But this is not a reasonable solution whatsoever. Many more students are using and selling drugs as they roam around the campus, but will never be “caught” with such a fickle and illusive process. Random student drug testing is not a plausible solution for the drug problem in public schools; it is unreliable and it infringes on the lives of those students involved. Those who support random drug testing argue that the growing trend of drug testing a small population of students in a school is effective at attacking the drug abuse problem, because fewer students will use when there is an obvious consequence (Drug Testing in School Activities 2). They believe if a drug problem is identified early enough, there is a better chance for rehabilitation.
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. An example of an issue with mandatory drug testing was the Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton case. In this case the Vernonia School District, which is located in Oregon, requires any student who wants to participate in activities such as athletics, for example football or basketball, to sign consent forms to allow for random drug testing throughout the particular sports season.
In fact, students who use performance-enhancing drugs are more likely to suffer injury during an event or have an unfair advantage over their competition. If random drug testing is conducted in high schools, athletes, along with other students, would get a clear message that drugs are dangerous and will not be tolerated. It would help students resist peer pressure and, most importantly, reduce the usage of drugs and other illegal substances by intervening before an out-of-control addiction problem takes root. The debate of random drug testing of student athletes has been ongoing for quite some time. Many thought such testing would violate their right to privacy.
Many people argue that “forcing the welfare recipient to concede to waive their rights to random drug testing is unconstitutional and could be considered, blackmail.”(Drug Testing American Civil Liberties Union). Then one should ask why is it okay to require people to consent to drug testing for many types of occupations such as fire departments, police departments, emergency medical departments and the U.S. military? Under the new law, people applying for Utah’s Family Employment Program (FEP) — part of the federally funded Temporary Aid For Needy Families (TANF) — must take the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory or SASSI test, a tool that identifies individuals who have a high probability of addictive behavior. Each SASSI costs One dollar and twenty five cents— totaling Five thousand, nine hundred twelve dollars and fifty cents for four thousand, seven hundred thirty applicants. The actual drug testing cost twenty five thousand, six hundred fifty-four for a combined total of thirty one thousand, five hundred sixty-six dollars and fifty cents.
EBSCOhost. MFL MarMac High School. 1 May 2003. <http://www.esbsohost.com/>.’ McGill, Sarah Ann. "Missouri Compromise" American History & Politics, 1607-1849 2002 p 34 MAS Ultra School Edition.
Hollace Ransdell. 1931. University of Missouri-Kansas City. 10 March 2002. <http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/SB_HRrep.html> Merriam-Webster OnLine.
NewsRx. Retrieved November 30, 2013, from Global issues in context (5739). Buckstein, O. G. (2008, January). Prescription drug misuse in youths: Diversion of prescription drugs by high school and college students is on the rise. Psychiatric Times, 25(1), 54-59.
The pros are that it might help students get away from drugs, and it may help someone see the consequences to drugs. The cons are that the tests are expensive, and these tests may come back as a false positive. A comment is that all school faculty should be drug tested. As you can see, there are many good and bad sides to drug testing students. Writing this paper has made me see some of the good sides of drug testing students, however I still think that students shouldn’t be drug tested.
Drug testing welfare recipients is an infringement upon their rights. First, passing the law to drug test welfare recipients violates the rights of those citizens who need help getting back on their feet. Also, the money that is being used to test for drugs can surely be put toward a wiser action that can help the common public. Plus, drug testing welfare recipients only singles citizens out and makes it a undoubtedly a humiliating experience for those applying for help. This request to pass drug testing as a law should not be allowed.
Stirs Criticism: [Sports Desk] “New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast). New York, N.Y. 6 Jan 2013: SP.1. Tricker, Ray, David L. Cook, and Rick McGuire. Issues Related to Drug Abuse in College Athletics: Athletes at Risk. 2nd ed.