Pros And Cons Of Drug Testing

Since the school possesses no such evidence to incriminate the athletes, asking them to submit a drug test is essentially asking them to provide the evidence that will prove their guilt. Some people believe that schools have the right to force students to participate in mandatory drug tests to protect the school as a whole, but in reality the School possesses no right to invade on the individual rights of the students themselves. An example of drug testing violating the Fifth Amendment is a court case involving a Pennsylvania School. The court ruled the schools drug testing policy unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment (American Civil Liberties Union). The school was ultimately forcing the students to submit to drug tests without compelling evidence. The students were basically providing the evidence of their guilt which is a violation of the constitution.

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 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

FACTS: Tecumseh Oklahoma School District in 1998 enacts a policy of testing students that compete in extracurricular activities. The policy tests students for illegal or non-prescribed legal drugs, and students are tested when signing up for activities and could be tested randomly or due to suspicious behavior. The School District’s drug testing process included allowing students to provide samples in a closed stall, kept results in a confidential file separate from other school records, not provide results to law enforcement, allows students to retest after a time period, and no effect on a students’ academic records.

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

According to Essex(2012), drug testing students would be in violation of the fourth amendment and would be difficult to justify because the students are protected under their privacy protection rights.As discussed in the text it was decided in the year 2002 during the case of Board of Education V. Earls when the supreme court had ruled that students who are participating in extracurricular activities must undergo a mandatory drug screenings and it became constitutional (Essex, 2012,p.35).

I understand that in Braxton High School there has been an incredible increase in student arrest for drug possession during the mist of last school year. Two students died after using drugs at post prom party. The school would now like to activate random drug test. I also understand that a large group of students and parents

The Cullman City Board of Education has approved a student-athlete drug screening program that will be put into effect for the upcoming 2014-2015 school year. The board approved the program with a 4-1 vote. Student athletes will be randomly selected for drug screening and all results of test will remain confidential. The drug screening may take place in or out of a student-athletes respective season. The purpose of the drug screening program is not punitive in nature. It is designed to benefit and protect students and allow the school to provide intervention for student-athletes if necessary. Student-athletes will be asked to administer uncontaminated samples for testing and will be provided with absolute privacy in a designated restroom

For decades, one of the most controversial debate topics has been whether random drug testing in high schools is justified. I St. Andrews Collage is one of the schools that participates in unannounced drug testing to monitor that the boys do not stray off track. In order to be accepted into the school, you must sign a form that says at any point in your years at the school, the school may be able to drug test you if they feel required. If any of the students test positive during their drug tests, that student will be expelled from the school. Personally, I find drug testing within high school an extreme invasion of privacy and I believe

The goal of mandatory drug testing would be to reduce student substance by deterring substance use, detecting substance use, and the influence of the behaviors of students peers. Students involved in extracurricular activities, such as sports that are subject to in school drug testing, report less drug use than students in high school that do not play a sport and do not get drug tested. By drug testing the Athens student body would help by insure a safe, secure, and healthy school environment where students can reach their full academic potential to learn. Athens High schools goal should be to identify students with possible drug abuse issues and to intervene. Students should be required to take drug test to be allowed to park on campus. Less drugs in

are familiar with the legal ability of public high schools to drug test students involved

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

Those who refuse to give consent to be tested, or whose parents refuse consent, might face discrimination. It isn't clear weather testing serves any purpose. In some cases, a test might reveal that drugs were taken outside school hours, a time when the school has limited authority over a student. And problems might arise when drug testing is allied with issues of discipline, what right does the school have to discipline a student for actions outside of the classroom.

It seems that drugs have become a major epidemic within teenagers in the last few years. There is only so much that can be done to try and eliminate drug use, while not dramatically changing anything in the community. Drug testing the district’s student athletes provides many reasons that it is a worthwhile expense. Lawyers, Mark Vetter and Daniel Chanen, stated in the Sports Law Institute Newsletter “First, student-athletes were the leaders of the drug culture” (Vetter and Chanen ¶3). This simple statement proves that athletes need to be drug tested; it will improve multiple circumstances within the district and the lives of athletes. Drug testing student athletes at the high school level is a step every school district needs to take in order to improve their schools, and the students’ lifestyles despite the high price tag on these tests.

High schools and middle schools that offer competitive extracurricular, such as sports, clubs, or teams, required certain criteria before they let their students partake in said activity. While most schools request either a physical, average academic standings, or both, some school districts are implementing a third criteria, a drug test. Though not mandated by the government or even the state, some school districts believe it to be a crucial factor when determining the eligibility of a student. One instance, in which a school district incorporated a mandated drug test, resulted in a court case called The Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls. In 1998, a school district in Tecumseh, Oklahoma adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) which “required all middle- and high-school students…to submit urine for drug testing” (Linder). The school district created a drug testing protocol that involved the student collecting a urine sample under the supervision of a teacher. The teacher, who would be standing outside of the stall, would be present to ensure that the student could not tamper with their sample.