the only drugs they actually test for is Marijuana. Cocaine and heroine leave the body within three days, and other drugs aren’t even tested for. So that leaves the most commonly used illicit drug, and one that has the least affect on the user, to be tested for.
Citius, Altius, Fortius is the motto of the Olympic games. Translated from Greek, it means "Faster, Higher, Stronger". Recently, Olympic contenders have been doing everything they can to live up to that motto. Most do it by training hour after hour, each day. Others try to do it by illegally taking performance enhancing drugs. This is why we need to test for drugs at the Olympics. Drug Testing in the Olympics began only recently in the 1968 Games held in Mexico1. Drugs are banned for two very good reasons: the use of drugs produces an unfair advantage, and it is hazardous to the athlete to take them. While drug testing is now commonplace, the procedures are still fairly primitive and arouse much controversy2. We all remember the Andreea Raducan situation from the Sydney Olympics. She unknowingly had consumed a performing enhancing drug that was in her cold medication. Her medal was revoked as soon as the drug test results got back.3 While Andreea was caught, many others who intentionally "doped up" weren't Many of the drugs or procedures out there, still can't be tested for, and more and more athletes are cheating. Most of the drugs and procedures have adverse long term effects, some resulting in death. The drug tests are detrimental to the existence of the Olympics and need to be upheld at all costs.
“Search and Seizure. Suspicionless Drug Testing. Seventh Circuit Upholds Drug Testing of Student Athletes in Public Schools. Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corp., 864 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988).” Harvard Law Review. 103 (Dec. 1989): 591-597.
While employment screening in the healthcare sector is decidedly standard, the law does often not require drug and alcohol testing. Substance abuse is one of the leading causes of disciplinary action against a nursing license in the U.S. Random drug screenings are used to detect the use of unapproved or illegal drugs for the purpose of upholding patient safety (National Council of State Boards of Nursing, 2006). The American Nurses Association (ANA) estimates that six to eight percent of nurses use alcohol or drugs to a degree that would impair professional judgment (National Council of State Boards of Nursing, 2011). Approximately one-third of the one percent of actively licensed nurses are disciplined each year for their substance misconduct (Kenward, 2008). Protecting patients from unsafe practices and personnel is the primary responsibility of each supervisory board of nursing. However, the fear of punishment from the board or termination keeps many nurses unwilling to come forward (Maher-Brisen 2007). The purpose of this paper is to discuss the viability of mandating random drug testing for nurses and other health professionals. The objective of this would be to address the rooted issues of substance abuse and decrease the risk of harm to patients under the healthcare provider’s care.
In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.
In an effort to make drug testing for employees of the federal government more accurate, to deter false positives and false negatives it has been suggested to use alternative methods of testing. The Associated Press reported a movement by the federal government to "overhaul its employee drug testing program". (TAP, pg 1) Currently, the government tests its employees during the pre-employment selection and when accidents
One of the significant issues that frequently evident by the organizations is the privacy policy related to workers. According to Wright (2013), the utilization of workplace drug testing policy by the employers might affect the workers' behavior outside the workplace.
Legal Challenges. When discussing the use of drug testing at the work place for pre-employment screening or on the job testing, we must consider the legal and ethical implications. Those who are in favor of drug testing claim that the testing itself acts as a deterrent in the use of illegal drugs and will also detect the use of illegal drugs which could impair employees resulting in injuries, accidents, lost productivity and ultimately liability concerns. Those in favor also refer to federal laws such as the Controlled Substances Act and take a zero tolerance approach to their employment policy. On the other hand those who argue against drug testing claim ethical violations of privacy and in some cases seek protection under state and federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, not always successfully. In the case of Raytheon v. Hernandez, the employee sought protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibits discrimination against individuals with a drug addiction, although it permits an employer to act against an employer because of current drug abuse” (Witlin 2004). There is also a trend in the United States for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal and/or medical use which creates conflicts for employers. Employers have the responsibility to interpret both federal and state laws when determining their stance and policies when it comes to drug testing at the work place.
Random testing is used more as a precaution to prevent students from taking the drugs and would eventually control the problem of student athletes taking drugs. Drug testing also has benefits to the student by encouraging them to become the best person and athlete they can be. Without drug testing, students are allowed to use illegal drugs as they please, which could potentially harm their body significantly. The advantages of illegal chemical testing in student athletes outweigh the disadvantages by a lot. Students should be pushed to their highest potential, and random drug testing in athletes can help do
“A medical dictionary defines a drug as ‘any substance that when taken into the living organism may modify one or more of its functions’” (Newton 12). However, when speaking of drug testing for abuse a person is usually thinking about illegal drugs or drugs that can alter athletic performance in sporting events. Mandatory drug testing was not allowed in public schools until June 2002 when the Supreme Court allowed for public schools to do random drug testing (Carroll 23). This decision allowed for drug testing in all schools throughout the United States not just for athletes but also students who are in any activities within the school, for example clubs and competitive events (Carroll 23). Even though drug testing is now allowed by the Supreme Court many schools do not yet have mandatory drug test policies. Mandatory drug testing for high school athletes should be required because it decreases drug use in schools, is relatively inexpensive, and can prevent drug use and or abuse that can lead to a lifelong addiction.
The ethics of drug testing has become an increased concern for many companies in the recent years. More companies are beginning to use it and more people are starting more to have problems with it. The tests are now more than ever seen as a way to stop the problems of drug abuse in the workplace. This brings up a very large question. Is drug testing an ethical way to decide employee drug use? It is also very hard to decide if the test is an invasion of employee privacy. “The ethical status of workplace drug testing can be expressed as a question of competing interests, between the employer’s right to use testing to reduce drug related harms and maximize profits, over against the employee’s right to privacy, particularly with regard to drug use which occurs outside the workplace.” (Cranford 2) The rights of the employee have to be considered. The Supreme Court case, Griswold vs. Connecticut outlines the idea that every person is entitled to a privacy zone. However this definition covers privacy and protection from government. To work productively especially when the work may be physical it is nearly impossible to keep one’s privacy. The relationship between employer and employee is based on a contract. The employee provides work for the employer and in return he is paid. If the employee cannot provide services because of problems such as drug abuse, then he is violating the contract. Employers have the right to know many things about their employees.
When employees get hired, they get a drug test due to the fact that the drug testing can prove if the person they are hiring is a good person for their business. For an example “Approximately eighty-one percent of companies in the United States administer drug testing to their employees.” Drug testing also proves that people who passes it are clean and responsible people who the company can trust on doing their job well done and showing overall percentage of the US using drug testing (Chodorow). People who cheat on a drug test and gets a job will later ruin their job of getting into accidents during working and or start a fight with the boss or coworkers unknowingly just because they were high on drugs. That is why companies strive to do drug tests every time they hire an employee now due to the fact that they don’t want to be reliable for an employee who isn’t responsible and trustworthy of their time at their company. Which it will affect the company financially once employees gets hurt on their job. An employee who is not a drug abuser can really benefit a company by not causing trouble for themselves getting hurt in the company and also the business not being reliable for anything that is caused by the employee; who was not responsible. Another example is that reports confirm that 80% of those injured in “serious drug related accidents are innocent coworkers.” And after it began requiring accidents drug
High school students are leaders to younger kids and many others in their community. As a leader these student must show others what good character is like, but instead they are destroying their lives by doing drugs. In the past decade the drug use among high school students is on the rise once again. With the internet, their exposure to drugs is much greater. High school students are convinced that they are able to get away with using drugs. These drug addicts soon influence other students into doing the drugs because there isn’t a rule preventing drug use. In order to protect these student’s future, drug tests must be enforced among all students ensuring a safe environment for students to learn successfully. Allowing random drug testing in high schools will shy away students from trying these harmful drugs. The stop of drug use among high school students is crucial because drugs prevents student from learning leading them to dropping out of high school. Students that become overwhelmed by these harmful drugs will ruin their lives forever, but if steered in the right direction they can be saved.
Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.
I. Drug testing is meant to help clean our communities and the schools from drug related problems. Drug testing is an easy yet complicated test for many people. Statistics have shows a dramatic decrease of drug use and abuse in between the years of 2000-2006 (University Services, 2009). The U.K.’s country wide drug testing have helped show scientists all over the world the improvements that drugs testing at schools can make.