Drug Testing for School Athletes

By now, four years had passed since the issue had first started. In the end, the court had ruled six to three in favor of the district. The court answered the question of whether or not the student athletes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated with a strong no. The court claimed that student athletes already subject themselves to more exposure than most other students, and that these drug tests had just as much of a reasonable cause behind them as a vaccine requirement or scoliosis check done in-school. Moreover, the court also stated that the results would only be shared with limited personal, which made the tests arguably more private than what athletes were exposing in their open locker rooms. In their opinion, stated by Antonin Scalia, “We find that the privacy...by the process of obtaining the urine samples (is) negligible, since samples are collected under conditions nearly identical to those routinely encountered in public restrooms. Furthermore, the test looks only for standard drugs not private medical conditions and the results of the test are released only to a limited group of school officials who have a need to know the information. The nature and the immediacy of the government's interest and the efficacy of this means for meeting it, also contribute to our conclusion that the policy is reasonable. The importance of deterring drug use by public school children

In the case of Vernonia v. Acton the fourth amendment is involved. The fourth amendment states that all people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Vernonia School District found that student athletes were participating in drug use after an official investigation, because of this they began requiring random drug testing for the students to participate in school sports. A student at the school, James Acton, and his parents did not consent to the random testing so he was not allowed to participate in football. Because he was not allowed, it was questioned if random drug testing of the student athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment.

In 1995 the Supreme Court stated that schools could randomly drug test their athletic students. By 2008, 16 percent of school districts had started to take on some kind of drug testing program (John 2). Even though the Supreme Court has a certain amount of ruling on who is tested at the schools, some schools have expanded their range of students, a few going all the way to the whole student body (John 2/3). One of the main reasons the supreme court ruled towards testing the student athletes is because they are supposed to be seen as the role models and influencers of the school, and outside the school. Seeing athletes doing drugs might increase the drug use of the school. (John 3). Student

In response to the issues, the school district made an effort to quell the issue by inviting speakers, and several different presentations to limit the drug use of students help the comprehend it’s dangers and negative impacts. However, this did not stop the problem. To solve this issue, a policy of drug testing had been adopted. One student in particular, James Acton-- had refused to participate in these random testing. Upon his refusal, he was then denied participation in his school’s American Football Program. After this case was taken to the Supreme Court, an argument for James Acton was that the random drug testing policy violated the clauses in the 4th amendment that protected for unreasonable searching. The Supreme Court decided that the search was in fact reasonable due to the schools attempt to quell the issue of drug use and keep students safe. The majority opinion stated that the search was reasonable. There was hard evidence that there was definitely a drug problem in the school. To quote an excerpt from acclaimed author Johnson Scott F “Fourth Amendment rights, no less than First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, are different in public schools than elsewhere; the "reasonableness" inquiry cannot disregard the schools ' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children. For their own good and that of their classmates, public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and to be vaccinated

Drug testing athletes or even just college students is against the students and Linn State’s fourth amendment rights. College students have the right to be secure in themselves, house, and papers. “On the con side of the argument, the American Civil Liberties Union along with with students attending Linn State say that drug testing of all college students is against the law and violation of their fourth amendment right” (Clabaugh 3). According to Jason Clabaugh, students have a right to not be drug tested because of their fourth amendment of having the right to be secure of themselves. Also sometimes test can lead to false positives. “On the con side of testing the college student athlete population, drug tests can often lead to false positives” (Clabaugh 4). Although, it’s likely to be a false positive it might not

Rains, B. (2009). Testing Student Athletes for Drugs is Appropriate. In C. Watkins, Sports and Athletes (pp. 192-196). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

The use of illegal substances is rapidly increasing in the college sports due to the expansion of supplements used by athletes that are being banned. In a study done, athletes were asked if illicit drugs would negatively impact their performance. Majority of them responded “yes”, their main reasoning being; the effects of illicit drugs were both mental and physically damaging. Illicit drugs come in many forms, but the testing procedures are all the same for any substance. There is almost always a consequence with the use of prohibited substances. Drug testing is appropriate to help ensure the safety of student athletes while they participate in intercollegiate contests. (Krotee, M 555).

In recent years the number of athletes caught using drugs has increased dramatically. The use of a illegal or unprescribed drugs can cause serious problems and unfairness in many ways. Certain drugs can cause harm to the user and the people around the user, most student athletes do not even know what they are putting into their bodies. With all the risks many persons propose student athletes to be drug tested at random.

Do we really want student-athletes replacing hard work with steroids? That’s like cheating on a test. For instance, many have been abusing drugs in a way to make their performance on the court or field better. This is a practice athletes have been in for years to make them a better player or asset to the team. All who are participating in athletics should be guaranteed a safe and fair game instead of worrying about those taking a daily dose of drugs for their own pleasure. These actions they are taking are not only dangerous and unfair, but illegal. For those who do participate in the consumption of drugs, their should be a formidable punishment. Although some uninformed people might say drug testing is an unnecessary waste of time and money,

2. The issue is whether public school districts can perform random drug screening of students who participate in school athletic programs under state or federal law.

Some people may say that mandatory drug testing is a violation of the athletes’ Fourth Amendment right. According to some people, these tests are unnecessary and therefore violate these rights. The author of “Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights” believes that drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; “Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search. A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a reason for the search.” This is true. Drug tests are a search, and in some cases they may violate the rights of some citizens. Professional athletes, on the other hand, do not get their rights violated by this. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the athletes have already agreed to the rules of participating in the sport. Deborah Lee and Ann Griswold, authors of “Point: Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs” explains that “in none of these cases have athletes’ Constitutional rights been abrogated because the participation in athletic events is always voluntary and never mandatory. The ‘mandate’ only comes into play after the athlete has agreed to participate, thereby voluntarily agreeing to obey the rules of the sport.” This explains how the athletes have agreed to the rules of the activity, which in most cases prohibit the use of many performance enhancing substances, so since they have agreed to these conditions, the mandatory drug testing of athletes is not a violation of their rights. An athlete’s rights are not being violated by

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.

Slowly pushing students to become addicts, drug testing high school student athletes may or may not be to blame. In Facts & Statistics on Random Drug Testing of High School Students, Dr. M.H. Davis stated, “In the early 1990s, many school districts began to look into drug testing as a way to curb student drug use, which led to two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving student privacy. The court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing student athletes in 1995, and in 2002, the court expanded high school drug testing policies to include all students who participate in a competitive extracurricular activity. In those rulings, the court stated deterring student drug use was more important than privacy” (Davis). Drug testing high school athletes

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.

Introducing the fear to students on drug testing that will directly affect them, will most likely decrease the use of drugs being abused. The president of the Institute for Behavior and Health explains that RSDT (Random Student Drug Test) could be used on any athlete, any day, and any time without notice (DuPont et al ¶6). Making the testing random will help eliminate any cheating or strategizing that the students who would test positive could be doing. Keith Ablow, MD and psychiatrist published an article in 2011 said that, both varsity and junior varsity teams should be tested with results kept private (¶6). To only test Varsity athletes would be unacceptable because JV athletes could cause just as much harm to athletes around them as to themselves. To make it fair and because kids follow by example, coaches would test also (Ablow ¶ 9). When a positive test appears, there should be punishment, but not to the extent of expulsion. Guidelines to RSDT programs say it is not supposed to end up in punishment for drug tests (DuPont et al ¶25). Not giving any punishment would defeat the purpose because then kids would not care to stop their drug use. Random drug tests to not only student-athletes, but students in general will promote a healthier lifestyle without drug use (DuPont et al ¶5). Students should be on edge not knowing if they are going to be tested or